PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF KILLING OR TAKING WILD ANIMALS (Hansard, 13 July 1981)

§ Mr. Hardy
I beg to move amendment No. 267, in page 12, line 46, at end insert 893 'and including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such substance which emits poisonous gas or vapour'. I hope that the Minister will say that the amendment will make a marked improvement to the Bill and that its intentions are admirable. In order to avoid inflicting any unnecessary gas on the House, as we still have a great deal of ground to cover I am happy to move the amendment with those few words.

§ Mr. Monro
The matter is completely covered by subsection (2)(c)(iv), and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Hardy
I do not have time to check that, but I accept the Minister's word and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
I should point out that amendment No. 241 should refer to the "second 'of'", as there are two in line 20.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 13, line 20 after second 'of', insert 'protecting species on a regional basis or'. It has been suggested by the Opposition Front Bench that I have about three minutes to move the amendment. If the Government were prepared to accept it I should not need even the three minutes.
There have been many suggestions that we shall not soon see another Bill on wildlife and the countryside, and that this Bill may have to last for 10 years or more. The Government have accepted that it will be difficult to find parliamentary time for further legislation and that it is important to make the Bill as flexible as possible.
In subsection (3) the Government take powers for the Secretary of State to vary, to comply with international obligations, the means of killing animals that are legal or illegal. I have always argued that we have a duty to try to conserve animals, plants and birds, so that there are some examples of each left in the world. But we also have a duty to try to ensure that in as many areas as possible those species are available for people to look at. Therefore, it is reasonable that from time to time we should consider conservation matters not on an international or United Kingdom basis but on the basis of a region and a particular problem in it.
All that we are asking is for the Government to take powers to be flexible. Then, if it can be argued that in a particular region a particular animal is threatened by a particular method of killing, the Minister can add that method to the list of prohibited methods. He can do that by an order, subject to the procedures of the House, rather than have to wait for further legislation, for which it might be difficult to find time.

§ Mr. Monro
Under clause 22 the Secretary of State has immense powers to make changes to the schedules when he wishes, relative to particular areas or particular times of year, after proper parliamentary consultation. The hon. Gentleman's point about regional changes is completely covered by that clause. The hon. Gentleman has shown that there are good reasons for a regional basis for protection, but the amendment is not necessary, as the matter is already covered.

§ Mr. Bennett
Although clause 22 enables particular birds or animals to be added to the schedules it does not deal with the means of killing or taking them. Therefore, 894 the amendment is necessary. I am dealing with the ways in which it would be illegal to kill birds or animals, whereas the Minister is suggesting that we should simply add them to the protected schedule. That may well be going further than he or I would want.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). However, you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there were two "ofs" in line 20. Perhaps you will look at line 20 again, as I can see only one. I should hate us to be caught out on a technicality.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Clause 22, which gives the Minister power to vary schedules, has little to do with the issue of principle, namely, the reason why the Secretary of State may prohibit certain methods of killing or of taking wild animals. Under clause 11(3) the Secretary of State will take powers—which we agree with—to comply with international obligations. However, my hon. Friend is saying that in addition to complying with international obligations there may well be a need to protect species on a regional basis. Much of the debate suggests that certain species are in danger. Only a few minutes ago the Minister said that one of the species referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) was endangered in some parts of the country but was to be found in plentiful supply in other parts.
We attach great importance to protecting, our flora and fauna on a regional basis. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I suggest that the amendment be pressed to a Division, so that it can be incorporated in the Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should point out that the third word in line 20 is "of". It reads as follows: The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of complying and so on.