HL Deb 04 July 1975 vol 362 cc529-44

2.23 p.m.

Report of Amendments received.

Clause 2 [Restriction on sale of protected wild creatures]

Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 20, leave out [...]" without reasonable excuse") and insert (" knowingly ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when this Bill was being considered at an earlier stage, I called attention to what I submitted was not very satisfactory drafting in the early clauses of the Bill. The burden of my argument was that the use of the words "without reasonable excuse" in some of those clauses created a great deal of uncertainty. It was difficult for the judges to decide in the circumstances of an individual case what would and would not constitute a reasonable excuse. Of course those words appear in a number of Statutes. In most cases I think those are unsatisfactory words. They require judges to legislate and determine by reference to circumstances whether within the clause they constitute a reasonable excuse, very little guidance being given as to what is to amount to a reasonable excuse and what is not so to amount.

It was suggested to me that in those circumstances I might try my hand at suggesting some slight improvement in the wording of the clause designed to remove to some extent the uncertainty which I thought lurked in the wording at present used and Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relating to Clause 2 are the result of my attempt. But your Lordships may also notice that in my name on the Marshalled List appear Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It occurs to me that it might save your Lordships' time if I put the case now not only for the Amendments to Clause 2, but also for those to Clause 4; namely, Nos. 5 and 6.

To go back to the wording of the Bill, your Lordships will see that the expression "without reasonable excuse" appears in Clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5. I have selected, for the purpose of my Amendments, Clauses 2 and 4. I selected these two clauses out of the four in which the words appear, because it seemed to me that they were most devoid of any language which could give any indication to learned judges as to the kind of circumstances which they might regard as constituting a reasonable excuse. When construing words, learned judges are always told that they must consider the Bill as a whole and the wording as a whole, and do their best to interpret the language used in a reasonable sense.

Applying that test, it seemed to me that it could be said that in Clauses 1 and 5 there appeared language which gave some indication to a judge construing the clauses of what he might regard as constituting a reasonable excuse. Accordingly, as your Lordships will see, I have not sought to impose any change in those two clauses. I would seek to leave them exactly as they are. But it seems to me that Clauses 2 and 4 are wholly devoid of any language which could give any indication to a learned judge. Clause 4 is a short clause, three lines in length, and it says: If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person other than an authorised person without reasonable excuse uproots any plant, he shall be guilty of an offence. It is a serious offence and the penalties set out in Clause 11 are very heavy.

If one considers the language of Clause 4, what on earth is a learned judge who construes that clause to find which will give hint some indication of what night constitute a reasonable excuse for pulling down a young tree? I submit that he would be left completely and wholly unguided, and I should have though this was extremely bad drafting. It is bad legislative policy; it requires the learned judge, in effect, to apply his own canons as to what he thinks would be a reasonable excuse in any given circumstances. In other words, he is asked to make his own judgment about something which appears in a Bill, without being given the least guidance as to kinds of matters to be taken into account in forming his judgment.

As your Lordships see, I have proposed simple Amendments to Clause 2. I seek to leave out the words, "without reasonable excuse" and to substitute the word, "knowingly". Then I seek to add to the words in line 21 the phrase, "which to his knowledge is ". In other words, if that Amendment is accepted the person who is charged with an offence must first be shown by the prosecution to have been perfectly conscious of the fact that he had in his possession the matters which are described in the clause. Secondly, it must be established by proof against him that he knew that the wild creature in respect of which he was charged was a wild creature which appears as one of those listed in Schedule 1. Without that Amendment he is left without any such ground of exculpating himself, and I submit to your Lordships that it gives some kind of indication as to when the offence can be said to be made out and when it is not.

I make similar comments with regard to Clause 4. If the Amendments which I have proposed are accepted, it will not be so extremely wide as, in my submission, it is at the moment. At present it is extraordinarily wide in its scope. If we look at any tree, anything which can be said to be a plant, whether a protected plant or not, as Clause 4 reads at the moment you are not to uproot it unless you have a reasonable excuse for so doing. What on earth is "a reasonable excuse for so doing "? I have sought to limit the scope of the offence, and in the proviso which I have suggested in line 8 I have listed circumstances which would excuse the offender when he could establish them. In my submission, that considerably narrows the unjustifiably wide scope of Clause 4, and improves it so as to make it at least reasonably possible to construe judicially and to enforce in a court of law. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

The Earl of CR ANBROOK

My Lords, when this Bill was prepared, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, obviously knows, the wording of previous Acts was followed and, without wanting to set up against a professional the knowledge of an amateur, I must confess that if one of these people had appeared before me when I was younger and a magistrate I would much rather have had to listen to his excuses and decide whether or not they were reasonable, than try to put myself into his mind and decide whether or not he knew exactly what he was doing, particularly when what we are trying to meet is the accidental, ignorant action, and we are trying to catch the deliberate action by the person who tries to make a trade out of these animals. As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, that is what is important.

I wonder whether he has thought what would happen to somebody who cared for a creature which he took under Clause 6, but which died. He did not want it but he knew it had a certain market value if it was sold as a scientific specimen. He would know he was doing it, he would know it was a rare creature and it would seem to me that he had a reasonable excuse. It is contingencies of that sort that that phrase is intended to meet. I think it is a fair and just one and. certainly speaking as one accustomed to sit in a magistrates' court, it seems to me that "without reasonable excuse" is the better definition. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, knows, it has considerable antiquity and none of us has found any difficulty in administering laws in which it appears.

Viscount HANWORTH

My Lords, it seems to me that both these terms "without reasonable excuse" and "knowingly" vastly weaken the Bill. I thought there was a good old principle that ignorance of the law was no excuse, but of course when fixing a penalty an adequate reason is always taken into account. Moreover, I imagine that very few cases would be taken to court unless there was a good reason for doing so. I find myself completely at a loss to understand why this Bill should be hedged about by caveats which in my view render its value almost to vanishing point, except in those cases where on a consistent basis somebody is deliberately exploiting the creatures for gain.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I find it a little difficult to understand the reasoning behind the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. I agree also that the word "knowingly" weakens the Bill very considerably. Surely nobody unknowingly offers something for sale? He must know that he is offering it for sale, and I should have thought that it was up to him to know what he was offering for sale. It is a considerable weakening of the Bill to say "knowingly". I agree that even the words "without reasonable excuse" may weaken the Bill, but they do not weaken it to the same extent as the word "knowingly". When one comes to Clause 4 one sees that it would read: If … any person other than an authorised person knowingly uproots any plant, …". I do not understand how he does it unknowingly. Unless he is sleepwalking it seems to me that he must know that he has uprooted a plant.

I should have thought that the words "without reasonable excuse" were as far as one could possibly go in giving any kind of permissiveness or leniency in this matter. At the moment I am not in the least convinced by my noble friend's arguments on this matter, and I hope that we do not introduce the word "knowingly ".

The Earl of HALSBURY

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I venture to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because I am aware of how much more he knows about this subject than me. But the reason that we have human beings on the Bench instead of computers is surely because they are capable of acts of judgment. That is why we call them judges. We appoint them to be judges because they have spent their lives in the pursuit and practice of the law and are believed at the point when we appoint them to be competent to make this kind of act of judgment. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wishes to remove from the Bench the only excuse that it has for being there, which is that it is capable and competent to perform these acts.

So far as "knowingly" is concerned and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, I could not agree with him more. From practical experience I know that there are people who have a genius for being misinformed and for saying, "I am so sorry; I didn't know". Therefore, I support entirely the view taken on this matter by the noble Earl who is sponsoring the Bill, and I am afraid that I cannot vote for this Amendment.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, in dealing with Clause 4 the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is possibly making a little heavy weather of a tiny case. We must remember that all the plants that we are dealing with in Clause 4 can be uprooted by an unauthorised person with or without reasonable excuse. Almost all of the things which are covered in Amendment No. 6 by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, should be carried out by authorised people. They should be carried out by the owner or the farmer of the land or his servants. If I remember rightly—and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, or the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will correct me if I am wrong—the only reason for including the words "without reasonable excuse "is the protection of people undertaking statutory obligations such as drainage or where people have rights by Act of Parliament to go across someone else's land and maybe to do works of one kind or another.

Therefore, the number of cases, even assuming there was ever any prosecution under this clause, which I think highly unlikely, would be a tiny minority of all cases. Clearly, those cases which should be excluded are covered by our provision, "without reasonable excuse". But I do not think necessarily that we want to widen this provision further. The principle of the Bill is that people should not uproot plants that belong to other people. It is just as simple as that in the clause. We have put in the provision about "reasonable excuse" in order to protect certain cases, the main one being, as I say, people who are doing work under a statutory undertaking. These are tiny points and I should have thought that in this connection the Bill is perfectly all right as it is.

2.42 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am much fortified in having to take issue with my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill over these legal Amendments by the fact that I think I shall be in agreement with every other noble Lord who has spoken on the Amendments. The Amendments, as he said, would in effect substitute the word "knowingly" for the phrase "without reasonable excuse" in Clauses 2 and 4. In the Government's view, the effect of the Amendments would be to make it very hard for the prosecution to prove a case against the accused. A defendant would naturally tend to say that he or she did not recognise the protected creature or plant concerned, and it would be difficult to disprove this claim of ignorance.

The defence of "reasonable excuse" is intended to protect the person who is honestly mistaken without making the task of the prosecution impossible. I feel that the clause as drafted gives a better balance between prosecution and defence than would be the case if my noble and learned friend's Amendments were accepted. The use of the word "knowingly" in these Amendments seems to be especially unfortunate in the case of Clause 4, where all plants are covered and the question of recognition of protected plants does not arise. The defendant could surely only argue either that he or she did not know that uprooting was an offence, or that he or she did not know that it was a plant. However, a defendant may have a "reasonable excuse" for uprooting a plant; for example, it is possible that to repair a dam to prevent flooding would be a perfectly reasonable excuse for uprooting plants.

Occupiers, of course, are allowed to uproot plants on their own land. But someone else coming along and seeing some ragwort in a field would be perfectly entitled to uproot it to prevent the poisoning of cattle. I hope that that reply has given my noble and learned friend some idea of what we see as being a "reasonable excuse". Of course, nobody would have any excuse for pulling down a young tree; nor would anybody be liable to prosecution, as I understand it, under this Bill because he would not be uprooting the tree if he pulled it down.

I was not entirely sure whether my noble and learned friend was speaking to Amendment No. 6 at the same time as these other Amendments. If he was—and he has nodded to me—it might be of assistance to your Lordships if I also said a word about that. As I see it, the effect of this Amendment to Clause 4 would be to exempt anyone engaged in building, construction, forestry or agricultural operations from the general restriction on the uprooting of any wild plant. The Amendment is, in our view, unnecessary because authorised persons are already exempt; this is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Your Lordships will be aware that authorised persons are defined in Clause 15 to include all owners and occupiers, their servants and anyone authorised by them. It seems to me unlikely that any of the operations described in the Amendment would be undertaken without the authority of the owner or occupier. I hope that in the light of the comments on these Amendments my noble and learned friend will see fit to withdraw them.

Lord STOW HILL

My Lords, having met with so little favour in my endeavours, I feel I should be churlish if I did not hasten to beg your Lordships to allow me to withdraw the first Amendment, and I do not move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.45 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 22. leave out from (" Act ") to (" whether ") in line 23.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 14 while dealing with Amendment No. 3. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee I accepted an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, to restrict the sale of skins and skeletons. However, I reserved the position of the Government on the precise form of words used. I consider the wording now put before your Lordships as an improvement in drafting. This Amendment simply cancels the earlier one passed in Committee. Amendment No. 4 reintroduces the restriction in subsection (2). Amendment No. 14 would give the Nature Conservancy Council the power to license the sale of skins or skeletons for approved purposes. I beg to move.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I am perfectly happy about this Amendment. It does not do anything to alter the sense, but is simply better wording.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 26, at end insert (" and any reference to dead creatures shall be construed as including the skins or skeletons of such creatures ").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Variation of Schedules]

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 29, at beginning insert ("1").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and with your Lordships' permission, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 21. The Bill already allows the Secretary of State to add all members of a species to Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 by order. The Secretary of State is also empowered to confer protection in relation to particular provisions of the Act or in particular areas only. The effect of Amendment No. 10 would be to allow the Secretary of State, in suitable cases, in addition to confer protection on particular categories of creature or plant, or at particular times of the year.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 make consequential alterations to Clause 7. Amendment No. 21 would require the Nature Conservancy Council to offer appropriate advice. Your Lordships will remember that we discussed this concept of partial protection in Committee. When the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, eventually withdrew his corresponding Amendment, I said that I had been impressed by the arguments of your Lordships, and if appropriate would move Amendments at this stage.

My Lords, there are two changes of substance in the current Amendments as compared with the noble Earl's Amendment which merit discussion. One is that the term "category" in Amendment No. 10 is intended to encompass subdivision by size and sex, but to be simpler and to confer greater flexibility. The other is that we are not seeking to amend Clause 2 as did the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on Committee stage I understand that the noble Earl had in mind that if, for example, only adult frogs were protected, it would be sensible to allow the sale of tadpoles. This would be sensible, but I am advised that the order in question could provide for this. The order could be made in respect of any particular provision of the Act as well as in respect of any category of wild creatures or plants, so the sale of tadpoles could be exempted without any elaboration of Clause 2. I accept that the powers are permissive. The Nature Conservancy Council need only recommend their use when this would be clearly advantageous. I am therefore happy to commend these Amendments to your Lordships, and beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the handsome way in which he met the suggestions I made in Committee. I regret that he had to use the word "eventually" in referring to the fact that I withdrew my Amendment at the end. I apologise for the fact that I strained him so far.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, I think this is a very considerable improvement in the Bill, for which we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for having put it forward even at a late stage. I am sure it is absolutely right to make this Bill as flexible as possible and to give the Secretary of State as much power as possible. The objection to giving wide discretionary powers to Ministers exists in the possibility that these may be misused in any way. It is impossible to see how these powers can be used except for good, and I really think this is a major improvement in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, to which I spoke on Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, leave out from (" order ") to (" add ") in line 34.—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment simply rectifies a printing error which arose following an Amendment at Report stage in another place.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36, leave out from first (" Act") to end of line 37.—(Lord Mclchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, to which I spoke on Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 37, at end insert— (2) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply—

  1. (a) to the whole or to particular provisions of this Act;
  2. (b) generally or to a particular area;
  3. (c) to wild creatures or plants in a particular category; or
  4. (d) at all times or at particular times of the year;
and the order may make different provision for different circumstances."—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 [Power to grant licences]:

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 8, leave out (" or to offer for sale or to sell ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 11, perhaps your Lordships would also consider Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Your Lordships will also wish to note that unfortunately there are two misprints in Amendment No. 13: "section" should be "subsection" in the second line of the Amendment, and the "(c)" at the head of the Amendment should be "(bb)". This follows the convention of the labelling of new subsections.

Your Lordships will be aware that an Amendment was made at an earlier stage covering a loophole in the sale provision in Clause 2 of the Bill. It resulted in the expression "live or dead creature of a species specified in Schedule 1 to this Act" being inserted instead of "protected wild creature". We now need to make the corresponding alteration to the licensing provision in Clause 8. Amendment No. 13 achieves this by introducing a new paragraph, 8(1)(bb) which relates to licensing of sale. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are consequential Amendments which delete references to sale for para- graphs (a) and (b), which then refer only to licences to cover the offences of killing, taking and possession in Clause 1. I have to tell your Lordships, with regret, that I will also be moving a manuscript Amendment, No. 14A, as a consequence of the new reference to paragraph (bb), The manuscript Amendment will be to insert a reference to (bb) in Clause 8(2)(a) of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, leave out (" or to offer for sale or to sell").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 11, there are two misprints in this Amendment, which I probably ought to reiterate to make sure we have it right. The "(c)" at the head of the Amendment should be "(bb)", and in the second line it should read: (a) and (b) of this subsection to offer for sale or to sell.… I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 15, at end insert: (" (bb) for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection to offer for sale or to sell or to have in his possession for sale any number of specified live or dead creatures the sale, offering for sale or possession of which for sale would otherwise be an offence under section 2 of this Act;").— (Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.55 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 14 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, at end insert (" and in paragraph (c) of this subsection any reference to dead creatures shall be construed as including the skins or skeletons of such creatures ").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move as a manuscript Amendment, Amendment No. 14A. I spoke to this on a previous Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, after ("(b),") insert (" bb,").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, the words "or body" are unnecessary because we use only the word "authority" in line 2 of the same page. This brings the wording into line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 42, leave out (" or body ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This brings this line similarly into line with line 39 on page 3.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, leave out (" imposed on the grant of a licence ") and insert (" specified in a licence granted ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Enforcement]:

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which similarly brings this into line with line 34.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out (" that person's possession ") and insert (" the possession of that person ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18, which is a tiny drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after (" and ") insert (" which ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Penalties]:

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. This and the following Amendment are tidying-up Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 99, after (" anything ") insert (" which is ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, at end insert (" and which is ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 23, leave out (" any area specified ") and insert (" a particular area or in relation to a particular category and either at all times or at particular times of the year ").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Orders]:

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is just to bring this line into line with line 37.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 44, leave out (" section 7 of ").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Interpretation]:

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This Amendment is to delete the words "reduced into possession" from the interpretation of "authorised person". All the other references to the offence of reduction into possession were deleted at Committee stage, so this Amendment simply removes from the Bill the remaining reference to this offence.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, leave out ("taken or reduced into possession ") and insert (" or taken ").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Species of Protected Plants]:

2.59 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 24:

Page 8, line 21, leave out— ("Fingered Sedge … Carex digitata")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would delete the fingered sedge from the Schedule of Protected Plants. As noble Lords will remember, in view of the feelings of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at the Committee stage, I withdrew a similar Amendment. However, I said that unless further evidence in support of this plant's retention in the Schedule was forthcoming, I would reintroduce this Amendment at a later stage, and that is what I am now doing,

The sedges are a large group of plants with relatively unattractive flowers which are difficult to identify. There appears to be little evidence of the rarer species being collected. The fingered sedge is known to exist on 25 sites, many of which contain a large number of individual plants. Although the fingered sedge is rare I am advised that there are at least four sedges which are more rare and that this species could not even be regarded as falling among the rarest 300 species of British flowering plants. The Nature Conservancy Council have confirmed their advice that this species is not currently endangered. I should have liked to be able to agree to the retention of this plant in the Schedule. But I have been unable to find any further evidence that this species needs the special protection which would be afforded by the Bill. I must, therefore, advise the House to accept this Amendment.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, the sponsors of the Bill accept the Amendment with pleasure, though I am a little sorry that Mr. Hardy, who has played such a great part in putting this Bill through Parliament should not have his favourite plant from his own constituency included. However, I believe that we all recognise that it is extremely important to keep Schedule 2 to very rare plants if it is to have real meaning and if the law is to be enforceable. There is little doubt that the fingered sedge does not come into that category and we are happy to accept the Government's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 25: Page 8, line 21, at end insert— (" Ghost Orchid … Epipogium aphyllum ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 26. These Amendments would substitute the more widely accepted common name "Ghost Orchid" for the name "Spurred Coral Root Orchid" and would insert the plant into its correct alphabetical position in this Schedule. When, in Committee, I accepted that this plant should be included in the Schedule, I did so on the understanding that I would probably move these Amendments at a later stage.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, this is the last opportunity I shall have of once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the great help which the Government have given the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and myself as the original sponsors of the Bill. I should like to take the opportunity of doing so now and I cannot resist saying that we may perhaps congratulate ourselves that, as biologists, we are less prolix and repetitive than are those noble Lords who are attached to the humanities. This is brought out if we look at the clock now as compared with glances at it during the earlier stages of our proceedings this morning.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I am perfectly happy about the Amendment. I am no botanist myself and I took the name from a book by a noted specialist in orchids. It is not an old book and it is one of the most voluminous works on wild orchids that I have yet come across, but I am perfectly willing to accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the other name is more usual.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT

I beg to move Amendment No. 26.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 35, leave out— (" Spurred Coral Root Orchid … Epipogium aphylutm ").—(Lord Melchett.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.