Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

We have to be very sure that wildlife crime is found out and punished. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly said, sometimes in this area we have not been as good as we are in other areas. These are important matters and the powers of wildlife inspectors are fairly significant and important. Of course, they have to be kept in check, which is why training is important. I say to the noble Earl that all wildlife inspectors receive appropriate training to ensure that they can carry out their duties in a professional and an effective manner. They also have continued professional development, during which all wildlife inspectors will attend appropriate training inside and outside Defra. There is also a code of practice for wildlife inspectors, which sets out how they should conduct inspections. The Secretary of State can give full assurance that officials have the appropriate expertise before they are authorised to carry out those inspections. On Amendment No. 294, the noble Earl knows that I have conceded that wildlife inspectors should have regard to the code of conduct that will be set up. Indeed, wildlife inspectors who currently exercise powers under the 1981 Act have operated under a similar non-statutory code for a number of years and we believe that that has worked well. There is no reason to believe that wildlife inspectors, operating under the enhanced powers set out in the Bill, will behave any differently. On Report, I hope we shall find a form of words on Amendment No. 294 to satisfy the noble Earl, as we did earlier on. On Amendments Nos. 295 and 296, it is worth pointing out that for certain offences—for example, relating to sale registration—wildlife inspectors have been able to go in without reasonable suspicion since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The enhanced powers for authorised wildlife inspectors are available for a number of necessary purposes, including in particular the purpose of ensuring that license conditions are being complied with and verifying statements that are made in the context of licence applications. The circumstances of these inspections differ from those where an offence, such as one under Clause 43 of this Bill, is suspected. Such compliance visits ensure the integrity and enhance the credibility of the licensing system. There is no requirement for inspectors to have reasonable belief in an offence to enter premises. They will not go in looking for an offence, but they will look to see whether there has been compliance with the terms of the licence. That is entirely consistent with the current wording in the 1981 Act. We do not believe that there is any justification in changing that. I need to tell the noble Earl that the breach of a licence condition is not in itself an offence under the 1981 Act; rather the breach may mean that the person concerned cannot rely on the licence that he has obtained because he is not within the terms of it. If he cannot rely on the licence, then the original offence—that for which he obtained the licence; for example, the shooting of a bird or the disturbance of a habitat—will, of course, have been committed. We think that the powers in this Bill are appropriate and are particularly relevant to the compliance functions of wildlife inspectors.