I understand the urgency but, equally, we must get things right. The first meeting of the programme board was held on 12 September, and it was attended by senior policy officials representing a range of Government agencies. I look forward to working with them on this issue. We have also published on our website a report of the risk assessment research and we are actively engaged in ensuring that it is rigorously tested by peer review to enable us to identify at an early stage new species that are likely to become problematic.
As regards some of the species mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the EU recently confirmed that it is offering funding to help to support a programme of work to help to eradicate the ruddy duck from the UK. I can confirm to the House that DEFRA will provide the match funding and that the programme to deal with the species will proceed. This programme of work has been developed on the basis of extensive research and a cost-benefit analysis, unlike the case for some of the other species listed in the new clause.
For example, I know that Japanese knotweed is of great concern, and DEFRA is co-funding a five-year research project led by Cornwall county council into a natural method of control. I have to advise Liberal Democrat Members that removing Japanese knotweed from the UK using conventional methods would cost £1.56 million, a disproportionate amount of public expenditure. In fact, I believe that the real figure is £1.56 billion. Happily, I am sufficiently awake to correct even my own notes. We should not overlook the enhanced capacity of Natural England to manage non-native species in a co-ordinated way.
I take seriously the problems caused by grey squirrels, and I am considering the issue. The Forestry Commission is doing good work to protect red squirrels and one can come to Brownsea island in my constituency to see them there.
There are a number of other measures arising from the consultation on the review of the 1981 Act that we will want to take forward, using primary or secondary legislation as appropriate. I can make that commitment to the hon. Member for Lewes. This measure should be part of that further work.
I hope that hon. Members will regard that as an indication that we are making progress and not as simply an attempt to shelve this important subject. I ask them to withdraw the motion and support us when we introduce the legislation to which I have just referred.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Knight of Weymouth
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
437 c248-9 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:46:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265005
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265005
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_265005