HL Deb 20 May 1976 vol 370 cc1544-68

7.22 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—[Baroness Stedman.]

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 1 [Restriction of importation and exportation of certain animals and plants.]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 3, leave out from (" item ") to end of line 4 and insert (" to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment should also be taken Amendment No. 36 to Schedule 3. These are drafting points and simply bring the wording into line with paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1) and the beginning of Schedules 1 and 2. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Restriction of movement of certain live animals after importation]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 en bloc:

Page 6, line 7, leave out from (" at ") to end of line 9 and insert (" specified premises until such time as the Secretary of State may require or permit the animal to be moved to other specified premises or revoke the direction.")

Page 6, line 7, leave out from beginning of line 10 to end of line 11 and insert (" Where a direction has been given under subsection (1) above in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, any person who, knowing that a direction has been so given,—")

Page 6, line 12, leave out first (" it ") and insert (" the animal ").

Page 6, line 14, leave out (" the ").

Page 6, line 21, leave out first (" it ") and insert (" the animal).

Page 6, line 22, leave out from (" from ") to (" in ") in line 23 and insert (" specified premises in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to ").

Page 6, line 25, leave out (" it ") and insert (" the animal ").

Page 6, line 27, leave out (" the ").

Page 6, line 30, leave out (" the ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 en bloc. The Amendments will make it quite clear that when the Secretary of State gives permission for an animal to be moved from premises which he has previously specified, he can either specify new premises or revoke the direction. The Amendments also make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to require an animal to be moved. By Amendment No. 7 it will be an offence not only to move the animal without permission but also to do so otherwise than in accordance with any conditions attached to the permission. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this tightening up of the control arrangements for the truly endangered species of live animals. The remainder of the Amendments in this group are consequential drafting Amendments.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:

Page 6, line 31, at end insert (" (and in whatever manner) ").

Page 6, line 33, leave out from (" section ") to end of line 34.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 should be taken with Amendment No. 12. The Amendments are pure simplifications of the drafting, and with the permission of the House I beg to move together Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 6, line 34, at end insert— (3A) Before he specifies any premises for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall consult one or more of the scientific authorities. (3B) The Secretary of State shall not specify any premises for those purposes unless they are suitable to be so specified, that is to say, are such that in his opinion the animal in respect of which he proposes to give, or has given, a direction under this section may suitably be kept there. (3C) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reasonable time and (if required to do so) upon producing evidence that he is so authorised, enter—

  1. (a) any premises in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether they are suitable to be, or to remain, specified for the purposes of this section;
  2. (b) any premises which are for the time being so specified in relation to any animal in order to ascertain whether the animal is being kept there.
(3D) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting under subsection (3C) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that during our earlier discussions on this Bill, the Government undertook to consider various proposals for strengthening the provisions relating to "specified premises" in Clause 5. This Amendment does four things. It requires the Secretary of State to consult at least one of the scientific authorities before specifying the premises; it requires him to be satisfied that the premises are suitable for the particular animal concerned; it provides a right of entry at any reasonable time for a person authorised by the Secretary of State; and it provides for a penalty if anyone wilfully obstructs entry by an authorised person. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment meets the various points which were made.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton and myself, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Baroness for the way in which the Government have met these points.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, as one on this side of the House who has pressed for Amendments, may I express my appreciation of the way in which the Minister has met so many of the points which have been urged from our Back-Benches. I should also like to say how deeply impressed I have been by the extraordinary thoroughness with which the Minister has dealt with the problems regarding this Bill and to pay my tribute to the way in which she has conducted the proceedings.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Citation, interpretation, commencement, repeals, extent, etc.]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 8, line 26, leave out (" and 5(1) ") and insert (", 4(1) and 5(1) to (3C) ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon both Amendment No. 11 which was moved at the Report stage and Amendment No. 13 which has been moved today. Clause 9(2) applies certain provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland by substituting references to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, where appropriate, for references to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 8, line 36, at end insert— (" ( ) In this Act a reference to a dead animal of any particular kind includes a reference to the body of an animal of that kind—

  1. (a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or
  2. (b) which, although not complete (whether because it has been eviscerated or because it has had the whole of its inside removed and has been stuffed, or for any other reason), is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles the complete body of an animal of the kind concerned.
( ) In this Act a reference to a dead plant of any particular kind includes a reference to a plant of that kind—
  1. (a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or
  2. (b) which, although for any reason not complete, is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles a complete dead plant of the kind concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 54. The Amendment would extend the definition of dead animals and plants to include frozen, dried and preserved specimens and to include specimens which are substantially but not entirely complete. I have brought forward this Amendment in response to that which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on Report. The effect would be to make it clear that controls are placed on substantially complete specimens of all the species covered by Schedules 1 and 2. The references to dried and preserved bodies in paragraphs 15 and 17 of Schedule 3 therefore become superfluous and can be deleted. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for having met his points. May I ask one question which the noble Baroness may not be able to answer now, in which case perhaps she would write either to my noble friend or to me, or ask me to put it down in the form of a Question for Written Answer. After the words in the Amendment: In this Act a reference to a dead animal come the words: of any particular kind". This point is causing a little worry to some of my noble friends. I know that the noble Baroness said that all dried bodies would not escape, but people are frightened that dried and eviscerated bodies might escape. Are all of the animals in Schedule 1 covered by this Amendment?

Baroness STEDMAN

Yes, my Lords. As I said in my answer, this means that the controls are placed on specimens of all the species covered by Schedules 1 and 2. Indeed the Amendment would also remove one of the doubts which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, had, that skins stuffed by taxidermists and herbarium pressed plants are also covered by this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Animals the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 10, line 30, column 2, after ("rat") insert (" (otherwise known as black rat)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a series of minor Amendments to Schedule 1 following our decision at Report stage to adopt reverse listing; it adds an alternative common name. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 14, line 36, leave out (" Accentor ") and insert (" Prunella ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. These Amendments substitute what I am advised are the more appropriate scientific names for the species concerned. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 18,19 and 20 en bloc:

Page 14, line 38, at end insert—

(" Zosterops senegalensis Yellow white-eye ").

Page 15, line 5, at end insert—

(" Any domestic form of Canary ").

Serinus canaria.

Page 16, line 10, at end insert—

(Ploceus vitellinus Vitelline masked weaver "),

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments 18, 19 and 20 en bloc and to speak to Amendment No. 31. These Amendments add four species of birds to the list for which licences will not be required. They are not covered by the Convention and we are now advised that there is a significant trade. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:

Page 17, leave out lines 11 and 12.

Page 17, leave out line 15.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together. These Amendments delete from the list of exceptions three species of reptile which the scientific authority for animals now advises us are in need of control. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Baroness for leaving out the iguana, which is very good news, some of my noble friends and other learned advisers have asked me why the Government's good intentions as shown in these Amendments have not also been extended to the rhesus monkey on page 10, line 17, because although I know the rhesus monkey is usefully used in medical research, there is possibly a question that it might become a very rare species. I should like to receive an assurance from the noble Baroness that her advisers will be looking at this point, but I should also like to thank her for these Amendments.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, the scientific authority will be looking at all these species and keeping them under survey.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:

Page 17, line 21, leave out (" Lacerta ") and insert (" Podarcis ").

Page 17, line 22, leave out (" Lacerta") and insert (" Podarcis ")

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 en bloc:

Page 17, line 40, column 2, insert—

Page 17, line 40, (" Common African house-snake ")

line 44, column 2, insert—

line 44, column 2, (" Corn snake ").

leave out line 46 and insert—

(" Lampropeltis Common king snake ") getulus

Page 18, line 21, column 2, insert—

Page 18, line 21, column 2, (" Spanish terrapin ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like also to move, with Amendment No. 25, Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 en bloc, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33. All these Amendments simply insert common names for the species concerned. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 18, leave out line 41.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 and also to speak to Amendment No. 34. These Amendments move the species concerned from one place in the Schedule to what I am advised is a more appropriate position. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:

Page 18, line 43, column 2, insert—

Page 18, line 43, column 2, (" Yellow-bellied toad ")

Page 18, line 43 at end insert—

(" Discoglossus pictus Painted frog ")

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 19, line 26, column 2, insert—

Page 19, line 26, column 2, (" European common toad ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 19, line 27, column 2, insert—

(" Giant toad ").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 19, line 30, at end insert in column 1—(" Atelopus ignescens ")

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 19, lines 37 and 38, leave out column 2.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35, which, thankfully, deletes a rather pompous common name. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Items the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 24, line 3, at end insert—

(" This Schedule applies to the following items, namely:—")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 44 en bloc.

Page 24, line 12, after (" Elephantidae ") insert (" elephants ").

line 13, after (" Suidae ") insert (" (pigs) ").

line 24, after (" monoceros ") insert (" (narval) ").

line 15, after (" rosmarus ") insert (" (walrus) ").

line 19, after (" Rhinocerotidae ") insert (" (rhinoceroses) ").

line 26, after (" Elephantidae ") insert (" (elephants) ").

line 27, after (" Rhinocerotidae ") insert (" (rhinoceroses) ").

leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert—

(" Genetta genets)

Paradoxurus (palm civets)

Viverra (civets); ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 37 to 44 en bloc and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 and 58. I wish, however, to speak separately to Amendment No. 45, which as well as providing common names brings in a new point. This group of Amendments will provide common names as well as scientific names for the kind of animals referred to in Schedule 3, thus bringing it into line with the present form of Schedule 1. The final note makes it clear that the common names are given for guidance only and it is the scientific names which have legal force. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I should like to raise a question on Amendment No. 44. This deals with what I moved at the Report stage in my Amendment No. 24 dealing with the otters. The noble Baroness expressed the hope that the Government might be able to make some move in this direction. I know the time has been short and she has been very busy and we have not had time to speak on this subject, but I should like to ask her what the "state of play" is in the Ministry on this point. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which I adduced at the Report stage because they are all in Hansard, but imports of 15,000 skins in one year and 22,000 in another year show that this is a very endangered species, and I should not like this block of Amendments to go by without some reference from the noble Baroness as to whether, in the last week, since Report stage, the Government have come to any conclusion.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, since the Report stage we have had only a little time to do quite a lot of work to get this Bill into some shape to send down to the other place. We have started discussions which are now proceeding with the trade on the question of otters, to see whether we can perhaps get a voluntary agreement on how far we can go. If we can do anything about it we hope to get an Amendment moved in another place.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships perhaps I may say that if we were to get an agreement on a voluntary ban it would be a big step forward, but the question arises as to whether it would be a good precedent to set for other cases where there could be a problem of identification and/or licensing. I should like to receive an assurance from the Government that they intend to introduce licensing provisions at some stage and that they will not seek to introduce other voluntary bans of this nature on other products.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I am sure that would be the wish of the Department when we get as far as that.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

7.40 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 25, leave out lines 2 to 36 and insert—

(" Acinonyx jubatus (cheetah)

Arctogalidia trivirgata (small toothed palm civet)

Chrotogale owstoni (Owston's banded civet)

Crocuta crocuta (spotted hyena)

Felis bengalensis (leopard cat)

Felis colocolo (pampas cat)

Felis geoffroyi (Geoffroy's cat)

Felis guigna (kodkod)

Felis jacobita (mountain cat)

Felis marmorata (marbled cat)

Felis nigripes (African black footed cat)

Felis pardalis (ocelot)

Felis planiceps (flat headed cat)

Felis rubiginosa (rusty spotted cat)

Felis serval (serval)

Felis silvestris (European wild cat)

Felis tigrina (little spotted cat)

Felis viverrina (fishing cat)

Felis wiedii (margay cat)

Fossa fossa (Malagasy civet)

Hemigalus derbyanus (banded palm civet)

Hyaena brunnea (brown hyaena)

Mungos mungo (banded mongoose)

Panthera nebulosa (clouded leopard)

Panthera onca (jaguar)

Panthera pardus (leopard)

Panthera tigris (tiger)

Panthera unica (snow leopard)

Poiana richardsoni (African linsang)

Ursus maritimus, otherwise known as

Thalarctos maritimus (polar bear)

Vicugna vicugna (vicugna)

Viverricula indica (small Indian civet);

(c) any animal of the sub-species Felis lynx pardina (Spanish lynx).")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment provides the common name for the spotted cats and other animals having readily recognisable fur skins already controlled under paragraph 5(b). It also makes one small change of substance. There is some doubt about the taxonomic status of the lynx. The Bill as drafted controls the separate species of Felis lynx and Felis pardina, but I am now advised that the Felis lynx is common and, in general, has no spots on its fur. On the other hand, Felis pardina, although sometimes referred to as a species, is more appropriately described as the sub-species Felis lynx pardina—the Spanish lynx. It is rare, and does have spots on its fur. It thus seems more appropriate to clarify the situation by specifying the sub-species only. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having told us that, I am left with a slight fear. Spain is one of the countries which is very keen on the Convention, and has put the Spanish lynx pardina on the list. I am not happy to see the Felis lynx being taken out because, to be quite honest, although the noble Baroness says she thinks that this animal is in plentiful supply, is that really the case? That is the particular lynx being exploited at the moment. Canada, Russia and Northern Europe are the homes of this particular form of cat, and I am a little worried. I am not so certain that we are not taking advantage of the goodwill of Spain in putting it on the list, while the other countries have not. I should like the assurance of the noble Baroness that the Government will look at this point. One country has been good about this Convention, and the others are saying there is no shortage. I wonder whether that is really the case.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, what I said was that the Felis lynx is common and in general has no spots on its fur. Felis pardina is the spotted lynx. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, we will have another look at it, but I am told by my advisers that we are taking the correct course now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:

Page 25, line 38, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) ")

line 40, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) ")

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to these two Amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 26, line 2, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) and any coat or jacket made wholly or partly of any such fabric.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment will extend the controls to cover coats and jackets made of vicuna fabric, in addition to the fabric itself. Your Lordships will remember our debate on Report, and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, about vicuna goods. Our inquiries since then have disclosed that it is generally possible to detect vicuna fibre in a garment without damaging it. Therefore, it is a practical proposition to control coats and jackets. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for this point. As she says, it is in response to a question I asked, and I am most grateful. However, may I just put in a quibble. Are waistcoats covered, too?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I should have thought that that would have depended on the interpretation of "coats", but I will look at it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 26, line 4, after (" noschiferus ") insert (" (musk deer) ")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment, and I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 26, line 6, leave out (" any of ")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is purely drafting, and the wording is superfluous. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 26, line 7, after (" Reptilia ") insert (" (reptiles) ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 26, line 8, leave out paragraph 15.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 26, line 12, after (" Cheloniidae ") insert (" (sea turtles) ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 37 to 44. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph 17.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph 17.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 26, line 16, leave out (" (otherwise known as Papuina pulcherrima) ") and insert (", otherwise known as Papuina pulcherrima (green tree snail)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 37 to 44. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 26, line 19, leave out from (" birds") to end of line 36 and insert (", other than excepted plumage.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, excepted plumage means—

  1. (a) plumage which is that only of a bird of any of the following species, namely—
  2. (b) plumage which is that only of a bird of any domestic form of any of the following species, namely—
  3. (c) plumage which consists only of the down feathers of any bird of the species Somateria mollissima (eider duck);
  4. (d) plumage which consists only of the train feathers of any bird of the species Pavo cristatus (peacock);
  5. (e) plumage none of which falls outside subparagraphs (a) to (d) above.").

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment redrafts paragraph 19 of the Schedule relating to plumage and revises the free list. The list at present in paragraph 19 has been carried forward from earlier legislation, and has long been recognised as out of date. Species no longer in trade or which have become endangered have been deleted. Moreover, the term "a bird used as part of the human diet" has been replaced by a specific list of domestic birds.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:

Page 26, line 40, after (" Cyatheaceae ") insert (" (tree ferns) ").

line 40, at end insert—

(" NOTE: In this Schedule, any common name which appears in brackets after a scientific name is included by way of explanation only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the scientific name concerned is to be taken into account.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these two Amendments.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Amendment (privilege) made.

7.47 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, we have now reached the last stage in the passage of the Bill through this House. We had a substantial interval between Second Reading and Committee stage to allow time for extensive consultation with the conservation bodies, trade interests and others. It is clear to all Members of the House that these consultations have been most fruitful, because of the number and importance of the Amendments we have debated. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the keen interest shown by your Lordships in the subject, and I am sure in most respects we now have a much better Bill. The Government Amendments today were designed to meet many of the points raised in earlier debates. However, there are a few points of substance outstanding, and it might be helpful if I mention briefly those which we have undertaken to consider, but on which we have not yet reached a final decision.

One of these is the extension of the principle of reverse listing to mammal skins. The problem here is to draw up a list of excepted species which is large enough to avoid unnecessarily hampering the trade, yet sufficiently coherent and recognisable to Customs to enable them to enforce controls. I am bound to say that this is still proving difficult, and my advisers are still working on the problem.

Another small point still to be resolved is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, about possible duplication between this Bill and the import restrictions in the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967. We are looking into that. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, we are also looking at the possibility of controlling otter skins, and turtle products such as the inner shell, the meat and oil, in addition to the outer shell and skin which are already controlled.

Finally, it would be wrong not to mention the two Amendments moved on Report stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, which would enable private prosecutions to be brought for what are essentially import offences. It may be that Clause I cannot be allowed to stand as it is now in this respect, because I am advised that Customs and Excise may be debarred in some circumstances from bringing prosecutions, but that in itself may be no more than a drafting point. As for the principle involved, the Government will wish to reconsider the position most carefully, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall pay full regard to the weight of feeling in this House, and to the many arguments advanced in the debate.

For the future, we hope to make further minor improvements to the Bill during its passage through another place. We shall have the power, after the Royal Assent, to alter the Schedules by order at any time. In my view, it is likely to take several years before the Convention to which this Bill relates achieves all its intended objectives. But the firm foundation that this Bill will give us should strengthen our hand in the international effort to prevent the extinction by indiscriminate trade of rare species of wildlife. I can assure the House that we shall continue to consult the voluntary conservation bodies and the trade interests whenever any significant change is proposed either in the Schedules to the Bill or in any administrative arrangements.

As I explained during Second Reading, we have delayed ratification of the Convention so as to be able to take with us as many of our dependent territories as possible. We shall, however, ratify in good time to ensure that our delegation can play a full part at the first conference of the parties to the Convention, which is going to be held in Switzerland in November of this year. Our scientific authorities have been working for some time on the United Kingdom contribution to this conference.

My hope now is that this Bill can go forward to another place and can be enacted before the Summer Recess. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish it to leave this House without expressing our thanks to the officials and to the voluntary organisations for their co-operation so far as we are concerned in our dealings with this Bill. I hope that those of your Lordships who are venturing abroad this summer will remember one thing: there is a very serious omission from the list of excepted animals in Schedule 1, homo sapiens, so please do not forget to apply for your export licences before you go away. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Stedman.)

7.52 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, as a homo sapiens, I hope going away shortly, I must remember the advice of the noble Baroness. I would like to thank her very much for the way she has conducted the Third Reading. I should like to make a couple of small points on matters which, if we had had more time, I would have put down. The Opposition were in a tricky position; we do not like having unnecessary Amendments on Third Reading. I did not want to put down any Amendments until we had seen the Government's Amendments. One or two people in the House have said to me, "Are you not shocked and horrified that the Government have put down all these Amendments late, the night before?" I have had to say quite honestly that I am not, because I think in this case the Government have done extremely well. On Report we were all hoping that we might see what the Government were able to do, but we were all quite prepared to accept that the Minister would not be able to get her officials and experts to do what she wanted to do in the time available. We all agreed that, if it could be done before the Bill got to the Commons, that would be adequate. In the circumstances, I should like to say from the Opposition Front Bench that, although it was too late for us to look at it and interpret it in this particular case—and I hope this will not be a precedent for any other cases—we fully appreciate why it happened like this, and I for one am grateful.

One of the Amendments which we might have put down would have been to strengthen the second Amendment which we carried last week on Report. We think it might be stronger if we treated it like the Amendment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in Clause 1(3), lines 8 to 12, ending with the word "Act" in line 12. What we would have suggested, and I hope my friends in another place will put this down, is that the same lines should be put in Clause 1(10) to bring it into parallel with subsection (3); subsection (10) would be prefaced by the same words as are in subsection (3). That is one thing we should have liked to do had we had time.

There is one small point which I would make while I am speaking. It concerns my old Amendment No. 12 about the ports. I am looking at the Hansard of 13th May, column 1103. I should like the noble Baroness to bear in mind the two middle paragraphs of that page about the breach of specific customs offences. I should just like attention given to it; I do not want to reiterate all the arguments.

Turning to the general principles, I can only say that I think the whole House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, for the way she has handled this Bill. It was a new subject for her; she was plunged into the deep end. She has done extraordinarily well, and so has her Department. Her Department had to liaise with many other Ministries and Departments of State, not to mention such official bodies as Customs and Excise, who are very independent and jealous of their rights and privileges; rightly so, because they believe that their duties are carried out much more efficiently by sticking to those rights. Let me be quite clear: when we have been talking about Customs and Excise, I do not in any way denigrate them. They are arguing totally from their hearts, and they believe that what they are defending is right. On the other hand, we think there ought to be some wider action available to the public at large, in aid of the general good, in this case of the endangered species and their products.

It would be unfair, while I am paying tributes, not to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, without whose earlier Bills the Government might not have been prodded so effectively. I think the whole House and the country at large owe a great debt of gratitude to him, and that splendid society, the Friends of the Earth, who have been in the background for so long prodding at this particular measure.

A Third Reading where we have not been able to do everything we would have liked to do had the time been available is not ideal. But I think we can rest on our laurels; we have done all right. The fact is that we want the Bill passed quickly in order that we can ratify the Convention and take part this coming winter in all these discussions and have our views heard. It is for our colleagues in the Commons to continue the pointers we have made. There are plenty of pointers, and I am sure they will be able to take them up. Once again I would thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and all those other noble Lords who have helped and advised us on this matter.

7.58 p.m.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, during the Second Reading debate I made some critical remarks about the Department of the Environment, with particular reference to the failure to consult as fully as I felt they should have done with the voluntary bodies responsible for conservation. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness very much indeed for what she herself described as the extensive and fruitful discussions she has had with these bodies, whose views have been invaluable. It was very pleasant indeed to hear, and I am sure the conservation bodies themselves will be very glad to hear her assurance that this consultation will be continued after the Bill becomes an Act. The voluntary organisations are very often the first people to hear of a threat to even a common species. They have no axe to grind at all, and I am sure they can be very helpful indeed to the Government, and will be.

I should like to make a few remarks about three matters in the Bill as briefly as I can; first, about possible changes to the Schedules. Clause 3 allows for the Schedules to be altered after consultation with the scientific authority. This is, of course, only right and proper. However, the Government do not seem to think that this advice is necessarily sufficient, and they propose, I gather, before making an order, to consult the trade, presumably to cross-check the advice they have had from the scientific authority. I am doubtful whether this is necessary, but if it is necessary I would not want to quibble about it. It must be remembered, and will, I am sure, be agreed, that in most cases the consultation will be about restrictions in trade, and this has the effect of giving what I might call an early warning to the trade that restrictions, or even a total ban, are likely to be imposed.

There was an interesting example of this recently, which proves the point I am making, where ocelot skins were concerned. In the first 10 months of 1975 more than 27,000 ocelot skins were imported into this country. It then became known in October that restrictions were to be imposed. In the next two months another 50,000 skins came in; almost as many in each of the next two months as had come in in the previous 10 months. This shows that, if the trade has early warning that restrictions are to be imposed where a species is regarded as being endangered, they can, so to speak, get in under the wire, and have plenty of time to do so. This is accentuated by the fact that the Department of the Environment has a policy of honouring contracts already entered into before the date controls become operative. The traders therefore have time and warning in which to enter into further long-term "commitments" which would take them well beyond the date when the restriction is law.

While I accept the reasons for consultations and for honouring of contracts, I feel that this latitude is unnecessary. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she would be good enough to look again at this question, to see whether it might be possible to make sure that, after an order has been laid, it is operative as soon as it has been laid on the Table for the necessary length of time. It might be operative for only a limited period—say, three months or six months—and if during that time the Government were convinced that the advice that they had from the Scientific Authority was wrong, it would lapse. I think that perhaps the whole purpose of the Bill could be largely outwitted unless some thought is given to this. I would ask the noble Baroness to be good enough to consider whether it is just possible that this is a comment that is worth considering and that an Amendment might be appropriate in another place.

I should like to say where the Schedules are concerned that I appreciate the speed with which the Government worked. I fully understand that they were working under pressure, and that the Schedules even now are not complete in every way. I was just looking at the first Schedule and I was surprised to find that the mallard, greylag goose, muscovy duck, turkey, and domestic pigeon do not appear as common birds. I may have made some mistake; I had the canary down as well, but I see that that that was one of the Amendments which the noble Baroness moved. There is still tidying-up to be done; that is inevitable. Perhaps a small number of birds and animals may still be on the list of common birds and animals, which travel badly—like some wines—and which, although comparatively common, might well be considered for removal from the list of birds and animals that are common.

Where the Schedules are concerned, I raised on Second Reading—I certainly intended to do so—the question of birds' eggs. It seems illogical on the face of it that birds should be in Schedule 1, but that their eggs, which may well be fertile eggs, are not. I know that there is a very difficult problem of recognition here, and that if one is to control the import of eggs one can only control the import of a whole group of eggs. It so happens, for example, that all the birds of prey are endangered species, and it might well be a step in the right direction to control all the eggs of birds of prey and of owls, which would be quite an easy thing to do. I fully recognise that where a very rare duck, or very rare pheasant, is concerned, because most pheasants' eggs look the same, as most ducks' eggs look the same, it might be impossible, much as we should like to prevent the import of eggs of very rare birds of that kind. But I think in certain groups, for instance of birds of prey, it might be possible to do this. I would very much hope that the Government would look at this matter.

Secondly, I want to welcome most warmly the decision to allow rights of private prosecution under this Bill. The noble Baroness made it clear that the Government have an open mind about this, although some doubts. I very much hope that the Government will not seek to reverse these two Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, to Clause 1. I hope that Customs and Excise will see them not as any infringement of their authority, or questioning of their efficiency, but rather as complementary to their work, and affording them some welcome relief in carrying it out.

An example of how private prosecutions can help the authorities has been very clearly shown in both Wild Birds Protection Acts, with which I was closely concerned. The second Act, which was taken by the late Lord Hurcomb through your Lordships' House, I handled in the other place. Under these Acts private prosecutions frequently occur, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds works very closely with the police without any problems arising at all. I do not see why, in exactly the same way, private prosecutions should not be brought where this Bill is concerned. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government have an open mind about this. She did at one stage mention the possibility of drafting points making these Amendments more acceptable, and I guess she may have had in mind that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton does not include the words which appear in lines 8 to 10 of Clause 1(3), which make it absolutely clear that the right of private prosecution in no way overrides the duties of Customs and Excise under the 1952 Act. That is the second point I wish to raise.

The last point is a brief one about ports of entry. I welcome too the decision to restrict ports of entry, and I welcome it on several grounds. I very much hope that this permissive power will be applied, and from what the noble Baroness said she obviously has an open mind about this too. I think that Customs and Excise would agree that in many cases identification is an expert matter, whether one is speaking about commons species or rare and endangered species of fauna and flora or, for that matter, the immensely large range of inanimate objects which pass through Customs. Surely, therefore, it would be better to limit the assistance needed from the experts who are bound to be called in, to a few ports of entry and at places where suitable reception centres and staff are available. Could not this easily be done in exactly the same way as the Ministry of Agriculture has laid down in regulations under the 1974 Rabies Order? These are applied solely, I agree, for health purposes, as indeed are the new controls to prevent the introduction of avian diseases, especially Newcastle disease. I think that the Minister of Agriculture limited the imports under both these headings to nine seaports and eight airports. I would express the strong hope that Her Majesty's Government will take advantage of this excellent amendment of the Bill restricting ports of entry in exactly the same way.

I realise, of course, that the scope of this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has told us when moving the Amendment, "allows us to consider the welfare of endangered species only". I think those were her exact words. I should have emphasised the word "endangered." It "allows us to consider the welfare of endangered species only". But I think that common sense and humanity both dictate that in protecting endangered species we should not expose common species to unnecessary risks or unnecessary suffering. Therefore, I believe that a very welcome side effect of restricting ports of entry would be that there would be less cruelty and less suffering, and that in this way we would be strengthening the Transit of Animals Order 1973, which has already proved extremely valuable.

I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. Having made those points about the Amendments to the Schedules, about the timing and their effectiveness, about the right of private prosecutions and about the importance of restricting ports of entry, I would only add that this is an excellent little Bill and I wish it a safe and speedy passage through another place into law.

8.10 p.m.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, this is an occasion for some celebration. The passage of the Bill has required a period of gestation rather longer than that of any ordinary mammal. It was two and a half years ago that we started on it and at this point we can feel that the job has been well done and done in a splendid spirit of co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made some kind remarks about me and all I would say is that the only reason why I introduced the Bill in the first place was because I was asked if I would do so, the person who asked me having thought that I would be stubborn enough to go on with it however long it took. It is not my stubbornness but the co-operation of others which has succeeded in getting the Bill through this House. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the part that Lord Mowbray and Stourton has played in this matter. He has enlivened us with quips and kept us amused, but all the time he has kept the serious objective in view. It has been particularly refreshing to have the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who knows far more about this than I do, come along and do as much as he has done and we are grateful to him.

As has been pointed out, we are particularly indebted to my noble friend Lady Stedman. I know how much she has done and all who have been in contact with the Bill realise the hard work she has put in. The Department has played an exceptional part. The members of the Department have frequently been disturbed with the various proposals that have been put forward, as a Department should be, and they have worried about details, but at no time have they failed to carry on. They have worked extremely hard and we are extremely grateful to them for producing the Bill in a form which we can all now accept and feel that it is something well worth while. We have taken the first step in this House in putting on to the Statute Book a Bill which will be of absolutely basic significance in the preservation of species throughout the world, and this is very much to the credit of all those who have worked so hard on it.

Lord Chelwood mentioned the use of the scientific authorities. We have under Clause 2 the setting up of scientific authorities, and it should be clear that these authorities should be the ones who really determine what is going to be done in this field. While it is highly important to consult other people—there is no objection to consulting the trade—it is vital to consult all the conservation bodies, without which we should not have had the Bill. It is important to remember that we are about to pass a Bill which is concerned with the conservation of species. This is a matter which is based on scientific evidence and it is something which fundamentally must remain of scientific evidence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that Clause 2, which sets up these authorities, is an extremely vital part of the Bill. This is a Bill which we must pass, and we now hope that the other place will deal with it well and faithfully and that it will become an Act very soon.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.