My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is absolutely right: £1.8 billion is the estimate of the cost, a lot of it falling on agriculture but a significant amount on transport, of invasive non-native species.
It is important to understand that this measure is one part of a much broader range of measures. It is particularly focused on tackling prevention, and then early detection and rapid response, so that we do not always find ourselves, as we have with the grey squirrel, for example, in a position where an invasive species has so taken hold that we are now able to consider only control. I think that every one of your Lordships would regard that as an important strategy.
The questions raised by the amendments centre on definitions. On the sensible advice of the Law Commission, the definition of non-native used in this part of the Bill is consistent with that already used in Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Part of that is a list, and part of it is a broader definition. It is drafted to regulate the release of formerly native species. It is clearly not a list that matches what we are intending to do with control orders, because control orders give us the ability to go in to make sure that a species may be eradicated—that eradication is possible. There are also other lists, as noble Lords who came to this morning’s meeting will know, because the European Union will be creating a core list some time in 2015 and regional lists will follow. So we have a whole range of lists. The important element in all of this for the purpose of the control orders will be a code of practice that will overlay the lists. That should be available in draft form to your Lordships by Report.
The list in Schedule 9 referred to by my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson contains species that we would not attempt to eradicate, with rhododendron ponticum being a good example. There are species on the list that we would attempt to eradicate, such as the monk parakeet, but a lot of the work under control orders would focus on species which have not yet arrived here and therefore are not on any list at all. The code of practice will provide the relevant mechanism for working out a complex situation where a number of lists are developed for a whole range of purposes.
7.15 pm
I want to be clear that we expect to use control orders only very rarely and that typically the Environment Agency will be working by consent. We would expect to see perhaps one control order being issued each year; that is the kind of pace we anticipate because such an order would deal with only the small number of landowners who are resistant to co-operating with the Environment Agency, either by not agreeing to come to a voluntary agreement or else doing so but choosing not to honour it. Again, I want to make it clear that control orders would not be used widely.
I should say to my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson and other noble Lords who have talked about reintroducing various species that circumstances have changed. Species which died out some 500 years ago in the UK for whatever reason might be extremely disruptive if reintroduced. We had an example from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who talked about wolves. Others have talked about wild boar, where some have been reintroduced. There is a question over whether that reintroduction has to be strongly controlled. Beaver are another example. We
do not yet know what their potential impact might be on our attempts to manage flooding. A great deal of modern flooding policy turns on trying to divert water on to an acceptable flood plain, so a beaver dam is exactly what one does not want. There are many situations where we do not know definitively what the consequences will be. The rationale for not providing a blanket protection for species that were once here recognises the changed circumstances, and I think it is wise to ensure that this legislation maintains that recognition by embedding it. As I say, the focus is primarily forward-looking; that is, to species which we cannot yet name or put on any list.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggested that we should change the definition of the word “species”. The definition set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is in fact well established and does what he intends it to do. It is a broad, simple definition which includes sub-species. For clarification, an “animal” includes all the major groups, which include invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds and many other groups. The definition of “plants” includes fungi and algae. We have an accepted definition which covers the territory that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was anxious about. I ask the Committee for the flexibility not to provide a blanket protection for a species that once existed in the United Kingdom, because the examples I have given make it clear that we need to look at these issues on a case-by-case basis. The code of practice will aid us in understanding how the process can be applied. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.