Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The amendment seeks to remove the upper time limit for bringing summary proceedings for offences against the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. The Bill already extends the present requirement to bring summary proceedings for offences under the 1932 Act within six months of the commission of the offence. Under the Bill, summary proceedings must be brought within six months of the acquisition of evidence sufficient, in the prosecutor’s opinion, to warrant proceedings and, in any event, within two years of the commission of the offence. This amendment would remove that two-year long-stop. While I agree with the need to improve our ability to deal effectively with wildlife crime—indeed, I have talked about it this afternoon—and to provide a better deterrent to those seeking to commit it, we do not believe, on balance, that the proposed amendment is necessary. Its effect may be disproportionate. For example, under the amendment proceedings could be commenced for an offence committed many, many years in the past. There needs to be a proportionate time limit in commencing—and I emphasise this—summary proceedings, to ensure a realistic possibility of securing a conviction and that the evidence is reliable. We believe that the time limits set out in the Bill are proportionate and will allow the enforcement authority sufficient time to conduct investigations and gather evidence. A further important aim in the enhanced wildlife provisions of the Bill, in Schedules 5 and 6, is to improve consistency across wildlife legislation. We believe that the current drafting of the Bill achieves this. While I obviously appreciate the positive motive behind this amendment, we think that, in this instance, we have got the balance and proportion right.