Lords Sitting of 6 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford):
The Lord Chancellor On the Woolsack.

EEC IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about their discussions with Mr. Brian Talboys regarding prices, quotas and import levies for New Zealand butter and cheese exports to the United Kingdom and to the rest of the European Community after 1980, and give an assurance that any new arrangements regarding dairy products or sheepmeat will he consistent with the spirit and letter of the promises made in Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession and atthe European Council in Dublin in 1975.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Ministers were able to have an extensive exchange of views with Mr. Talboys. They concentrated particularly on sheep-meat. They agreed that any Community sheepmeat regime must provide for the United Kingdom's need for substantial imports from New Zealand.
Arrangements made under Protocol 18 of the Treaty of Accession assure imports of specified quantities of butter from New Zealand up to the end of 1980. Arrangements for the period after 1980 will be decided by the Council on the basis of Protocol 18 and in the light of a report which the European Commission intends to submit later this year.
No provision was made in Protocol 18 for continued imports of New Zealand cheese after the end of 1977 but the Heads of Government of the Community, meeting in Dublin in March 1975, noted that
232
this situation and the problems that might arise would be given due attention. The possibility of access arrangements for cheese is one of the questions to be considered in the negotiations for a new international agreement on dairy products in the GATT multilateral tradenegotiations.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords. I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full reply. May I ask him this question: during the 1978 review which the Commission is carrying out, will the Government press our partners in the Community to meet New Zealand's need for cheese exports to this country in thelight of the promises made in the Dublin agreement. and in particular do their best to ensure that the butter quotas after 1980 meet NewZealand's essential requirements? So far as sheepmeat is concerned, is the noble Lord aware of the very considerable anxiety in New Zealand since the draft regulation was laid in Brussels—I think yesterday or the day before—about the so-called safeguard clause under which imports could be unilaterally restricted, with very serious consequences indeed for New Zealand farmers?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, ifI may take lamb first, the proposals to which the noble Lord has referred, which were published yesterday, do not appear to hinder the substantial imports which meet over one-third of the Community's requirements and, of course, half of the United Kingdom's requirements. New Zealand has security, in that the 20 per cent. tariff is bound into the GATT agreement. Any proposals for a sheepmeat régime must respect this binding. In the unlikely event of it being disturbed, New Zealand, I must stress, would have the right to compensation. With regard to butter, the Council of Ministers has confirmed that Protocol 18 remains the basis for continued imports of New Zealand butter after 1980. Arrangements will depend on circumstances at the time.
Turning to cheese, although, as the noble Lord said, imports of cheese under Protocol 18 ceased at the end of last year, we believe strongly that there is scope for a continued New Zealand presence in our cheese market, without prejudice to our own producers. The access arrangements for cheese are among the questions to be

233
considered in the multilateral trade negotiations.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, while the noble Lord explained the position with regard to the negotiations, I do not think that he quite answered the question which my noble friend asked him: namely, will the Government ensure that the situation of New Zealand is taken into account in the Government's negotiations with regard to the future after 1980? In other words, will the Government make sure that New Zealand's situation is made quite clear to the EEC?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for asking me that question because it enables me to confirm the Government's general attitude: that we shall ensure that our Community sheepmeat régime provides for our need to import substantial quantities of lamb from New Zealand. Protocol 18 provides for imports of New Zealand butter to continue indefinitely, at quantities to be agreed after 1980. With regard to cheese, we believe that there is a need for a continuing New Zealand supply and, as I said, negotiations with New Zealand are taking place.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the fact that in these discussions the word "sheepmeat" seems to have attained a certain amount of prominence? Can we not stick to the old-fashioned terms "mutton" and "lamb"?
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, while welcoming the statement which the noble Lord has made, which I take to mean that the interests of New Zealand in the matter of sheepmeat regulations will be looked after, may I ask him for an assurance that the Government will oppose any proposal to increase charges on the levies now being exacted on lamb—I avoid the word "sheepmeat"—imports, which at present amount to 20 per cent.?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, weshall certainly do that, and I am very glad to be able to give this assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who is a former, distinguished Governor General of New Zealand. May I repeat again that if the 20 per cent. tariff does have to be increased—and we shall hope that it
234
does not—New Zealand will have the right to compensation.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that second encouraging reply. I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance, which I am sure will be given: will the Government continue strongly to resist any moves within the EEC generally which would create further trading difficulties for New Zealand, whose economy at the moment is in rather poor "nick"?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Minister has recently given these assurances to Mr. Talboys and Mr. Maclntyre.
Lord LLOYD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for what he has said. Since I have just returned from a business visit to New Zealand, I think that he ought to know of the very real anxiety that exists in New Zealand about these matters, upon which the whole of their economy depends. I hope that what the noble Lord has said will set their hearts at peace.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for what he has said, and we are very glad to see him here again. I do not think I can make plainer what I said before in answer to previous questions.

SEAL PELTS FROM CANADA
3.9 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are persuaded by widespread revulsion of public opinion against the massive slaughter of young seals in Canada to represent to the Canadian Government that future export of seal pelts to the United Kingdom will be unwelcome, or whether alternatively they will put this first among their import controls.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Canadian Government is well aware, through its High Commission in London,

235
of the strong and widespread feeling aroused by this issue in Britain. Her Majesty's Government are also fully aware of the extent of public concern and have received many requests to ban imports of seal pelts. In this respect I understand that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade will be consulting his ministerial colleagues to determine whether action on the lines suggested would now be appropriate.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am obliged for that Answer, but I am sorry that for her it is an unusually qualified Answer? May I ask whether the Statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place about the Government's review of the position denotes a serious intention to consider action on this matter? Will my noble friend take care to ensure that the Government do not lag behind public opinion in this country? Can she confirm that the United States of America already ban these imports and that France is considering doing the same? Will she ask her noble friends to represent to the Canadian Government that it will impair the good relations between the people of this country and Canada if this annual slaughter continues?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, many opponents of the Canadian cull have claimed that France and the United States of America have already banned imports of the skins of the seals concerned. My information is, in fact, that none of these countries has such a ban in operation, but the Statement made by my honourable friend in another place a few days ago, to the effect that lie was consulting his ministerial colleagues, holds good. It is not a matter which affects only the Department of Trade; it affects the environment and industry and there have to be the widest possible consultations at ministerial level before any pronouncement can be made.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Canadian cull of seals is very heavily controlled as to what is thought scientifically necessary? Furthermore, it is limited. Lastly, is she also aware that the Canadian. Royal Society for the
236
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals personally surveys this cull?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The cull is primarily intended to protect the ecological balance between the size of the seal herd and the necessity to maintain the stocks of fish.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only in this country that deep feeling exists but that many of us have been surprised by the letters, and even cables, that we have received from many parts of the world? Is it not the case that, even if the United States and France are not at this time putting a ban into operation, they are very actively considering it? Cannot our Government give them an example?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I thought I explained in my initial Answer that there are ministerial consultations going on at the moment as to what attitude and what means we can take in order to assuage the feelings of the people of this country and of other countries; but until those consultations are concluded we are not in a position to make any pronouncement.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the annual slaughter of these delightful animals is becoming an international scandal? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to bring pressure to bear on the Canadian Government to put an end to it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I have said, the Canadian Government is well aware—because we have made our feelings known to the High Commission in this country—of the views of the people here and, I am sure, in the other countries of the world, but beyond that we cannot interfere in what another Government is doing.

RENT ACT 1977
3.14 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider amending the Rent Act 1977 in order to make more rented accommodation available to the general public.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the Government agree that the problems with privately rented housing need careful examination, which is why we are currently reviewing the Rent Acts, and a consultation document was issued last year. The availability of rented accommodation does, however, depend on many factors as well as rent legislation.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, but I should like to ask when the Government are going to get rid of controlled tenancies as opposed to regulated tenancies and, following from that, whether it is not a fact that, from the estimates of the Department of the Environment and from construction statistics, it is possible to say that 300,000 families were deprived of furnished accommodation as a result of the 1974 Act and, in further emphasis, that, as a result of the 1974 Act, the advertising for rented accommodation in the Evening Standard has fallen by 75 per cent., with the figure dropping to only 25 per cent. up to the time of asking this Question? What are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that was one load of a supplementary! The noble Lord seemed to imply that furnished accommodation more or less vanished from the market after the Rent Act of 1974. The answer to that is, "no". A report on some of the effects of the Rent Act was published last November. It was carried out by the Middlesex Polytechnic and showed that many landlords continued to advertise furnished accommodation and, comparing a sample of newspapers two years before the Act with a strictly comparable sample two years after the Act, the fall in the number of advertisements was from some 32,000 to 27,000, which is less than 20 per cent. I would add that the noble Lord has not taken into account the complete change
238
in living patterns and the fact that furnished rented accommodation has been declining since the end of the First World War.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government realise that the lack of rented accommodation, particularly in great centres like London, means that there is increased demand to purchase houses which, in view of the shortage of houses for sale, increases the price, and that the only way of ensuring a reduction in the price of houses for sale is in fact to make available more rented accommodation? Will the Government hear that in mind when they review the present regulations?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with great respect, I do not accept that line of argument. It is perfectly true that the amount of rented accommodation has declined. The demand for it has declined because there has been an increase in homeownership, but I do not think that the people who want furnished accommodation are the same people who want, or can afford to buy, their own homes. They are two different things, but there is an increase and the Government have given great help to first-time home purchasers, which is exactly what people want.
As I said in my original Answer, we are aware of these problems, but the results of the consultation paper show such tremendous disagreements arising from all sorts of factors, organisations and bodies that it is quite impossible to come forward with conclusions until one is able to sort out this difficult situation and strike a balance.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when she is considering this matter, she will take into account what is happening in a very serious way today owing to the fact that, instead of protected tenancies, regulated tenancies are being heavily abused, making it impossible for those who are supposed to be protected in their tenancies by the Rent Acts—and I am speaking about a somewhat higher stratum of rentals—to be protected because there is at present a rampant increase in the price of properties, with people in districts such as Westminster and Kensingston

239
who have had their houses for 20 or 30 years now being charged 400 or 500 per cent. more in respect of their rents? Will she take that into consideration when again considering the Rent Acts?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will certainly take it into consideration. My noble friend has put his finger on one of the trouble spots and one of the tremendous difficulties of this whole problem; namely, how to give security to tenants and protect them from steeply rising rents and at the same time allow flexibility for landlords.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in her opening remarks, the noble Baroness said that the Government were reviewing the Rent Act, no doubt following upon their published Green Paper. Can she say when we may expect to have the result of that review and whether it will include a number of constructive suggestions about amending the Rent Act 1974 which would bring more rented accommodation back on to the market, particularly to help young people, both single and married, who are not eligible for a council house and who cannot afford to buy a house?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, unfortunately, I cannot give a date when the Government will be able to announce their conclusions about this. It is because we arc trying to work this out in the most equitable way and, as I said before, to balance the various interests that have put forward their views—and extremely strong views—that there has been this delay.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although one of the responsibilities and functions of the Government is to keep prices down, nevertheless tenants of regulated tenancies are being asked to pay anything from 60 to 100 per cent. more by way of rent, with the assistance of so-called impartial rent officers and rent tribunals? Is it not about time for that question to be looked into very seriously if the Government really mean to keep prices down?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is certainly one of the questions the Government are looking into now, and in fact
240
one of my colleagues is particularly engaged on this point.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, could the noble Baroness assure us that the Government do not rule out the possibility of fixed term leases after which possession could be regained, both for furnished and unfurnished accommodation, as was indeed suggested in this House in our 1974 debate?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is a very large question. I can only answer it by saying that we are opposed to any measure which would in practice mean that new lettings to private tenants would carry with them no security of tenure. It is the security of tenure that is so important. The reduction in the number of evictions since the Rent Act is very great indeed.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, while I understand that the noble Baroness cannot give my noble friend any assurance about the date of conclusion of the review, may I ask whether she can give the House an assurance that in coming to their conclusions the Government will take account of the needs of new potential tenants, particularly young people, who have no accommodation of any kind at the moment? While security of tenure for those who have accommodation is of course important, it does need to be balanced against the needs of those who have nothing at all.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, that is what I have said two or three times. We are trying to get the right balance.

IMMIGRATION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will repeat a Statement on Immigration.
ABINGDON MARKET PLACE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNION THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.23 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Apportionment of Housing Support Grants]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("that year") and insert ("the year in question.")
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to the first Amendment, I must apologise for the inconvenience caused to the Committee by the late appearance of these Government Amendments for today's Sitting. We have, of course, been affected by the printing difficulties to which my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal referred on Tuesday. I regret that on this occasion the Amendments were not tabled in sufficient time to allow for these difficulties. I particularly express my regrets to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in this regard. However, most of the Amendments before the Committee today are of a minor drafting nature, but I would understand if noble Lords might wish to return to the detail of any of these Amendments on Report stage.
This Amendment, No. I, improves the drafting of a subsection which the Government added to the Bill in another place
242
to meet the wishes of the Opposition. The report accompanying a housing support grant order will show the estimated amount of grant payable to each authority for the year to which the order relates. There is nothing actually wrong with the present reference to "that order", but in terms of drafting style the Government feel that "the year in question" is slightly better. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for explaining this Amendment to us, and for his words of explanation and apology, which are gratefully received. As is customary for Opposition on these occasions, we make the strongest possible protest. We cannot be expected to deal with matters like this when they have only appeared today. As the noble Lord anticipated, we shall, of course, reserve the right, especially on the long Amendment, No. 9, to reconsider and come back on Report. With regard to this particular Amendment, as the noble Lord is obliging us with what was asked for in another place, I am duly grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("local authorities' expenditure on housing.") and insert ("eligible expenditure.")
The noble Lord said: This is another small drafting change. It affects a provision which the Government added in another place, again to meet an undertaking which we gave there to the Opposition. So I am sure of a cordial welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. I might just add that the expenditure in respect of which housing support grant is to be payable is described elsewhere in the Bill as "eligible expenditure". That term is used in Clause 1, Clause 2(3) and in Clause 3. For consistency it is desirable to use the same term in Clause 2(4). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Repairs grant]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 41, after (" 5(1),") insert ("(1A),").
The noble Lord said: Again this Amendment makes a small drafting correction. The provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 which apply to improvement grants are also to apply to repairs grants, with certain exceptions. These exceptions are the provisions listed in the bracketed part of Clause 8(5). That list should also include Section 5(1A) of the 1974 Act, which is added by paragraph 13(a) of Schedule 2 to the present Bill. It is clear that Section 5(1A) does not apply to repair grants because it simply modifies the operation of Section 5(1), which is already listed as not applying to repairs grants. Clause 8(5) should, therefore, be amended to reflect that Section 5(1A) does not apply either. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Reserve power to limit rents]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 6, leave out (" increases ") and insert (" any increase (a)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and in doing so I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5 as well because I think that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships for me to do so. These Amendments improve the drafting of the clause which empowers the Secretary of State to make orders limiting rent increases of local authority houses. Before coming to the Amendments themselves, I think that I should explain briefly to your Lordships the purpose of the clause.
The power to limit rents by order replaces the existing statutory limit which is fixed by the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 at a maximum of £39 per year for individual houses. This permanent statutory limit has proved inflexible in practice and the Convention
244
of Scottish Local Authorities has asked for its removal. The new power to impose a limit for 12 months at a time avoids the rigidity of the existing limit, but still enables the Government, should this prove necessary, to step in to prevent excessive rent increases.
At present the clause would allow a limit to be applied to rent increases of individual houses. The Government undertook in the other place that the order-making power would, in addition, enable a limit to be applied, if necessary, to the average rent increases of authorities. These Amendments enable the second kind of limit to be applied. A limit on average rent increases would limit the overall increase in rent income which an authority would obtain from its housing stock, including rents from new houses which are not covered by the existing limit.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 add considerably to the flexibility of the new reserve power to limit rents. A limit on average increases could be adopted instead of, or in addition to, a limit on individual rent increases, or there could be an individual maximum without a limit of the average. It is sensible when designing a reserve power to make it as flexible as possible to cope with the range of contingencies which could arise. If a limit on increases in average rents were adopted the average would be carefully defined in the order itself.
Subsection (2) provides for an order to include supplementary and incidental provisions. The definition of the average would be one example of such provision. As I have said, the Amendments improve the drafting of the clause and enable it to be used in accordance with the undertakings which were given in another place. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 7, at end insert—
("(b) in average income receivable from the standard rents of all houses or par: shares of houses,")
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. I have, of course, already remarked on its import.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
3.33 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("27 and 28") and insert ("28, 32 and 33").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is purely a drafting correction. Those paragraphs of Schedule 2 which are consequential on the introduction of housing support grant should not come into effect until 1st April 1979. That is when the first housing support grant becomes payable. The clause presently identifies only two such paragraphs and gives them the numbers they had in an earlier print of the Bill. In fact, there are three such paragraphs and their correct numbers are 28, 32 and 33.
Paragraph 28 removes references in the 1972 Act to subsidies which are repealed from 1st April 1979 by Schedule 3. Paragraphs 32 and 33 alter Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act affecting the housing revenue account to take account of (a) the introduction of housing support grant and (b) the changes made by Clause 11 to the scope of the housing revenue account. Both changes have effect from the 1979-80 financial year. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I must point out that the next three Amendments have been wrongly marshalled and Amendment No. 9 comes before Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
3.34 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 16, line 47, at end insert—
"The Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 56)
9A. In section 27 (right to home loss payment where person displaced from dwelling)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(e) a requirement to remove from the building containing the dwelling in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings) or any other enactment which requires the demolition of the building on account of its condition,";

(ii) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following paragraph—

"(v) where paragraph (e) above applies the authority requiring the removal.";

(b) in subsection (3A)—

(i) after the words "consequence of" there shall be inserted the word "(a)";

(ii) after the word "dwelling" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "or; (b) a requirement to remove as mentioned in subsection (1)(e) above";

(iii) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following words "or removal as the case may be.";

(c) at the end of subsection (9) there shall be added the following words "except that, where the displacement is in consequence of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(e) above, it applies if the date of displacement is on or after the coming into force of paragraph 9A of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.".

9B. In section 34 (disturbance payments for persons without compensatable interests)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph —

"(e) a requirement to remove from a building on the land in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings) or any other enactment which requires the demolition of the building on account of its condition,";

(ii)at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following paragraph?

"(v) where paragraph (e) above applies, the authority requiring the removal.";

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for the words "or undertaking as is mentioned in paragraph (b)" there shall be substituted the words "undertaking or requirement to remove as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (e)";

(ii)for the words "or the undertaking was accepted" there shall be substituted "the undertaking was accepted or he was required to remove.";

(c) in subsection (3A)—

(i) after the words "consequence of" there shall be inserted the word "(a)";

247

(ii)after the word "building" there shall be inserted the words "or; (a) a requirement to remove as mentioned in subsection (1)(e) above";

(iii) at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following words "or removal as the case may be.";

(d) at the end of subsection (9) there shall be added the following words "except that, where the displacement is in consequence of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)(e) above, it applies if the date of displacement is on or after the coming into force of paragraph 9B of Schedule 2 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.".

9C. In section 36 (duty to re-house residential occupiers)—

(a) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(d) a requirement to remove from the building containing the residential accommodation in pursuance of section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 (dangerous buildings), or any other enactment which requires the demolition of the building on account of its condition,";

(b) in subsection (6)—

(i) for the words "or undertaking as is mentioned in paragraph (b)" there shall be substituted "undertaking or requirement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or (d)";

(ii) for the words "or the undertaking was accepted" there shall be substituted "the undertaking was accepted or he was required to remove."."

The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. I think it right that I should again apologise to your Lordships, without lingering on the apology, for the late submission of this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable authorities to make home loss and disturbance payments to persons displaced from buildings which have been declared dangerous and, if need be, to rehouse them.
The Government undertook in another place that these changes would be made and, of course, I repeated that undertaking in your Lordships' House on Second Reading. In the area of home loss and disturbance payments, it would remove an anomaly which has given the Scottish Office concern for some time. The basic argument is straightforward. At present, if people are required to leave property because a demolition or closing order under the Housing Acts has been made by the local authority, they have an entitlement to such payments and rehousing. If the move is the result of the
248
dangerous buildings procedure under the Buildings Act or comparable local Acts there is no such entitlement. In fairness we think that the provision should be extended to cover the latter category.
To say that the local authority acts in the interest of public safety in declaring a building dangerous is little comfort to the individual who may not agree with that assessment of the danger. In his eyes, and in terms of Statute, it is not the danger that requires him to move, but the authority's action. Nor does it comfort him to see someone in very similar circumstances get a home loss or disturbance payment simply because the local authority elected to secure his removal by a different procedure. Because of the existing statutory position, there is a tendency for local authorities to secure the clearance of dangerous buildings by making a demolition or closing order which allows for the payment to be made and rehousing to be provided, and then making a dangerous building order. As the difficulty is being overcome in this perfectly legal if rather ingenious use of Statute, any additional expenditure is likely to be very small and is unlikely to be more than, say, £100,000 in any one year.
The buildings most likely to be declared dangerous are four-storey tenements, the characteristic, one might almost say native form of dwelling, over much of industrial Scotland. If they become rickety, their height and mass make them a greater danger to the public and to their inhabitants than smaller buildings, and people may have to be ordered out at very short notice. That has become a real problem in Scotland. It is for those reasons that we have responded to the points raised in another place and have placed this Amendment before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his very full explanation of this rather long clause. On the face of it it sounds very satisfactory, but as I said earlier, we must reserve our right to go through it with a close toothpick.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I suggest "comb"!
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I thank my noble and learned friend. I

249
missed the amount that the Minister thought it was likely to cost in any one year. I wonder whether the noble Lord could refresh my mind?
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I did not explain myself as clearly as I might. I am suggesting to the Committee that at the present moment local authorities are tending, by ingenious use of Statute, to declare certain buildings capable of demolition. This is an additional charge upon them, but because the Statute is being used in this manner at present it will cost an extra £100,000 per annum.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 20, line 20, leave out (" but ")
Page 20, line 36, leave out (" but ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is purely a minor drafting Amendment, as indeed is Amendment No. 8. The word "but" in the existing drafting does not add anything to the meaning and we believe that the style is improved by omitting that word. I beg to move these Amendments together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Compensation]:
On Question, Wheter Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount THURSO: I put this Bill before your Lordships not in order to prohibit any particular import of fish but in order to empower the Secretary of State to regulate the import and the keeping of fish in a manner which he is not at present empowered to do. When this Bill was first drafted and put before your Lordships' House- when, indeed, it found favour with your Lordships and was passed- an import of coho salmon had been made under licence into Scotland. It was quite clear to me and indeed to all noble Lords that suddenly to ban these fish and to order their destruction would be unfair to those who, in good faith, had imported them into the country. Therefore, I was persuaded that it would be a good idea to include a clause providing compensation, should the Secretary of State consider it desirable and advisable to order the fish to be destroyed or to ban the keeping of these fish.
A year has passed since your Lordships considered this Bill and the fish have grown. They have done well and any time now they will be mature. Even if your Lordships were to pass this Bill and it were to pass through another place, and even if it were to get on to the Statute Book, these fish would have grown to the point at which they would be commercially saleable; they would have grown to the point at which they would have proved the experiment for which they were imported into this country. Therefore, the case for compensation would be very small indeed; in fact, it is doubtful whether there would be any case for compensation at all.
It is also doubtful whether at this late date the Secretary of State would indeed consider it necessary to institute an order to ban the fish at all, because they would very nearly have reached the end of their natural existence. Pacific salmon are different from Atlantic salmon in that they have a very proscribed lifetime, and we cannot look for an extended lifespan from them; they are liable to reach the end of their lifespan and to die. In fact, a curious thing about Pacific salmon is that no Pacific salmon has ever seen its parents; nor have the parents of such a

251
salmon ever seen their offspring. Therefore, I do not think that a case for compensation is likely to arise.
I would recommend to your Lordships that it would be wise to remove this clause from the Bill because it is one of the clauses which makes it difficult for the Bill to go much further. It would require Government time and Government money in order for the Bill to go any further. I beg to move that we delete this clause from the Bill, and thus remove the necessity for compensation and therefore, with it, the necessity for money from the Secretary of State—from the Government —to provide for compensation.
Lord KIRK HILL: When the noble Viscount's Bill was considered by the House last year the Government supported the inclusion of compensation provisions in the Bill. We did so in fairness to importers who, in good faith, had imported stock before the date of the Government announcement of support for the introduction of statutory controls on imports on ecological grounds, and who might suffer loss thereby. However, the Government are now satisfied that no demands for retention of the clause have been made on grounds which we would find it necessary to support. Therefore, I commend the omission of Clause 2 to the Committee, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Offences etc.]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("on behalf of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I should like to apologise to the Committee for his absence due to other important work which he is at present undertaking. This Amendment is very little more than a drafting Amendment. This part of Clause 4 requires the authority of the Secretary of State before acting for some scientific or research purpose. Surely it cannot be necessary to restrict this to operations carried out only on behalf of the Secretary of State. This would appear
252
to confine such activity to the Government, or an agency of the Government. Private persons and companies should, in our opinion, be enabled to undertake this task provided they are authorised by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Viscount THURSO: I agree that this is a drafting Amendment. It is one which I would go along with, in that it makes it clear that private persons can also undertake scientific experiments. I also take it that the Secretary of State may undertake scientific experiments, as indeed I hope he will. I am quite happy to accept this drafting Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: The effect of the Amendment would be to widen the scope of the proposed immunity from prosecution by allowing persons other than those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State to be authorised to carry out scientific or research work on prohibited alien species. Since the giving of an authorisation would remain with the Secretary of State, I think that this is sensible, and as a consequence I would support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Expenses]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount THURSO: As we have dropped the need for expenses, I suggest that it would be wise to drop a clause that allows expenses to be incurred by the Secretary of State. I therefore move that we leave out this clause, which is consequential on the deletion of Clause 2.
Lord KIRKHILL: I am assured that with Clause 2 removed from the Bill the expenses under Clause 1 of the Secretary of State, which would normally be described as insignificant, do not require the retention of Clause 5. Therefore, I concur in the noble Viscounts' Amendment.
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause:
Protected wild creatures to he known as endangered wild creatures.
". In the principal Act, for the word "protected" wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "endangered".
The noble Earl said: This is the first of a number of Amendments bringing the Act of 1975 into line with the categories of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Since the Second Reading, as the noble Baroness opposite invited me to, I have held consultations with representatives of her Department and of the NCC. As a result of their advice I have put down Amendments which would ensure that the Bill has but two Schedules defined, as are the first and second categories laid down by the IUCN, as endangered and vulnerable, and using the exact words and some of the exact phrases to define them.
Those categories have long been used internationally. They are now being used in this country to produce what are known as "Red Data Books" dividing all our flora and fauna into the three categories of endangered, vulnerable, and rare. A list of plants so divided has already been published. Lists of vertebrates and most of the insects are about to be published. It seems obviously sensible to bring the 1975 Act into line with those categories of the IUCN. Although we spoke about the creatures on Schedule 1 being endangered, they are in fact defined in the Act as protected. Indeed,
254
the otter, you will remember, was added to Schedule I because it was endangered. This Amendment substitutes "endangered" for "protected" throughout that Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause I, insert the following new clause:
Further restriction on killing etc. endangered wild creatures
". In section 1 of the principal Act the words from "Provided" onwards shall be omitted."
The noble Earl said: This is another Amendment bringing the provisions of the 1975 Act into line with existing Acts. Under the Protection of Birds Act the authorised person may not kill the endangered birds on Schedule 1 even when they are doing damage. That seems to me to be going rather too far, and to cover any difficulty which may arise over that I have put down Amendment No. 28 which gives the Ministry of Agriculture the power to authorise the killing of an endangered or vulnerable species doing serious damage. That will come on later. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I suggest, with the leave of the Committee, that this may be the proper moment to hear the Statement being made in another place on immigration, by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

IMMIGRATION
3.58 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to draw to the attention of the House the Command Paper on control of immigration statistics for

255
1977, which is published today and which contains new information, in particular extensive historical tables showing the pattern of immigration over the past 10 years. The Government's detailed reply to the report of the Select Committee on Immigration will of course be published in the normal way as a White Paper. Meantime I should like to take the opportunity of relieving some anxieties which have been aroused recently.
"Today's Command Paper on statisstics shows a fall in both primary and secondary immigration. By primary, I mean the entry of heads of households, for example, with work permits, and by secondary, the admission of their dependants. The total number from the New Commonweath and Pakistan accepted for settlement on arrival fell from 37,000 in 1976 to 28,000 last year —a reduction of 25 per cent. This reduction supports the Select Committee's view that for some time there has been very little primary immigration from these countries, and I note that the Select Committee has not challenged the accuracy of the Home Office statistics on this issue.
" We can therefore confidently say that, subject to commitments to United Kingdom passport holders under the special voucher scheme, which have been accepted and confirmed by successive Governments, and to those arising out of the Immigration Act 1971 and from our membership of the EEC, "there will be no further major primary immigration in the foreseeable future". The Government fully agree with the Select Committee conclusion that it is not equitable or practical to renounce previous commitments, and I can assure the House and those who would be affected that the Government have no intention of doing so.
" The reduction in the immigration figures shows that there is no need to introduce a new specific annual quota. I think it important to reassure the immigrant communities on this point, particularly in the light of the Select Committee's recommendation—which some have interpreted to mean quotas. This recommendation appears in fact to have been aimed at giving greater priority to the admission of wives and
256
children of those settled here. The figures for wives and children in the Command Paper show that the Government already give priority to them. But we accept that, where necessary, staff should be redeployed to enable even greater flexibility in giving such priority.
"The Government share the Select Committee's view that, for educational and other reasons, children who in any case are going to settle here should spend their formative years in this country, and that, where people have a choice, it is not' in the interests of good race relations deliberately to postpone bringing them here until they reach working age. However, it is not the Government's view that, where in the future a child is born to a wife abroad, the admission of the mother and child to settle in the United Kingdom should normally be limited to children under 12 years of age. We would not contemplate removing or refusing entry to say a 12 year-old girl of a family settled here. To do so would be inhumane.
"The Government note the Select Committee's comments on a register of dependants and its inability to make a recommendation in support of the idea. The Government have reconsidered this matter, but remain of the view that I expressed when the report of the Parliamentary Group under Lord Franks was published:
"It is inherent in the only scheme which the Group thought feasible that a register would be discriminatory, would be incomplete in coverage, would involve long delay in implementation and would be very expensive, and it is clear that it could give no certainty about future numbers ".
"The Select Committee recommends that the Government should institute an independent inquiry to consider a system of internal control of immigration. This would mean identity cards for everyone and new powers to require their production on demand. Such a major change in practice and power, reaching far beyond immigration control, would be objectionable in principle. In the Government's view, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by setting up an inquiry.
"However, the problems of control to which the Select Committee and

257
also the CPRS have drawn attention, particularly as regards illegal employment, are undoubtedly important. We had already taken action on this by opening discussions with the TUC and CBI about how to deal more effectively with illegal entrants and over stayers who take work to which others are entitled. We shall pursue the discussions energetically and I shall report further to the House. Meanwhile, we shall continue to take vigorous action to enforce the immigration control. In 1977, over 1,100 deportation orders were made and, in addition, nearly 500 illegal immigrants were removed.
"Mr. Speaker, immigration is a part, but only a part, of the wider question of race relations. Those who have come to this country have contributed much to British life. They have the assurance that we will honour our commitments to their close dependants. The United Kingdom is now, and will remain, a multi-racial society. Our overriding responsibility is to do all in our power to make it a harmonious one. We have no doubt that, in this, we have the support of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens. The Government is committed to this in its policies for employment, education, the inner cities and other matters. We seek justice and equality of treatment for all who live in this country. That is the purpose to which all of us in the House and the country should devote our energies."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement and for giving me the courtesy of a prior copy of it so that I was able to study its terms before 1 actually heard it. I have not yet been able to compare it with the new Command Paper on immigration control and immigration statistics; therefore I reserve any comment I should wish to make about that. I fully endorse the object of the Government in seeking to relieve anxieties, think this should be the primary object of anyone who speaks about this slightly highly charged subject. I think it would be well to
258
emphasise the points of agreement, which I think are much more important and wider than the points of disagreement, between the noble and learned Lord's Party and my own on this subject because I believe myself that there is nothing less likely to relieve anxieties than the rather sharp and almost hysterical reactions that have come from certain quarters.
I would certainly call upon the noble and learned Lord to acknowledge that all three major Parties in this country, and the overwhelming mass of the population, whatever their feelings about the subject, are determined to pursue a commonsensical and humane policy. In particular we are all of us devoted to the principle of equality before the law, which is the most important principle of all, and we are all of us eager to endorse the principle of honouring commitments already made, which it seems to me ought to remove from this field of controversy some of the most highly charged emotional elements.
We also—at least, I also, and I think in this respect I speak for my Party—agree with the end part of the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord, that, in considering the future of what the noble and learned Lord has called the multiracial society—I am not sure that I altogether like the term myself—general social legislation is of far greater importance than legislation directed to the particular problem of race relations. He has, quite rightly, emphasised policies for employment, education and the inner cities, think that, although I myself might have put education first, as the longer-term value, I would emphasise the same points. So there is a very broad measure of agreement.
I do not want to anticipate what I believe will be a statement in the country by my right honourable friend Mr. William Whitelaw on the same kind of subject. I think that the Government have stolen the march there by 48 hours, but I do not want to anticipate—even if I were in a position to do so—what he may be saying. I should like, however, to express considerable disappointment—I do not put it higher than that—because the Statement contains nothing about what, to my mind, was one of the most important of the recommendations of the Select Committee, which was that the Government should give priority to a British

259
nationality law. I believe myself, and have been saying for years—at one time I persuaded my Party, and I hope that I have persuaded them still—that a great deal of the misunderstanding and of the nonsense which has arisen about this subject has arisen by reason of the fact that we, almost alone of the civilised countries, have lost any rational British nationality law of any kind.
I was myself much heartened by the fact that the Select Committee unanimously asked the Government to give priority to this subject. We were on the verge of doing so. I think that we published our intention of doing so in 1973 before we were unfortunately turned out of office. This was almost the least of the misfortunes which befell this country as a result of that calamity, but it was none the less a misfortune. The Labour Government have dragged their feet almost indefinitely about it. They produced, I think, a Green Paper—not even a White Paper—on the matter approximately 12 months ago. But I really do think that they ought to pick up their skirts (if I may use the phrase) and break into a gentle trot, because I believe this is one of the more important and far-reaching subjects dealt with by the Select Committee.
I would agree with the noble and learned Lord that the demand for an independent inquiry, if it would mean identity cards, would raise very much wider questions of public policy than are involved in the question of immigration. But I am not quite sure why the Government Statement was so certain that that is what the inquiry would mean, because recommendations Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the Select Committee's report have nothing to do with identity cards and could well suggest various practical ways of enforcing control that would not have involved identity cards at all. However, I think that the question of identity is one that must arouse the interest of anyone who has travelled on the Continent of Europe. We find that they are living fairly happy lives even though they sometimes require one to produce a pièce d'identité in order to establish who one is. That is a much wider question than immigration. I do not want to pursue it now.
There is one other thing, which was not contained in the Select Committee's
260
report or in the Government's Statement, that I should like to press on the noble and learned Lord; and that is the question of reciprocity. We seem to let people into this country when the countries from which they come do not provide anything like reciprocity of treatment to our own nationals who want to go there. Is it not time that we did, delicately and diplomatically, press upon our Commonwealth and other friends that Britain is independent too, and that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? A proper immigration law and a proper nationality law are, after all—if carried through with a due regard to international law and commitments, and humanity—part of the sovereignty of a country. It is, I believe, time that people stopped talking as if, when we ask for no more than other countries demand for themselves, we should be called racists, when all we are doing is saying that Britain is independent, too.
4.17 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we warmly welcome his Statement, so far as it goes? In particular we welcome the fact that it concludes with a recognition of the enormous contribution that many immigrants have made to the national, economic, cultural and sporting life of this country. In all these matters very much depends on the tone which is adopted. In the case of the Select Committee, I think that it was not at all helpful, indicating, as it did, that immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan is a problem which has to be dealt with. This Statement, which concludes with a welcome to immigrants from the New Commonwealth who are already here, helps to redress that balance. The Statement redresses the balance in some other ways. Relieving anxieties, as it says, is very important.
Is it not important to begin by stating that the figures show no cause for anxiety whatsoever, and that the number of immigrants coming here, both from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan and from foreign countries, is absolutely trivial compared with the population of this country? It is a lie—and a racist lie—to say that immigrants are responsible for the difficulties that we face in unemployment, in housing and education. The more

261
often we get up and say that in public, the less likely it is that this lie can be exploited by racist elements such as the National Front.
Do we not repudiate altogether the racist premise that it is only immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan with which we are concerned? Would it not be better, therefore, in any Statement such as this, not to confine attention to those sources of immigration, as the Statement does? That is about the only criticism that I have to make of it.
With regard to the quotas, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we very warmly welcome the repudiation of any suggestion that a quota should be imposed on immigration from the Indian subcontinent or anywhere else? Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that if we did impose a quota, while at the same time maintaining the sanctity of our obligations, this would merely defer the date on which primary immigration would be brought to an end? Because the quota would simply result in the creation of an enormous queue composed of persons to whom we had such an obligation, which would, in the end, have to be honoured.
As to the question of the queue, can the noble and learned Lord say when the Government will be in a position to say something about the one positive and helpful recommendation of the Select Committee on the 5,000 quota vouchers which were made available originally to United Kingdom passport holders of Indian ethnic origin in East Africa, and subsequently extended to the people who migrated from East Africa to India? When will they be in a position to respond to the recommendation of the Select Committee that this quota should be made available on a global basis and not divided into separate sub-quotas for each individual country, which has resulted since 1972 in the build-up of an enormous backlog of applications from India?
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that we very warmly welcome also the rejection of the idea of the register of dependents, and that we endorse what the Home Secretary had to say about this at the time when the report of the Parliamentary group under Lord Franks was published? We think it is a pity that
262
the idea should have been resuscitated by the Select Committee.
We also warmly welcome the firm rejection of any system of internal controls. Would that not be absolutely countrary to everything we stand for in this country? I refer not only to the introduction of a system of identity cards; but probably, to enforce it, the police would have to go round on a house-to-house basis, knocking at doors late at night to find out whether any illegal immigrants were behind them. When, from time to time, this has been done by the police in the past, vigorous protests had to be made to the Home Secretary and he at once acted to stop the practice. I hope that when the statement by the Conservative Party is issued on Saturday it will follow the restrained tones that the Home Secretary has adopted this afternoon.
4.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for what has really been a broad welcome to this Statement. Its purpose has clearly been to relieve anxieties and I hope that that may be the result of the publication of the Statement. 1 assure the noble and learned Lord that there was not a deliberate intention on the part of the Government to shoot Mr. Whitelaw's fox, if I may put it that way, although he may well feel a sense of indignation that that may be the consequence of the publication of this Statement.
The noble and learned Lord reaffirmed the view that the Home Secretary has expressed that our overriding responsibility now is to do all in our power to make our society a harmonious and tolerant society of people who must learn to live together. We have been very good at it down the centuries; the fact that I am here making this speech now is perhaps an illustration of that degree of tolerance. I hasten to add that my forebears were here first anyway, but that is merely by the way. That, I am glad to note, is an attitude which has been reflected in what the noble and learned Lord said, and I think that is the view of the vast majority of people in this country too.
There is clearly a responsibility on the Government, and we accept it, to deal

263
with those areas of the greatest difficulty where the worst problems arise; in the inner cities and depressed urban areas, and there are the proposals of the Government for improvements in the fields—I am very willing to put education first—of education and employment. Although it must be faced that unemployment in the inner cities, affecting the young immigrants in particular, is one of our serious problems. Of course I reaffirm his own commitment, as a devoted lover of the common law, to the whole concept of equality and to the honouring of commitments.
As to British nationality law, I am not sure that the present Government have been very much more laggard than their predecessor in this respect. But we have published the Green Paper—it is a complex matter. We have sought views and opinions on the matter, and we have been in close touch with Commonwealth Governments, who may have their own views. We hope to publish a white Paper setting out our practical and definite proposals as soon as practicable. I share the impatience of the noble and learned Lord about lack of reciprocity, and we have used what influence is available to us to discourage policies in other countries which have resulted in the rendering homeless of their inhabitants who may indeed have been there for decades, if not generations.
Lord Avebury also welcomed the Statement, and I share his recognition of the contribution that the immigrants have made. I am glad to note that he agreed with the major points that arise from that Statement. With regard to the queues to which he referred, it is true that there still are queues and delays, but much as been done in recent years to reduce them, without I think relaxing the necessary checks against attempted abuse. The queues fell throughout 1977, and so did average waiting times. I am grateful for the reception which the Statement has received.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I wish briefly to add a few words to the welcome which has already been given to the Statement, for not only is it a humane document and a Statement which we were afraid might not come out as humanely as it has, but it seems to me
264
to be a very wise Statement. We are going through a rather bad economic time at present, but we hope to get out of that and, when we do, we shall need these immigrants, as we have needed them before, to help in our economic progress.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her characteristic intervention, if I may say so; I know the work she does in the United Nations and has done for so long in this field, and the Government welcome her words.
Lord JACOBSON: My Lords, there is one point about which I should like a comment from my noble and learned friend. I welcome the Statement very much indeed, being myself the son of an immigrant, and I welcome the cool and rational language in which it is expressed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, referred rightly to the highly charged atmosphere which surrounds this particular problem, and in this highly charged atmosphere words are enormously important. If some of those who have made recent statements about immigration had been a little more careful about the choice of the words they used, perhaps we should not have had what the noble Lord called the hysterical reaction.
On this point, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether in future Statements of this kind he would ask his colleagues in the Government to avoid words like "primary" and secondary "? Such words have a very clinical sound about them, and I know from experience that they cause a certain amount of offence, or if not offence then bewilderment. Statements of this kind are read very carefully by members of the Asian and African communities in this country. The noble and learned Lord himself subsequently used much more understandable phrases like "heads of households" and "dependants; perhaps we could stick to that kind of phraseology and avoid words like primary" and "secondary".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am certainly happy to take that advice from a great communicator, which know my noble friend Lord Jacobson

265
has been throughout his distinguished career in Fleet Street and journalism. The point is well taken and I entirely agree with it.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("principal Act") and insert ("Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act").
The noble Lord said: The next Amendment which stands in my name, No. 3, has been blown off course by the acceptance of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, so I had better not attempt to move Amendment No. 3 this afternoon, hut, rather, return to the subject on Report.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, after ("If") insert (", save as may be permitted by or under this Act,")
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 7, after ("destroys") insert ("impedes").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. If it were accepted, the provision would read:
"If any person wilfully destroys, impedes or disturbs the sleeping refuge or the nest …"
The word "destroys" rather envisages somebody killing the unweaned occupants of the nest or refuge, while the word "disturbs" could, I presume, mean somebody having a noisy engine near the nest or perhaps disturbing it by walking far too close to the nest so that that would eventually destroy the occupants because the parents would desert them. There are many other ways of killing a pig than sticking it. That is why I have inserted the word "impedes" after "destroys".
There are many ways of impeding. For instance, one could impede the parent going to feed the young by erecting a fence to impede the habitual run by which the parent goes out to feed herself and return to the nest. If she cannot get back to the nest the unweaned young will be destroyed. One might block up an entry into a barn or into a small recess where there were unweaned young, and that also would destroy them. The course of a stream could be altered, causing a flood and that would destroy the young. Those methods of destruction are really indirect through impeding. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will be accepted. I cannot see that it can do any harm if it is accepted. It would only serve to protect further the nest or refuge of unweaned young. beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: If I may intervene here, I should like to say that from the Government's point of view we are not quite sure how one would legally define what impeding a nest actually means. It is a matter for the noble Earl to decide whether he will accept the Amendment, but, with respect, I would suggest that Amendment No. 8, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, may meet the needs and may be more easily understood than the word "impeding" the nest
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Without wishing to be in any way rude to him, I would suggest to my noble friend that he has a look at the Oxford English Dictionary. One can only impede something which is in motion. The nest, or the resting place, is a stationary object, and one cannot put one's foot in front of it. I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment, because I do not think it means anything at all.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: One can impede the parents going to feed their young, and therefore destroy the young. Perhaps the Amendment ought to have been better worded, and perhaps I ought to have included the word "parent" and access to, and one or two more words. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I may come back to this matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 8, after (" refuge ") insert (" while occupied ").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to meet one endangered species which is already included in Schedule 1, and there may be others like it in the future. The Greater Horseshoe Bat hibernates during the winter in caves. It spends the summer in breeding colonies in the roofs of houses. I do not think any of your Lordships would wish to prevent cavers from going into the caves that bats occupy in the winter if they do it during the summer, or to prevent a householder from going into his attics. This Amendment, and Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10 are intended to protect these two classes of persons. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 8, after ("refuge") insert ("or any endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: The clause having been amended, it would seem that it would read more happily if it were modestly redrafted in the manner provided by this Amendment and Amendment No. 9. These are purely drafting Amendments. They alter the order of the wording of the clause to make it more easily understandable without in any way altering the sense. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 8, leave out (" unweaned ") and insert (" dependant ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a small point which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, as reported at column 483 of the Official Report of 26th January, when I pointed out that some young, though weaned, are nevertheless dependent upon their parents for food, and therefore the word "dependant" is perhaps more appropriate than the word "unweaned". I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: This is an improvement, and I hope that your
268
Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 9, leave out (" protected or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal ") and insert (" such creature").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting matter. I referred to this in moving Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: This also is an improvement, and I recommend your Lordships to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert:
(" Provided that an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of disturbing an endangered or vulnerable wild creature within a dwelling-house.")
The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which I have just referred, to protect the householder once again in going into his own attic. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on sale of vulnerable wild creatures
" .In section 2(1) of the principal Act after the word "Schedule 1" there shall be inserted the words "or Schedule 3".
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that it shall not be an offence against this section to kill or injure an invertebrate wild creature or to take its eggs.").
The noble Earl said: During the Second Reading debate there were criticisms as to the difficulty which the man-in-

269
the-street might have in identifying insects which were vulnerable; and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of people who had an obsession about spiders and could not see one without treading on it. That sort of action does little harm from the conservation point of view. The effect of the casual or occasional killing of one of a vulnerable species is negligible: it is only when such action is concentrated on a colony that the effect can be disastrous. I have therefore made it a provision that casual or occasional killing of an endangered species is not an offence. Similarly, I am informed that from the conservation point of view no harm is done by entomologists who take the eggs of butterflies and moths and rear them; it is a common and popular practice. This Amendment, therefore, would also prevent their committing an offence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("Subject to subsection (4) below.").
The noble Earl said: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("injuring").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My remarks in moving Amendment No. 14, will apply also to Amendment No. 15 and to the subsequent Amendments, Nos. 19 and 20. This Amendment proposes to delete the word "injuring" from the protection which is given by this clause of the Bill. The simple point is that we do not wish to protect anyone who deliberately injures a vulnerable species, even for scientific purposes. An animal covered by the protection afforded to the vulnerable species may be injured in an attempt at killing which is fully covered by the Bill; but I think we could not condone, even for scientific purposes, the shooting of an animal to see how badly disabled it might be, and whether, if it were disabled, it could sustain itself. Under my Amendment such an act would be unlawful, though there would be a complete defence if a person were attempting to kill an animal,
270
in conditions under which he were permitted to do so, but, instead of killing it outright, injured it. These are fine points but, nevertheless, it is important that injuring per se should not be protected under the Bill, though injuring in an attempt to kill in circumstances covered by the Bill would not, of course, be an offence. I hope I have made myself clear on this small Amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Again, I think this is an improvement, for which I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope your Lordships will accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("injuring").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 13, leave out (" in any one ten kilometre square of the national grid ") and insert (" on any site ").
The noble Earl said: This is more of a probing Amendment than anything else, because this subsection defines the basic difference between the needs of the endangered species, which are in Schedule 1, and of the vulnerable ones, which are to be placed in Schedule 3. As to the endangered species in Schedule I, the only change we are likely to anticipate is that they should become more common, when, at the quinquennial review by the NCC, they will be removed from the Schedule. They can wait that time; there is no need to worry about them; they are perfectly safe; and the delay of one, two, three or four years makes little or no difference.
The vulnerable species are in a very different position. They can move into that endangered category, but are not yet near it. Therefore, it is essential that we should be able to monitor them so that we can know if and when they approach the danger point, and that inevitably involves taking them to see what is happening. Ideally, they are identified in the hand, in the net, in the catch-alive trap, or with hook and line; but in the case of some species that is not possible, and they have to be removed entirely from the population and closely

271
examined, perhaps under a microscope. If that is going to be done, it is essential that the number taken must be limited by time—I have said over a year—and by the area over which it can be done.
The ten kilometre square has become the normal area so far as natural history is concerned. Twenty atlases showing the distribution of species of our fauna and flora over the ten kilometre squares into which they are divided have been published; 40 more are in course of preparation, and I am told that some of them are near publication. About 5,000 species have already been covered by that method, and I am told that the number will approach 10,000 species when the work has been completed. So the use of the ten kilometre square as an area over which all species of our fauna and flora is distributed is now generally accepted among naturalists.
It was suggested on Second Reading, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, who sits in front of me, and certainly by the noble Baroness opposite, that the ten kilometre square was an awkward area. I have therefore put down this Amendment purely as a probing Amendment, to see whether either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, can suggest a better area than the ten kilometre square. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The Government are aware that the ten kilometre square principle attracted quite considerable criticism when it was referred to during the Second Reading debate, and we consider this Amendment, which the noble Earl refers to as a probing Amendment, an improvement on what we had in the Bill originally. I think it still leaves room for argument, perhaps, as to what is a site, and we may still have some enforcement problems to look at; but, so far as the Government are concerned, we prefer this Amendment to what is in the original Bill, and, perhaps, between now and Report stage, if the noble Earl would leave it in, we can give it more consideration and have further talks about it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I should like to say that, so far as I am
272
concerned, I welcome it whenever one can make something appear simpler and easier of understanding—and these Bills are complicated enough without having to come back to a ten kilometre grid map.
Lord AIREDALE: Perhaps the interval between now and the Report stage could be used to try to define a site for the purpose of the clause.
Baroness STEDMAN: That is one of our problems. That is why we should like time to consider between now and Report stage; but I hope that the noble Earl will, with the leave of the Committee, leave it in.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I must confess to have been profoundly disappointed at what, if I was not inherently chivalrous, I would call the intelligence of the Front Benches on both sides." However, I refer only to my own Front Bench and I would perhaps suggest that the noble Baroness may be mistaken. The trouble about sites is that, when you have a wild creature distributed over quite a small area—the sort of area covered by two or three ten-kilometre squares—there may be 100 or more sites where colonies of that wild creature are established. Under the Bill as it stands, in those two ten-kilometre squares, an individual could take only four specimens. If this Amendment is accepted, should your Lordships refuse me permission to withdraw it, there will be 100 sites on which 200 specimens could be taken—quite a considerable drain on the population in that relatively small area. I do not believe that the site is the right thing. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw this Amendment and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could arrange for me to have discussions with somebody to see if we can find a better one. In the old days, naturalists used counties and half counties and sometimes used parishes. I find it difficult not to go for the area which is known to every naturalist in England.
Baroness STEDMAN: We think that the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl today is a very significant advance on what we had in the original Bill. We accept that it is not perfect and, if

273
the noble Earl will accept my assurance, I should be happy to meet him with my officials to see whether we can find something better before Report stage.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I begleave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The EARL of CRANBROOK The EARL of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("one").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 18
Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said This is an important Amendment. It is one of those I have already mentioned which removes Schedule 4 altogether and leave us only the two Schedules, "Endangered" and "Vulnerable", Nos. 1 and 3. There is a third IUCN category—" Rare "—which is defined as creatures which are not at present endangered or vulnerable but are at risk. I was advised by the officers of the NCC that it is not necessary at the moment to cater for the "rare" category and, obviously, it will have to be included in the comprehensive Bill that we ultimately hope to see overtake the 1975 Act.
I must remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said on the Second Reading in 1974 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures Bill, which became part of the Act in 1975,
"The protection measures of this Bill are inflexible"—
that is, the Act we are now operating under—
"There is no scope for partial protection to be afforded to species which are uncommon but not rare".
This is the species we now call "vulnerable". Nevertheless, the NCC advised Parliament, and Parliament agreed, that we should cater only for the endangered species and should have only one Schedule giving complete protection and not have a second Schedule giving partial protection to endangered species.
But we have known since that date—and some of us before that date; that is, before the Act became law—that at some time, sooner or later, provision would have to be made for those creatures which Lord Melchett defined as needing partial protection because they were not endangered but only uncommon—what we now call "vulnerable". I was not surprised, therefore, when the Otter Committee set up by the NCC reported last year that there was need for amendment to the Act to provide protection for wild creatures before they become rare to the point of being endangered—almost the very words that Lord Melchett used—and this Bill is the result.
I must give the same warning that Lord Melchett gave us in 1974 that, sooner or later, we must find it necessary to have a comprehensive Act dealing with the rare wild creatures as well as the endangered and vulnerable ones—and, even if that is not necessary today the time must come. If that comprehensive Bill is not brought forward fairly soon, another amending Bill will have to come up. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Segal) I must point out that, if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amenthents Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: I was advised by the officers of the NCC that this subsection was both unnecessary and undesirable. Therefore, I beg to move that it be deleted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Schedules of vulnerable wild creatures]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 32, leave out (" Schedules ") and insert (" Schedule ").
The noble Earl said: The Schedules that I presented at Second Reading were much criticised on all sides of the House. The Amendments to which the Committee have agreed, that we should only have two Schedules of endangered and vulnerable species, means that most of the species on the Schedules which were included in the Bill as it was introduced fall into the third IUCN category of "rare" and would not in any case come onto a Schedule for vulnerable species. I have however introduced only a small number of those which I have no doubt the NCC, on investigation, would find it necessary to include in the Schedule.
All of these are vulnerable to the extent that they are only found on one site or one or two sites. Although I am quite ready to be cross-examined by your Lordships on any individual species, I am not prepared to say where those sites are. I hope that it is totally unnecessary to satisfy the Committee that they are rightly there. To reveal them could be dangerous.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 5 and insert—

("Scientific name

Common name

SPIDERS

Dolomedes plantarius

BUTTERFLIES

Carterocephalus palaemon

Chequered Skipper

Melitaea athalia

Heath Fritillary Moms

MOTHS

Idaea lineata

Black-veined

Pareulype berherata

Barberry Carpet

Thetidia smaragclaria

Essex Emerald

BEETLES

Chrysolina cerealis

DRAGONFLIES

Aeshna isoscles

Norfolk Aeshna

GRASSHOPPERS AND CRICKETS

Decticus verrucivorus

Wart-biter

Gryllus campestris

Field Cricket

Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa

Mole Cricket

MOLLUSCS

Myxas glutinosa

Glutinous snail

Catinella arenaria

Sandbowl snail

Monacha certusiana

Carthusian snail

FISH

Lota Iota

Burbot

Cobitis taenia

Spined loach

MAMMAL

Muscardinus avellanarius

Dormouse.")

The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to make some reservation at this point about the inclusion of the two fish species. Fish have not previously been protected under this legislation, and the prohibition on the killing, injuring and taking of certain species of fish has some possible implications for angling as a fish can be identified only after it has been caught, and by which time damage may have been done. It cannot he assumed that all anglers would be able to identify the fish if they should catch one of them. If this Amendment is passed today, we would have to reserve our position on it and have further consultations with MAFF and perhaps come back at the next stage.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I should be very happy to take that advice from the noble Baroness after those consultations. Indeed, if I could be present at the consultations, I should be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Consequential Amendments of principal Act]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 31, leave out (" 3 or 4 ") and insert (" or 3 ").
The noble Earl said: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 34, leave out (" protected ") and insert (" endangered ").
The noble Earl said: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON I should like to ask my noble friend one question here because in this clause we have mention of Section 6 of the main Act. It has been drawn to my attention tht we might be able to improve the Act. The noble Earl may not be able to answer

277
my question now, but perhaps he could let me know in due course. In the main Act Section 6 says that a person is not guilty of an offence for taking any protected wild creature which has been disabled other than by his own act. It has been drawn to my attention that we might be able to improve this Act by saying that this is not an offence if disablement is caused accidentally. lf, when driving a motor car, one runs over an animal which is on the endangered Schedule, at the moment one has to collect somebody else to take the animal home to tend it.
The suggestion is that in a case like that there ought to be some form of amendment to the main Act to allow the person who injured the animal to take it back and tend it. I merely ask whether my noble friend thinks there is any merit in trying to improve that point of the main Act at this stage of the Bill. I hasten to add that one would have to be careful not to widen the ability of people to take advantage of this unscrupulously. That would be a detail for people far more expert with words than myself.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: This was a point which was argued out at great length by a number of noble and learned Lords when the 1975 Act went through, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will remember because he was present. If he feels strongly about this perhaps he might consider putting an Amendment down for the Report stage. I hope that he will ensure that either there is a whole bevy of noble and learned Lords to advise us or that there is none, so that we do not get into difficulties.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Schedules to be altered only in accordance with s. 12 of principal Act]:
5.7 p.m.
The EARL of CRANBROOK The EARL of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("accompanied by the evidence which led them to give that advice").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is complementary to Clause 9 of the Bill and is indeed in line with the ethos of the 1975 Act which to some extent differed from other conservation Acts, most of which give power to a Minister to vary
278
Schedules and the like by order on the advice of some body like the Advisory Committee on Birds, the NCC or similar bodies who know what they are about. But none of them, save the 1975 Act, provide for the publication of the advice which led the Minister to make that order in the annual report of the appropriate body. That seemed to noble Lords in 1975—it certainly seemed to me then and seems to me now—that particularly in a matter like this, where there are a large number of your Lordships, anyhow, who are interested and knowledgeable in conservation matters, and a very large number of the general public who are similarly interested and similarly knowledgeable, that the more of what has come to be called "open government" that we can introduce, the better.
It seems to me that the people with whom under the Act the Minister has to consult should be given the fullest possible information in order to make that consultation something really useful and not farcial as it can become if no information is available and they are just given a bald fact and asked to comment on it. We have only had one order under the 1975 Act—that is on the otter—and two national bodies have told me that they felt that the information then given to the consultees was not sufficient. They have supported me in suggesting this Amendment. The organisations are: the Friends of the Earth and the Council for Nature. I am assured by the officers of the Nature Conservancy Council that this would not inflict any greater burden on them. They have to prepare this statement in any case. I hope your Lordships will agree that it should go to the consultees, and I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I think the point raised by the noble Earl is an important one. Many of us will recollect that when the otter order was being discussed, in effect this point was being raised. I think the matter should always be made clear when some recommendation comes from a body set up under the Act. The explanation should quite explicitly state the reasons for the advice that is given, and I would strongly support the noble Earl on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
5.12 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved I Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
Removal of creatures from Schedule 1.
". After section 7(1) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the words—
"Provided that if, in the exercise of his power under this section, he removes a wild creature from Scheule 1 to this Act, he shall forthwith add it to Schedule 3 to this Act."."
The noble Lord said: In a sense, Amendment No. 27 is a tidying up Amendment, but perhaps I might point out to your Lordships at this point that we are here concerned with Section 7 of the principal Act, solely with the duties of the Secretary of State, no matter how he is advised. We do not want to get confused by the later Clause 7 of the Bill to which we shall come in a moment, which deals with the duties of the Nature Conservancy Council in advising the Secretary of State. This Amendment says in effect that the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers and removing a wild creature from Schedule 1—which I would remind your Lordships is the "endangered" Schedule—must automatically add it to the "vulnerable" section to make absolutely clear that it does not disappear altogether from legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Obviously, as I put my name to the noble Lord's Amendment, I recommend your Lordships to accept it. I would add just one point. An animal in Schedule 1 is protected against killing, taking, selling and the like, and even if it recovers sufficiently to be taken in small numbers, very few wild creatures which have been as rare as that can stand being taken for commercial purposes, which is still forbidden under the third Schedule. I think the gradual decrease in the amount of protection given should not go too far at one time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert—
("(ee) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land crops, poultry or other forms of property, to kill or take within a specified area by any specified means any
280
specified number of specifed endangered or vulnerable wild creatures;or").
The noble Earl said: The NCC, I think, was not happy about being given the duty of controlling the commercial exploitation of wild creatures—I think very largely because they could not see any wild creatures likely to want protection in the near future, and they did not feel they were an appropriate body for giving licences. This Amendment therefore leaves out lines 42 to 46 but it inserts another paragraph to cover Amendment No. 2, in order to allow the Ministry of Agriculture to give a licence to somebody who is suffering serious damage from a protected or vulnerable wild creature, to destroy it. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Segal): I have to point out to the Committee if this Amendment No. 28 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 29 to 32.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 not moved.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 47, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In section 8(2) of the principal Act, for the words "paragraph (e)", there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs (e) and (ee)".").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 33 is consequential upon Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
Forfeiture
".For section 11(2) of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
"(2) The court before which any person is charged with an offence, if he is convicted, or acquitted by reason only of a defence provided under this Act, shall order the forfeiture of any wild creatureor plant to

281
which the charge relates, and such forfeiture shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the Nature Conservancy Council.
(3) The court before which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture and subsequent destruction of anything which is capable of being used for committing an offence under this Act, and which is found in the possession of that person," ".
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill I made a rather flippant point about natterjack toads jumping round police stations. This Amendment is really meant to make sure that that sort of thing does not happen, and indeed it goes much further than that. The new clause substitutes for the existing section 11(2) in the principal Act two new subsections. Subsection (2) takes existing forfeiture provisions on conviction, in relation to the animal or plant concerned and expands them. I am advised that this is because the person may have committed an act of violence on an animal but may have an excuse under the Act—for example, prudent mercy killing—and so he will be acquitted. Nevertheless, in most cases the animal should be taken away and dealt with. Forfeiture provisions are therefore extended by this Amendment to acquittal by reasons of special circumstances under the Act.
Secondly, in circumstances where such activity has been proved, whether or not there has been a subsequent conviction, forfeiture is made compulsory. In suitable circumstances the animal or plant—though 1 accept that here we are talking chiefly about animals—although forfeited, can be returned to the owner. I understand that happens, for example, under the Customs and Excise Act 1952, but I contend that the owner is not necessarily the best person to deal with it. Obviously it is easy enough for an owner to replant a bulb or a plant, or whatever it happens to be, in many cases though not in all; but if I were suddenly landed with a badger or an otter, I do not know what I would do with it. This is the reason for that.
Thirdly, I think that the court has to deal—this is really the probing part of the Amendment—with the forfeited animal, in accordance with the directions of the
282
NCC. At present, there arc no directions as to what to do with it, although we were told again by the noble Baroness on Second Reading what is the current practice. But that does not mean to say that the same practice will continue. In the case of birds, they are usually handed over to the RSPB. The NCC will obviously know far better than the court what is in the best interests of conservation, and can direct accordingly. The possibility of return of the animal or plant to the owner is therefore admitted, as 1 said earlier. Incidentally, Section 10(3) of the Badgers Act 1973 also includes compulsory forfeiture of badgers, or indeed of their skins.
The new subsection (3) extends the provisions yet again. It repeats, to a certain extent, the existing forfeiture provisions in relation to the implements used for these offences. But it leaves forfeiture discretionary, because the survival of the species is not directly involved—at least, this would appear to be the reason—as indeed may be the case with a live animal. Under Section 3 of the Act as it stands, the police do not have power to seize things capable of being used for ringing protected and certain non-protected wild creatures, and also for uprooting plants. The power of forfeiture is therefore extended from things capable of being used for killing and taking protected wild creatures, to things
"capable of being used for committing an offence under this Act."
This, again, has provenance in Section 10(3) of the Badgers Act 1973. 1 beg to move.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: May I make just one point? This Amendment seems rather wide. It says:
"·destruction of anything which is capable of being used for committing an offence under this Act".
Does that include, for example, a man's car? He might not be able to get to the site without a car, or he might run down a protected species. As I said, this Amendment seems rather wide.
Baroness STEDMAN: We appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, which he voiced on Second Reading, and acknowledge that he has done something to try to get what he wants inserted into the Act.

283
As we interpret what he has proposed, it would mean widening the forfeiture provisions of Section 11(2) of the 1975 Act in four different ways: first, by extending the forfeiture to persons acquitted by reason only of the defence provided under the Act; secondly, by providing that forfeiture shall be dealt with under the direction of the NCC; thirdly, by allowing the forfeited implements to be destroyed and, finally, by extending the forfeiture to the implements used against protected plants.
We understand the noble Lord's concern and what he is trying to get at. But I think that the idea in the first part of the Amendment, of imposing penalties on an acquitted person, is a very strange one, and we might run into considerable difficulties when dealing with normal legal principles. So far as the Government are concerned, they must ask the Committee to look at the Amendment very carefully and not to accept this part of it. But I think the other three points included in the noble Lord's Amendment, while perhaps not being exactly what he wants, or what we would want, are something that we could perhaps consider and look at and come back to again—if the noble Lord would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment now. But we would certainly find the first part of the Amendment very repugnant.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I must confess that I feel the same as the noble Baroness about my noble friend's Amendment. I thought that the answer which the noble Baroness was able to give him after that interlude on Second Reading should have answered all his difficulties, and he is perhaps now trying to have his cake and eat it, and rather gobbling it instead of eating it. In particular, I think that the second subsection of his Amendment would raise very considerable difficulty, because if somebody is catching a vulnerable butterfly and has in his pocket a trowel, which has nothing to do with the offence he is committing, it will then have to be confiscated. If my noble friend could withdraw the Amendment and discuss it with the Department, we might get something better on Report stage.
Lord AIREDALE: It might not be a small thing like a trowel. Someone might
284
be carrying a valuable shotgun, and into his path might flutter a butterfly which he might illegally kill. Under the new subsection as drawn he would be liable to forfeiture,
"of anything which is capable of being used for committing an offence under this Act".
The shotgun would be capable of committing that offence, but not of killing the butterfly. This illustrates that the new subsection (3) is at present rather too widely drawn.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to your Lordships for picking such enormous holes in my arguments. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, with, of course, the proviso that I can take up the noble Baroness's offer and have discussions with her in order to get a little closer to what I should like to see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
Licences.
".—(l) In section 8(2) of the principal Act (authorities for the grant of licences), in paragraph (a), for "the Nature Conservancy Council" there shall be substituted "the Secretary of State".
(2) After section 8(2) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following new subsection:—
" (2A) The appropriate authority under subsection (1) above may charge for the issue of a licence such sum (if any) as is for the time being prescribed by order by the Secretary of State, and any such sums received shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."."
The noble Lord said: The first part of the new clause, which is in two parts, proposes to take away from the Nature Conservancy Council its existing powers to grant licences for otherwise prohibited dealings. The principal Act gives power to grant these licences to the Nature Conservancy Council. My proposal is to take that power away from them and to give it to whom it properly belongs; namely, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Licences under Acts of Parliament are generally granted by public bodies having a ministerial head, who is to be accountable to Parliament, and probably, in the good order of things,

285
the granting of licences under the principal Act should go to the Department of the Environment and not remain with the Nature Conservancy Council. That is the first proposition.
The second proposition is to give to the appropriate authority who grants the licences, who under my first proposal would be the Secretary of State for the Environment, power to charge for the granting of licences to cover administrative costs. There may be objections to charges. It has been suggested that perhaps your Lordships' House is not the authority to impose any charge at all on the citizen, so I probably risk being sent to the Tower, or wherever noble Lords who are transgressing the Ark of the Covenant of the prerogatives of another place are sent. However, I will chance it. This proposal is that charges may be made for the granting of licences, to cover administrative costs. It is legitimised by a provision in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, which was a Government Bill two Sessions ago. So that the principle of charges in this area is not a strange one. There it is. If there is any pressure against me, 1 shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for further consideration. But 1 offer these comments in support of the Amendments, for consideration by the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: As my noble friend has said, the first part of his Amendment makes the Secretary of State the licensing authority instead of the NCC, while the second part of his Amendment gives power to charge for the issue of the licences. The Government have very strong feelings about this. In the first case, we have no expertise to take over the licensing function, which is based very largely on scientific criteria. We think that the NCC is the obvious body to perform these functions, and there is no reason why it should not continue to do so. We should strongly resist additional duties being put on to the Secretary of State.
Turning to the second part of my noble friend's Amendment which deals with charging for the issue of licences, we believe that the amount that would accrue from it would not be worth the cost of the collection. We are not sure that the principle of paying for licences for such
286
purposes as educational research would not arouse very strong feelings and create difficulties for us in the conservation field. In the light of those observations, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his Amendment. If he wishes to have further consultations with the officials of my Department and with the noble Lord opposite, am sure that there will be no difficulties about it.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, and I hope that the noble Lord will he prepared to withdraw his Amendment. I should like to stress in particular the undesirability of charging for the issue of licences to people who are doing valuable research and other work which is of real benefit to the community. Even if it brought in £100 or £200, I believe that it would be wrong to charge.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I said a moment or two ago that if I was put under even the slightest pressure, I should ask for leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am all against arousing strong feelings, except on Canadian seal culling and other kindred subjects, but I am all in favour of avoiding additional expense in Government Departments in order to recover negligible amounts of taxation. I think that the arguments against me are sufficiently strong, for the moment at any rate, for me to ask for leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to allow me to give further thought to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 10, leave out from (" that ") to (" by ") in line 12 and insert (" it is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature or wild plant").
The noble Earl said: This is another of those Amendments which brings our definitions in the Bill into line with the IUCN. In fact, the Bill speaks about the status of a creature in Schedule 1 being endangered when what is meant is that the creature itself is endangered. This is

287
merely a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments 37, 38 and 39 not moved.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 24, leave out from beginning to (" and ") in line 36 and insert (" or has become so seriously depleted or so fragmented that its ultimate security is not assured and it is likely to move into the endangered category and it should be included in Schedule 3 to this Act either generally or with respect to a particular area or in relation to a particular category and either at all times or at particular times of the year or has so far recovered its former density that it is no longer vulnerable and should he removed therefrom ")
The noble Earl said: Again this Amendment uses the very words and phrases contained in the definitions given by the IUCN for its category "vulnerable". However, I believe that noble Lords might care to think a little more deeply about this question instead of just accepting it as being part and parcel of the changeover in the Bill. The noble Baroness tells me that the NCC believes that for legislative purposes difficulties are involved in differentiating between endangered and vulnerable species. 1 am not quite clear whether this means the definitions which help the NCC to decide into which category a wild creature should be put. However, I should have thought your Lordships would believe that the differences between the categorisation brought about by this Amendment and that brought about by the Amendment dealing with endangered species to which your Lordships have just agreed are sufficiently distinct to make it fairly easy to distinguish between them.
Perhaps that is theory, but we have got the ounce of practice which many naturalists have gained over the past few years in producing what are known as red data hooks. These have categorised the animals in a number of countries into the three categories of the IUCN to which I have already referred; namely, the endangered, the vulnerable and the rare. Part of a red data book dividing all of our plants into those three categories has just been published, and I understand that further sections dividing all vertebrates into those categories is about to be published. Another section on all of the insects which
288
have been really well investigated will follow very shortly.
We have here a series of field naturalists dividing—without any very great difficulty, I am informed—the wild creatures and wild plants, the whole of our flora and fauna, into those three categories of "endangered", "vulnerable" and "rare", according to the definitions of the IUCN. I have consulted the head of the Biological Records Centre which has been deeply involved with the whole of this work, just as it has been involved with the distribution lists to which I have already referred. It seemed to me that difficulties must be involved in taking what must essentially be a subjective judgment when deciding upon borderline cases: whether the animal is, as the definition states, getting towards the endangered category, or has actually reached it, or has not yet got there and should be called vulnerable. The head of the Biological Records Centre assured me that the committees concerned had not found this to be a very difficult judgment to make—because a number of minds working together will reach what can almost be called an objective decision—and that they had managed to work out a method of getting all of the meristic characteristics into the questions under discussion. I believe that this gives us a very clear-cut difference between "endangered" and "vulnerable", and there should not be any difficulties about it. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The next three Amendments are Amendments to Amendment No. 40. Therefore we should proceed to those Amendments before returning to Amendment No. 40.
[Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: We return, then, to Amendment No. 40. The question is that this Amendment be agreed to?
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 40. I followed what the noble Earl has said, and I have tried to read and understand what is contained in the original draft and what is contained here. I suppose it is because my training

289
is not quite compatible with the kind of qualitative statements which are made here that I find great difficulty in seeing the advantage of the new wording. It seems to me that it makes uncertainty still more uncertain.
When reference is made to the population being known to be decreasing, either generally or in a particular area being taken in such numbers, and so on, it seems that one is dealing there with statements which have some quantitative significance, which can be weighed and understood; but when one replaces that situation with the words:
"or has become so seriously depleted or so fragmented that its ultimate security is not assured and it is likely to move into the endangered category",
quite frankly, I have great difficulty in understanding how one makes such an assessment. For example, I do not know whether one could decide at what stage it was thought that the hair of an individual was in danger of becoming white, or anything of that sort. These are purely subjective statements which are not easily weighed up and presented as evidence for reaching a decision, and I should have thought that the wording now being proposed would make it more difficult for anybody like the Nature Conservancy Council to come to a clear decision as to what ought to be done.
I realise that in all these matters, one is dealing with opinions, and one hopes that the people serving on these bodies have been chosen because of their sound judgment; but I think a lot depends upon the instructions which they are given, and although I may be quite wrong in my interpretation, it seems to me that the instruction which the noble Earl now proposes as compared with his original wording is much more diffuse, less clear and therefore less likely to lead to positive results.
The EARL of CRANBROOK I am rather flattered that the noble Lord prefers the original wording, which was my own, but I think what he has missed here is the point that IUCN categorisation will be of enormous help to the NCC. The NCC will not do the categorisation itself; that is to say, it is not a research body. It has to rely on researches by other people, as the noble Lord knows; and as I
290
tried to make clear just now, the people preparing the red data books assure me that they have no difficulty in categorising the various species with which they are dealing, into the three categories which I have mentioned so many times that it would be tedious to repeat them.
When the Nature Conservancy Council has to make its quinquennial review of the Schedules it has to get the information from field naturalists, The field naturalists preparing the red data book will already have put the wild creatures and wild plants into the categories, the wording of which I have used in these two Amendments, and the NCC will have that already prepared for them. Their judgment will have to be whether or not it is worthwhile adding some of those creatures which the red data book says are vulnerable.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, spoke about the red squirrel, which in his part of the world and in my part of the world is clearly and obviously to all of us decreasing in numbers, to such an extent that I should he prepared to say that in Norfolk and Suffolk it is passing into the endangered category, or is likely to do so very quickly. Admittedly, that is a subjective judgment, but it is one which I am prepared to say that I have made objectively. In point of fact it would not he any use adding the red squirrel to Schedule 3 because it is not being endangered by any action which is prevented under the Bill. So the final judgment must be that of the NCC itself. The first categorisation must be done by the field naturalists in the field, and I am assured—and I am quite certain that if the noble Lord would make inquiries of the same source he would feel assured—that they do not have any difficulty in using the definition which I have put into this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: Perhaps it might help if the noble Earl referred to the fact that we have had correspondence on many of these Amendments. I wrote to him to say that there were some difficulties in differentiating for legislative purposes between the endangered and vulnerable species, and I offered to take further advice on it. We are now advised that the Amendment in its present form is one

291
which we should be happy to accept. That may perhaps assist the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
5.48 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 36, at end insert ("and
(bb) if any wild creature included in Schedule 3 to this Act has become so rare that it is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature or wild plant by any action designated as an offence under this Act that it should be added to Schedule 1 to this Act.")
The noble Lord said: When I was speaking to Amendment No. 27 I pointed out that on that occasion we were speaking of the duties of the Secretary of State. We are now talking quite definitely about the duties of the Nature Conservancy Council in advising him, and the same sort of provisions occur. What is necessary is to give power to the Nature Conservancy Council to move creatures from Schedule 3 to Schedule I to the Act. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The words to be inserted are not quite as printed but have been revised, so I had better read them:
"if any wild creature included in Schedule 3 to this Act has become so rare that it is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature by any action designated as an offence under this Act it should be added to Schedule 1 to this Act".
There is an Amendment to this Amendment, to which we will now proceed. It is Amendment No. 46.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 45:
Line 4, leave out ("that") and insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: I approve the general tenor of this Amendment and I prefer the word "and" only because I think it leaves more discretion to the Nature Conservancy Council. The noble Lord has met me in discussions on the difference between "should" and "and". We are going to discuss the matter between now and the Report stage of the Bill. Perhaps he would withdraw Amendment No. 45, or be prepared to accept
292
a similar Amendment if we come to an agreement in the meantime. I think probably it would be easier for him to withdraw his Amendment now and to move it again at Report stage. I entirely agree with it: it is just the nuance on which we are not agreed. He thinks that I have not got a good command of English and I am not quite certain that he has, but we shall resolve that between now and the Report stage.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I do not want to take issue with my noble friend on my semantic powers, or indeed his, but I think that perhaps at Report stage it would be better to deal with the "ands" "buts" and "shoulds", wherever they occur in this Bill separately. I should, therefore, like to move this Amendment, with the revision that the noble Baroness in the Chair has mentioned, and deal with the nuts and bolts perhaps on Report.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: We are still dealing with Amendment No. 46.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK: Not moved.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Then we go back to Amendment No. 45. The Question is that Amendment No. 45 be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 47 should not be in the list; it is, I think, identical with Amendment No. 44.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is another Amendment which removes the original Schedule 4. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I think Amendment No. 47 has already, in effect, been carried under Amendment No. 44.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I thought I had said that I did not move Amendment No. 44.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The Question is that Amendment No. 47 be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(bb)").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. Having eventually disposed of paragraph (c), Amendment No. 45 will become (bb). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 7, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: Having been in consultation with the officers of the NCC, they told me that they would prefer that this should be left to NCC discretion, which seems to me to be reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I am glad that the noble Earl is asking that this subsection should be dropped, because it seems to me that the subsection completely contradicts what he said earlier; that is, that the Nature Conservancy Council has no research resources. So I would certainly hope that we should drop this subsection.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I think the noble Lord misinterprets the original clause, which says that the NCC should make provision for it. That, so far as I recollect, is the phrase which comes in the Nature Conservancy Council Act. It allows them to make provision by contracting with other people to carry it out for them; it does not mean that they can do it themselves. The noble Lord may remember we had a very considerable argument on this when the 1973 Act was going through. I was able to inflict a considerable defeat on this side of the House when sitting on that side of the House. But that does not alter the position that the Conservancy Council contracts out most of its research.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
294
Clause 8 [Removal of creatures from Schedules 1, 3 and 4]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I beg to move the unnumbered Amendment to leave out Clause 8. We have already in previous Amendments covered the point of the new Section 12A as in the Bill; that is giving the Secretary of State power to move creatures from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 to the Act. So to keep this clause in would be a duplication. So far as 12B goes, there is a period of four years involved here. I have had some private discussions with my noble friend, and we have come to the agreement—and I believe this is also the view of the NCC that four years is far too short a period; anyway, different species will need different lengths of time, and, therefore, the length of time should be left open. I therefore beg to move to leave out Clause 8.
Clause 8 disagreed to.
Clause 9 [Amendment of s. 14 of Principal Act]:
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the statement mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Earl said: This is an extension of what I have already called the ethos of the 1975 Act, to make everything as open as possible. Your Lordships have already agreed that the information to which I refer here should be sent to the consultees whom under the Act the Minister has to consult before making an order. What I am suggesting here is that Parliament—which, after all, when we are dealing with making an order which is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, is the ultimate consultee—should have exactly the same information laid before it as we have already agreed should be given to the other consultees.
Again, this throws no additional burden on the Nature Conservancy Council. They have to prepare this statement in any case, and it would be of great advantage both to the Minister and to the House

295
if we had the opportunity of learning at the earliest possible stage the reasons which lead him to make an order. It would be for the House to decide what it does when it gets that information. I must confess that if it were left to me I should probably favour a Select Committee on Conservation to whom it would be referred and before whom the Nature Conservancy Council could give evidence. That is probably taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and perhaps a more reasonable solution would be to have an informal meeting between Peers who are interested in conservation and officers of the NCC, who could explain to them the evidence which they have given to the Minister.
It has been suggested to me that that evidence, which would then be public, might be too full. I am not suggesting that your Lordships or anybody else should be deceived, but when your Lordships accepted the new Schedule 3, which the noble Baroness opposite subsequently took away, I said I would be prepared to be cross-examined on it but that I would not be prepared to tell your Lordships the exact sites where really rare animals were found. I think that possibly it is being a little pernickety, because that is known to every specialist in that particular group. None the less, it is undesirable to have the exact locality of these species. I think that the evidence would be complete if the NCC said, as I was prepared to say about the Schedule at present, that the animal in question is only found on one site and therefore we must take particular care of it. I do not think that it would be right to ask for or to accept any more evidence than that, and that is perfectly harmless. Subject to that last statement being accepted, I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to intervene. We have very strong objections to this Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. As I understand it, he is proposing an Amendment to the Schedules of the Act to the effect that the NCC must produce a statement of their reasons: such a statement is at present included in their annual report. This Amendment would require the statement to be laid before each House. We shall run into very deep water if we accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, because
296
there are very many other cases in which Government action is based on the advice of a body like the NCC. To require the laying in each case would be a serious additional burden on both Houses of Parliament, as well as on the Government.
We should be very happy to make copies of the statement available to any interested Members of Parliament or Peers, and to anyone else who wants to see it, as we did with the Otter Order. However, we think that to write this into the Act would be to create considerable problems in very many other areas of government.
Lord SOMERS: The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said that we are running into a very dangerous position, where the Government will have to take into consideration the opinion of a body like the NCC. I can only say that I wish to goodness that the Government would take expert opinion more often. I believe that one of the faults of legislation is that it is so often undertaken from a point of view of political convenience rather than expert knowledge. I have every support for the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has misunderstood or misinterpreted what I said. I was not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the advice we receive from the NCC. We are very happy to take it and to use it. We are grateful to the NCC for the help that it gives us in carrying out our duties. I was saying that the procedure suggested by the noble Earl, that the statement should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, has repercussions in very many areas of government and for the Government would probably considerably overweight the programme of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I should like to intervene. I think that, on reflection, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook might feel inclined to take up the offer of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that any interested party would be sent the statement. I do not think that the Committee can expect the Government to do better than that.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: It may shorten the debate if I say that I have not

297
been very impressed by the arguments, but I have been reasonably satisfied by the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has made. I suspect that there will be an increasing demand for this sort of information. The noble Baroness will have noticed that the First Special Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has said that it is not given sufficient information. Indeed, a great many people in another place have been saying exactly the same thing.
Although the noble Baroness may fear that the little wedge that I want to insert is the narrow end of a much bigger one, I should be quite satisfied if her offer to send the information for which I am asking to any interested noble Lord were sufficiently widely broadcast—that is to say, that it came on the Pink Paper which we all receive, or in some other way, so that it is brought to our notice, and we can ask for it. Then we can do exactly the same as 1 have suggested; namely, those of us who are interested could meet together and ask for an officer of the NCC to attend for cross-examination. I should be perfectly satisfied with that if the noble Baroness can assure me that we shall all be told that the information is available and we have only to ask for it.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should be very happy to give such an assurance. I am not sure what the procedure is for getting things onto the pink paper which comes round, but I shall certainly make inquiries and ensure that it has as wide a distribution as possible.
Lord AIREDALE: The noble Baroness fears that this might lead to extensions into other areas. I think that the Minister in all the other cases would have a perfectly simple answer. He would say: "We only lay the Papers before Parliament when there is a statutory requirement for us to do so and in this particular case there is; but in the other cases there is not ". That surely would be the end of that.
Baroness STEDMAN: It may not be the end of that. It may be that there would be Amendments to make such a statutory requirement in other cases and then there would be a considerable burden upon both Houses.
Lord AIREDALE: If Parliament thought it right, it would be very right and proper to enact it.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I was just about to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, disapproves, I hope that he will not divide the Committee against me, because I doubt that we shall have enough Members present to keep the Committee going. In view of the assurances which I have received from the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Authorisation to he given in writing
".In section 15(1) of the principal Act, in the definition of "authorised person", after the words "person authorised", there shall be inserted the words "in writing".").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 52. I put this Amendment down with a certain amount of diffidence, because we discussed this matter when the 1975 Act was going through. The general consensus of opinion then was that this was an unnecessary restriction. On reflection, I do not think that it is an unnecessary restriction. It is a restriction which will reduce the pressure on endangered and vulnerable wild creatures. I do not think that it would do any harm to genuine research workers. It may bring out into the open those who have rather more nefarious intentions. I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation].
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("or 4").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53. This is a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 2, at end insert—
("(3) The principal Act, as it will have effect after the passing of this Act, is set out in the Schedule to this Act.").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 55. It was pointed out to me that I was proposing so many Amendments to the Bill—I must confess that I am grateful for those of your Lordships who have borne with me while I have been proposing them—that it was difficult to see clearly what the Act would look like when the day's work was done and it would be helpful if they were set out in a keeling schedule as has been done. I must confess that that certainly has helped me a great deal to keep my mind reasonably clear and I hope that it has been useful to your Lordships. I should perhaps point out to your Lordships that the otter again has fallen by the way, because Schedule 1 on Page 16 of the Marshalled List was drawn up from the Act as it was printed and as it still exists. The otter has been subsequently added by order and it does not appear in the Act. It was a pure mistake.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I should like to thank my noble friend most particularly for having seen fit to include this keeling Schedule. I must say it was an absolutely murderous maze to go through, comparing the Act on the one hand and the Bill on the other. I, for one —and I am sure this applies to all noble Lords—am extremely grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
The Earl of CRAN BROOK The Earl of CRAN BROOK moved Amendment No. 56:
Insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS ACT 1975 AS AMENDED
[In the provisions set out in this Schedule the words inserted by the Bill are printed in heavy type and omissions made by the Bill are indicated by dots.]
Restriction on killing etc endangered wild creatures.
1. If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person without. reasonable excuse—

(a) kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take any endangered wild creature; or

(b) has in his possession any endangered wild creature which is not shown by him to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of this Act;

he shall be guilty of an offence.
1A. If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person wilfully destroys or disturbs the sleeping refuge while occupied of any endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal or the nest containing the unweaned young of any such creature, he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of disturbing an endangered or vulnerable wild creature within a dwelling house.
Restriction on marking or ringing.
2.—(1) If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person without reasonable excuse sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale any live or dead creature of a species specified in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 to this Act, whether or not found living wild, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section any reference to sale shall be construed as including a reference to barter and exchange and any reference to dead creatures shall be construed as including the skins or skeletons of such creatures.
Restriction on marking or ringing.
3. If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person marks any endangered wild creature or any other wild creature or any other wild creature being a bat or attaches any ring, tag or other marking device to an endangered wild creature or any other wild creature being a bat, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures.
3A.—(1) If, save as may be permitted by or under this Act, any person without reasonable excuse—

(a) kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take any vulnerable wild creature; or

(b) has in his possession any vulnerable wild creature which is not shown by him to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of this Act;

he shall be guilty of an offence;
Provided that it shall not be an offence against this section to kill or injure an invertebrate wild creature or to take its eggs.
(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of—

(a) the taking for the purpose of identification of vulnerable wild creatures specified in Schedule 3 to this Act:

Provided that such vulnerable wild creatures are released uninjured immediately after identification and without unreasonable delay; and

(b) the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking, in any calendar year and in any ten kilometre square of the national grid, of not more than two specimens of a vulnerable wild creature specified in Schedule 3 to this Act.

301
Restriction uprooting wild plants.
4. If, save as may be permitted by or on under this Act, any person, other than an authorised person, without reasonable excuse uproots any plant, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Protection of rare plants.
5. If, save as may be permitted by or of rare under this Act, any person without reasonable excuse picks, uproots or destroys any protected plant, he shall be guilty of an offence unless the picking, uprooting or destruction occurs as an incidental result, which could not reasonably have been avoided, of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice.
General exceptions.
6. A person shall not be guilty of an offence against this Act by reason only of—

(a) the taking, or attempted taking, of any endangered or vulnerable wild creature which has been disabled other wise than by his act and was taken, or attempted to be taken, solely for the purpose of tending it;

(b) the killing, or attempted killing, of any endangered or vulnerable wild creature which appeared to be so seriously injured or in such a condition that to kill it was, or would have been, an act of mercy; or

(c) the doing of anything in pursuance or furtherance of any obligation imposed, or in exercise of any powers conferred, by or under an Act of Parliament.

Variation of Schedules.
7.—(1) Where, on advice given by the of Nature Conservancy Council under section 12 below, accompanied by the evidence which led them to give that advice, it appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary in the interests of the proper conservation of wild creatures or plants he may by order add any wild creature or plant to, or remove any wild creature or plant from, Schedule 1, 2, or 3 to this Act:
Provided that if, in the exercise of his power under this section, he removes a wild creature from Schedule 1 to this Act, he shall forthwith add it to Schedule 3 to this Act.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply—

(a) to the whole or to particular provisions of this Act;

(b) generally or to a particular area;

(c) to wild creatures or plants in a particular category; or

(d) at all times or at particular times of the year;

and the order may make different provision for different circumstances.
302
Power to grant licences.
8.—(1) A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate authority stipulated in the next subsection authorising that person, notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any order made under this Act, but subject to compliance with any specified conditions

(a) for scientific or educational purposes or for the conservation of wild creatures, to kill or take within a specified area by any specified means or to have in his possession any number of specified endangered or vulnerable wild creatures;

(b) for the purposes of any specified zoological gardens or collection, to take within a specified area by any specified means or to have in his possession any number of specified endangered or vulnerable wild creatures;

(c) 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;

(d) for the purpose of marking or ringing, to take within a specified area by any specified means any specified endangered or vulnerable wild creatures or any other wild creatures being bats, to mark such endagered or vulnerable wild creatures or other wild creatures being bats, or to attach to them any specified ring, tag or other marking device;

(e) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease, to kill or take endangered or vulnerable wild creatures within a specified area by any specified means; or

(ee) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land crops, poultry or other forms of property, to kill or take within a specified area by any specified means any specified number of specified endangered or vulnerable wild creatures; or

(f) for scientific or educational purposes or for the conservation of plants, to pick or uproot within a specified area by any specified means any plant of a specified species.

In this subsection "specified" means specified in the licence and in paragraph (c) of this subsection any reference to dead creatures shall be construed as including the skins or skeletons of such creatures.
(2) The appropriate authority for the grant of a licence under the foregoing subsection shall be—

(a) in the case of a licence under paragraph (a), (b), (bb), (c), (d) or

303

(f) of that subsection, the Nature Conservancy Council; and

(b) in the case of a licence under paragraphs (e) or (ee) of that subsection, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the next subsection, any licence granted under this section shall remain in force for such period as shall be specified therein.
(4) A licence granted under this section may be revoked at any time by the authority by which it was granted.
(5) A licence granted under this section shall not confer any right of entry upon any land.
(6) Without prejudice to any other penalty which he may have incurred under this or any other Act, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any condition specified in a licence granted under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
Offender may be required to quit land.
9. If any person shall be found committing, or shall with reasonable cause be suspected of committing or of having committed, an offence under this Act on any land, it shall be lawful for an authorised person or any constable to require that person forthwith to quit such land and also give his name and address; and, if that person on being so required wilfully and without claim of right remains upon the land or refuses to give his full name and address, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Enforcement.
10. A constable may stop any person he suspects with reasonable cause of committing or of having committed an offence under this Act, and may without warrant search that person if, with reasonable cause, he suspects him of having evidence on his person of the commission of an offence under this Act, and may—

(a) without warrant arrest that person if he fails to give his name an address to the constable's satisfaction;

(b) without warrant search any vehicle, boat or animal which that person may be using at that time;

(c) seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act anything which is capable of being used for the taking or killing of endangered or vulnerable wild creatures and which he finds in the possession of that person;

(d) seize any endangered or vulnerable wild creature or plant which is liable to be forfeited or restored under subsection (2) of section 11 of this Act; and

(e) seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings under this Act anything which may be in that person's possession and which may
304
be evidence of the commission of the offence.

Penalties.
11.—(1) Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100:
Provided that, where the offence was committed in respect of more than one endangered or vulnerable wild creature or in respect of more than one species of plant, the maximum fine which may be imposed under this subsection shall be determined as if the person convicted had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each endangered or vulnerable wild creature or each species of plant, as the case may be.
(2) The court before whom any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture or the restoration to the owner of any wild creature or plant in respect of which the offence was committed and the forfeiture of anything which is capable of being used for the taking or killing of endangered or vulnerable wild creatures and which is found in the possession of that person.
Duty of Nature Conservancy Council.
12.—(1) The Nature Conservancy Council in exercising its functions under section 1(1) (a) (ii) of the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973 at any time may, and five years after the passing of this Act and every five years thereafter shall, review the Schedules to this Act and shall advise the Secretary of State—

(a) if any wild creature or plant has become so rare that it is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature or wild plant by any action designated as an offence under this Act and it should be included in Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act either generally or with respect to a particular area or in relation to a particular category and either at all times or at particular times of the year or has become so common that its continued existence is no longer endangered and it should be removed therefrom; and

(b) if the population of any wild creature which is being killed or taken as a resource for sport or otherwise is known to be decreasing or has become so seriously depleted or so fragmented that its ultimate security is not assured and it is likely to move into the endangered category and it should be included in Schedule 3 to this Act either generally or with respect to a particular area or in relation to a particular category and either at all times or at particular times of the year or has so far recovered its former density that it is no longer vulnerable and should be removed therefrom; and

(c) if any wild creature included in Schedule 3 to this Act has become so rare that it is in danger of extinc

305
tion as a British wild creature by any action designated as an offence under this Act and it should be added to Schedule 1 to this Act.
(2) The Nature Conservancy Council shall include a report on the advice given under paragraphs (a) to (c) above and on the evidence which leads them to give that advice in the annual report referred to in paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973
Power of local authorities.
13.—(1) A local authority shall take such steps as they consider expedient for bringing the effect of this Act to the attention of the public and in particular schoolchildren.
(2) A local authority in England or Wales shall have power to institute proceedings for any offence under this Act committed within their area.
Orders.
14.—(1) Any order made under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the same manner.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this Act except after consultation with such bodies appearing to him to be representative of local authorities as he considers appropriate and such other bodies or persons as he thinks fit and shall send to those consulted a statement setting out the evidence which led the Nature Conservancy Council to advise him to make that order.
(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the statement mentioned in subsection (2) above.
(3) The Secretary of State shall cause notice of the making of any order under this Act to be published in the Gazette.
(4) In the case of an order relating to any area specified therein, each local authority in whose administrative area any part of the area as specified is situated shall take such steps, if any, as may appear to them expendient, or as the Secretary of State may direct, to bring the effect of the order to the notice of the public within their area.
Interpretation.
15.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
"authorised person" means the owner or occupier, or any servant of the owner or occupier, or any person authorised in writing by the owner or occupier, of the land on which the endangered or vulnerable wild creature is killed, injured or taken or on which the plant is growing;
"Gazette" means, in England and Wales, the London Gazette and, in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette; "local authority" means—
306

(a) in relation to England and Wales—

(i) a county council, the Greater London Council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or a parish or community council;

(ii) a joint planning board (within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Town and 1971 c. 78. Country Planning Act 1971), a special planning board (within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government 1972 c. 70. Act 1972) or a National Park Committee (within the meaning of paragraph 5 of the said Schedule 17) on which any of the authorities mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above is represented; or

(iii) the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional, islands or district council;

"pick", in relation to a plant, means gather or pluck but not uproot, any part of the plant from the land on which it is growing;
"plant" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, any plant growing wild on any land;
"endangered plant" means a plant specified in Schedule 2 to this Act;
"endangered wild creature" means a wild creature specified in Schedule 1 to this Act found living wild, and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such wild creature;
"uproot", in relation to a plant, means pull up, dig up or remove the plant with its roots from the land on which it is growing;
"vulnerable wild creature" means a wild creature specified in Schedule 3 to this Act found living wild and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such wild creature.
(2) Any fungus or alga shall not be treated as a plant for the purposes of this Act unless it is a composite of fungus and alga in the form of lichen.
(3) Any reference in this Act to a plant includes reference to any part of a plant.
Amendment of s.9 of Badgers Act 1973. 1973 c.57
16. In section 9 of the Badgers Act 1973 (which makes, in relation to badgers, provision corresponding to that made by section 8 of this Act) there shall be inserted after subsection (3) the following subsection:—
"(4) It shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence under section 8(b) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 or section 7(b) of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (each of which restricts the placing on

307
land of poison and poisonous substances) to show that—

(a) the act alleged to constitute the offence was done under the authority of a licence granted under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) any conditions specified in the licence were complied with."

Short title and extent.
17.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
In the Schedules

SCHEDULE 1

ENDANGERED WILD CREATURES

Common name

Scientific name

Greater Horse-shoe Bat

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

Mouse-eared Bat

Myotis myotis

Sand Lizard

Lacerta agilis

Smooth Snake

Coronella austriaca

Natterjack Toad

Bufo calamita

Large Blue Butterfly

Maculinea arion

The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: I have just explained this. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: There are a number of Amendments to this Amendment, to which we should now proceed. They are Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: With the leave of the Committee, I do not propose to move those Amendments to the Amendment.
[Amendments to the Amendment (Nos. 57 to 62) not moved.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 63:
Line 2, at end insert ("and of plants growing wild")
The noble Lord said: The words, "and of plants growing wild" have been taken from the parent Act. I think that they are needed because Clauses 5, 7 and 9 refer to plants, Clause 7 by direct reference actually mentioning the word "plants", and Clauses 5 and 9 by application. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I have taken advice on this and I understand the purpose is to bring the protection of wild plants within the Long Title. But the rare plants are already protected under the 1975 Act. There is no case for giving separate protection to the vulnerable plants. In addition to protection of the rare plants, the 1975 Act contains a prohibition against the uprooting of any wild plant. There is no form of intermediate protection that might be given to

309
endangered plants. Therefore, for that reason the Bill contains no provision relating to plants and in our view the Long Title should not then refer to them.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: With respect to the noble Baroness, who, I am sure, knows far more about these matters than I, in Clause 7 we have amended, certainly to a large measure, Section 12 of the old Act. My Amendment was to probe whether or not, because of that, in fact, plants should be added to the Long Title of the Bill. There was no ulterior motive in my Amendment whatever.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: If the noble Baroness advises that it is not necessary, perhaps the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.