§ Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out ", takes or reduces into possession" and insert "or takes".
§ 12.25 p.m.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)For the convenience of the House, perhaps we could discuss at the same time the following Lords amendments:
§ No. 2, in page 1, line 8, leave out ", take or reduce into possession" and insert "or take".
§ No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out from "killed" to "otherwise" in line 12 and insert "or taken".
§ No. 6, in Clause 6, page 2, line 18, leave out "reduction into possession or".
§ No. 7, in page 2, line 19, leave out "reduced into possession or".
§ No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out "reduced into possession or".
§ No. 9, in page 2, line 22, leave out "reduced into possession or".
§ No. 29, in Clause 15, page 6, line 17, leave out "taken or reduced into possession" and insert "or taken".
§ Mr. HardyThe amendments would delete references to the offence of reduction into possession from Clauses 1, 6 and 15. I am advised that this expression for all practical purposes adds nothing to the meaning of "takes". Its deletion will bring the Bill into line with legislation protecting birds, deer, seals and badgers.
The term "takes" in earlier wild life legislation has been held to mean catching and capturing without necessarily laying the hands on. The addition of 938 "reduces into possession" might limit the meaning of "takes" in earlier Acts, which would not meet the approval of the House.
The term "reduces into possession" was used in the Theft Act of 1968, but I am advised that it is applicable to game species which are the property of the land owner rather than to wild animals which are not.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 11, after "shown" insert "by him".
§ Mr. HardyI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the defendant must prove that he has come by the creature legally. Although it is not usual for the burden of proof to fall on the defence, there is a similar provision in Section 1 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954.
The provision is necessary to make the restriction on possession enforceable, since the prosecution would find it very difficult to prove that a creature had been killed on taken in contravention of the Bill, possibly some time previously, unless the action had been witnessed. In a rural environment, when dealing with wild creatures, the possibility of witnesses of an illegal act is a remote one. If the amendment is not made the Bill will be less valuable than it needs to be.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.