§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
§ Mr. KingThese amendments are concerned with the protection of bats and the clarification of a certain situation. It is a way of protecting bats, which are already protected in legislation and under the schedule, without infringing too much the rights of the householder. I believe that the amendments are helpful in achieving that.
§ Mr. DalyellAs the bat man on the Bill, who moved earlier amendments relating to bats, it would be ungracious if I did not accept that the Government amendments seem to fulfil what was semi-promised in Committee. I wish to thank Dr. Stebbings and others who briefed us so fully on this matter. I recognise that there is a problem for the householder who may feel that his living accommodation is affected. It seems to me that the best solution has been arrived at.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 175.
§ Mr. KingThese amendments deal with defences for the killing or injuring of wild animals under schedule 5 and as listed in the amendments. This seems to meet a point that arose in Committee and was of considerable concern in another place, deriving from the original wording "urgently necessary" as a defence. I think that there was some misunderstanding that the Government's removal of that phrase in Committee upstairs was based on some agricultural or other ground or sporting consideration. I make it clear that there was strong legal pressure to the effect that the words were otiose and the phrase "urgently necessary" had no meaning in law.
None the less, we recognised the concern implicit in the phrase "urgently necessary". The amendments seek to include the further qualification of that defence so that
an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of…killingfor the purpose ofpreventing serious damage to livestock—and so on, butan authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence…as respects any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary".888 It is an attempt to introduce that qualification to what otherwise might be too broad a defence.I hope that the House will agree that we have struck the correct balance.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made: No. 169, in page 12 leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
'(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 9, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing or injuring of a wild animal included in Schedule 5 if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries. '.
No. 22, in line 21, after 'subsection', insert '(1A) or'.
No. 23, in line 22, after 'in', insert 'the living area of'.
No. 24, in line 23, after second 'the', insert 'proposed action or'.
No. 170, in line 25, at end insert—
'(5) An authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (3) as respects any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either