§ Report of Amendments received.
§ CONSERVATION OF WILD
CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS
(AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
§ 3.35 p.m.
§ Report of Amendments received.
§ Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:
§
Lord AIRDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
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 saidMy Lords, perhaps we can discuss Amendment No. 19 with this Amendment, as they both deal with the same topic. When a Bill is drafted with reference to an existing Act of Parliament, it seems better to set out the Act concerned in full at the first place in the Bill where the Act is mentioned rather than keep the reader in suspense until Clause 14 to find out what Act is the principal Act. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, this Amendment will improve the drafting of the Bill, and I recommend your Lordships to accept it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Further restriction on killing etc. endangered wild creatures]:
§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
§ Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, under the Act as it was originally drafted and came through, a person who killed an endangered wild creature which was doing damage had to satisfy the court before which he was charged that the killing was necessary for the protection of property, agriculture, fisheries and the like. It was suggested to me that it would be better if, instead of leaving it to the court 1982 safter the action took place, he could obtain a licence from the Ministry griculture before that took place. However, after consulting the Ministry, I find that it does not have the staff to do this. Therefore I think that we must revert to the original position—which this Amendment would do. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Disturbance of mammals]:
§ 3.38 p.m.
§
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("disturbs") insert ("or impedes access to or from").
The noble Viscount saidWhen putting down this Amendment, I did so over the telephone in rather a hurry. Of course what I meant to say was "impedes access to or exit from". However, the meaning is plain.
What I am frightened of is that, as a result of blocking access to a shed or a barn or some similar building, the parent of the dependent vulnerable wild creatures may be denied access, and the vulnerable young wild creatures would therefore presumably he destroyed, for if the parent is denied access, the young cannot be fed or guarded. Similarly, one could also, by blocking access to a barn, recess or shed, destroy the sleeping refuge of a vulnerable wild creature. One could, for instance, destroy the sleeping refuge of bats by impeding access to such a refuge. By the erection of a solid wooden fence or wall, one could deny to a vulnerable wild creature access. One could certainly impede access by a vulnerable wild creature. In some cases, total access could be denied. If the wild creatures could not get to their sleeping refuge, or feed their young, the vulnerable wild creature would be destroyed, or certainly disturbed.
I put down this Amendment because I remember that many years ago there was famous toad walk to a lake. Someone erected a solid wooden fence across the access of the toads to the lake. Of course, the result was that the toads completely disappeared from that area. I think that something could have been inserted in the Bill about the dangers of impeding access to the sleeping refuge and the dependant young, or impeding access to 1983 the exit from the point of view of both the parents and the young. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for tidying up the Amendment which he moved in Committee. However, it is not yet tidy enough. Apart from that, it is a common conservation practice when dealing with one or two of our endangered species, and in particular bats, to put a grille at the mouth of the cave where the creature is to be found so that human beings cannot get in and disturb it. The Amendment would prevent that from taking place. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said I shall certainly withdraw the Amendment. I would point out, however, that the erection of a grille over the mouth of a cave will deny access to certain bats, but it will presumably protect the two species of bat which come under the Bill; namely, the mouse-eared bat and the greater horseshoe bat, the name of which had escaped me for a moment.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, yes, the scientific name for the greater horse-shoe bat is Rhinolophus ferrumequinum!
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, I shall not attempt to repeat that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, after ("creature") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This Amendment will bring vulnerable wild creatures into line with certain rare plants, because both can be either disturbed or uprooted by the normal practice of a forester or a farmer. The Amendment would prevent it being offensive when it is done in accordance with the normal rules of good husbandry. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1984§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5:
§
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("; or
(b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice.").
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:
§
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 19, after ("that") insert ("(i)").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 apply to vulnerable wild creatures the same provisions that your Lordships have already agreed should apply to the endangered ones. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
§
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("; and
(ii) an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only Of any action taken in respect of a vulnerable wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.").
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out lines 31 to 36.
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak simultaneously to Amendment No. 26 because it deals with exactly the same wording which occurs in one of the Schedules. The Amendment deals with a passage which occurs in subsection (2) of the new section which is added by Clause 5. It says:
An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of—
(a) "—
and then at (b), which is the paragraph dealt with by the Amendment, it says:
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.
1985
It is fairly clear from reading that paragraph that there would be considerable difficulty in reaching the negative conclusion that someone was not guilty of something when one must decide in which ten kilometre square the animal has been caught; that it was done in any one calendar year and that not more than two specimens were taken. In my view, this is a complicated and not essential feature of the Bill, although one can understand why it was introduced. Therefore, I beg to move.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, I hesitate to accuse the noble Lord of doing a bit of a "cook", but this is really intended to meet the argument which the noble Baroness and I have had on at least two occasions so far, as regards trying to define the area over which we can restrict the killing or taking of vulnerable wild creatures which, I would remind your Lordships, by definition has no serious effect upon their status, because if it did they would be included in Schedule I. As regards Schedule 3, which I shall be moving in the next Amendment, that is a perfectly satisfactory conclusion. They are all wild creatures which are readily recognised in the hand or in the net and the first paragraph of this subsection provides adequate information about them. There are, and there will certainly be identified as such, a fairly considerable number of vulnerable wild creatures which cannot be so identified and must be taken out of the population in the wild in order to be identified by comparison with a study collection and possibly by examination under a microscope and the like.
The Nature Conservancy will then be faced with a problem. It will be difficult for it to put those vulnerable wild creatures, which require more accurate identification than a naturalist is able to make when he sees them in his hand or in his net, on Schedule 3 without some hesitation. That is something which will come in the future. However, I am bound to warn your Lordships that, if we pass the Amendment—and I think that we safely can at present—we shall put the Nature Conservancy into a difficult situation. It will certainly come about that, when the Bill is overtaken, as it will be in due course, by a comprehensive Bill, further thought must be given to the area over which taking can be done—whether it is a site, 1986 parish or a 10-kilometre square and so on. That decision will have to be reached at some time. This is only a stalling procedure. Therefore, with some regrets I recommend your Lordships to agree.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I have made it clear from the beginning that I do not like the particular words that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is asking us to leave out. I was chided by my noble friend during the Committee stage for actually making a statement. I am very impressed by what my noble friend has said, that this might make matters harder for the Nature Conservancy Council in the future. However silly the words may appear at first sight, if a principle is involved here, then perhaps there is something to be said for leaving them in.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I should like to ask the House to accept the Amendment that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones. As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, we have had a couple of goes at this already. The Nature Conservancy Council considers that the 10-kilometre principle would be unworkable. There seems to be some agreement about that, but no one has yet come up with the right kind of answer. As the noble Earl has said, this is something to which we must apply our minds before we have a comprehensive Act.
However, at the moment, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, we should prefer the collecting of vulnerable species to be controlled under licence, and we do not consider that a great deal of additional work would be involved in it. We think that, at this time, this is perhaps the best way of dealing with it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Schedule of vulnerable wild creatures]:
§ 3.51 p.m.
§
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 5 and insert—
| (VULNERABLE WILD CREATURES | |
| Scientific name | Common name |
| INVERTEBRATES | |
| SPIDERS | |
| Dolomedes plantarius | |
| BUTTERFLIES | |
| Carterocephalus palaemon | Chequered Skipper |
| Melitaea athalia | Heath Fritillary |
| MOTHS | |
| Idaea lineata | Black-veined |
| Pareulype berberata | Bat berry Carpet |
| Thetidia smaragdaria | Essex Emerald |
| BEETLES | |
| Chrysolina cerealis | |
| DRAGONFLIES | |
| Aeshna isoscles | Norfolk Aeshna |
| GRASSHOPPERS AND CRICKETS | |
| Decticus verrucivorus | Wart-biter |
| Gryllus campestris | Field Cricket |
| GryllotaIpa gryllotalpa | Mole Cricket |
| MOLLUSCS | |
| Myxas gliainosa | Glutinous snail |
| Catinella arenaris | Sandbowl snail |
| Monacha cartusiana | Carthusian snail |
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, your Lordships will remember that 1 moved a comparable Amendment in Committee when the noble Baroness, under a slight misapprehension, criticised the insertion of a couple of fish. She felt that, were they in Schedule 1, it would be impossible to capture and identify them. As they are to be in Schedule 3, that is possible and I think that she will be satisfied with the Schedule as it now is. However, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, I have removed one of the fish and I hope that the noble Baroness will find some consolation for the postponement.
However, I must give the same warning as I have just given. Most of the animals on this list were given to me by the committee which was preparing the list of insects and invertebrates of that nature for the Red Data Book—which will probably be published within the next couple of years— dividing British fauna into the three categories of "endangered", "vulnerable", and "rare". That has already been done for the 2,000 or so plants; it will now be done for the 20,000 or so wild creatures. It is an unconscionably long list of vulnerable plants in the Red Data Book of British Plants. 1988 It will be an even longer list of vulnerable wild creatures in the two Red Data Books —one on vertebrates and one on invertebrates—which we can expect to be published in the near future.
That raises the same problem, which I mentioned just now, which will face the NCC at that time. The capturers of a larger number of wild creatures will have to be licensed. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will remember that to take these creatures does not endanger them. By definition, they are not affected by being taken provided that it is done with discretion. I hope that the Council will be free in granting licences, because it is not right unnecessarily to interfere with research by field naturalists. Some interference is necessary, but not the complete interference which a severely restricted policy on licences would introduce. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will bear that in mind when it considers the granting of licences. I beg to move.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, this might, perhaps, be an appropriate moment for me to express from the Government Benches our thanks to the work that the noble Earl has put in, with my officials, since this Bill first saw the light of day. I should like to record our very great appreciation of the time which he has given in consultation with my officials and with the Ministry of Agriculture in order to make this the sort of Bill that we hope might have a speedy passage through another place. I am grateful to the noble Earl.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10:
§ After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
§
Forfeitures.
(". For section 11(2) of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following new subsections—
(2) The court before which any person is charged with an offence, if he is convicted, may order the forfeiture of any wild creature or plant to 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 any implement which is capable of
1989
being used for committing the offence to which the charge relates, and which is found in the possession of that person.".").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is rather different from one that your Lordships quite definitely did not approve when I moved it in Committee. I have now changed two important features. In subsection (2) of the new clause I have omitted a particularly contentious point. Your Lordships felt that the words,
the court before which any person is charged with an offence, if acquitted by reason only of a defence provided under this Act
were far too wide and would cause precedents in other branches of the law. I must say that I agree. In subsection (3) I have added the words:
to which the charge relates".
That was in order to put over the point originally brought to light by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who was worried that a man's car might be confiscated and destroyed as it enabled him to get to the place where he was committing the alleged offence. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, although your Lordships may be surprised to hear this, throughout this Bill—with 50 or 60 Amendments in Committee and a large number now—I have tried not to interfere with the basic principles of the Act as it was passed, protecting endangered wild species. Throughout, my objective has been to add the third Schedule—originally it was the fourth and not to alter in any way the provisions which we passed in 1975 purely to deal with endangered species.
I must confess, though, that this is a real improvement of the Act. It does not go against the principle which I have just laid down. It is very much tidier; it is much easier to understand. It answers the criticisms of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which were made both by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard in Committee. I am inclined to recommend noble Lords to accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to do the same.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and 1990 the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, have said, this is really a rewording of the forfeiture provisions in the 1975 Act. I must confess that it is difficult to see exactly how the new wording changes the position on forfeitures. We do not have any very strong views on it, but it seems better to us to retain the wording of the original Act. However, we are in the hands of the House.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEPerhaps this is an occasion when I might explain myself slightly more fully. The new wording alters things quite dramatically. Subsection (2) suggests that the authorised person is not necessarily the correct person to deal with his own creature. However, I have tried to insert the idea that the Nature Conservancy Council, who are the experts under the Act, and of course the Bill, should have absolute discretion whether or not to return the creature to its own owner or give it to a zoo, or whatever they should direct. Subsection (3) is, again, rather wider than the original wording in the Act. It says that the court may order the destruction of the instrument which has been used, not necessarily for catching but also for interfering with animals—for example, the ringing of bats which may well not be a desirable practice—and this might well be a deterrent.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9 [Removal of creatures from Schedule 1]:
§
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 53, after ("forthwith") insert ("by order").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 10 [Additional ground for grant of licence]:
§ The Earl of CRAN BROOK moved Amendment No. 12:
§ Leave out Clause 10.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 2, to which your Lordships have agreed. I beg to move.
1991§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendment No. 13, I understand, pre-empts Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, if approved.
§ 4.3 p.m.
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 7 and insert (" to this Act and shall advise the Secretary of State that—
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 13, it might be convenient if I also spoke to my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. In Amendment No. 13 I have tried to split up the words in the Bill into a more readily understood form. I hope I have achieved this. As regards Amendment No. 14, I do not really think this is going to make one whit of difference one way or another, and perhaps I can ask my noble friend a little later on whether he will consider not moving that Amendment.
1992§ Amendment No. 15 in effect means that the Nature Conservancy Council is being given two different directions in this Bill, one for endangered species and the other for vulnerable species. I am not convinced—and I am sure my noble friend will tell us—that this is what he desires; nor am I convinced about exactly what the Government understand by the wording in the Bill as it was amended in Committee. Perhaps we can discover this from the noble Baroness.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, in reply to what the noble Lord said in moving this Amendment, I think it is essential that we should treat endangered wild species in a different way from that in which we treat vulnerable ones. The new Section 12 in Clause 11 of the Bill makes it quite clear that if an animal is endangered, or if the NCC advises the Minister that an animal is endangered, it must also advise him that it shall receive the full protection of Schedule 1. I think on that we are all agreed. If an animal is endangered it must be given the full protection. The protection which has to be given to a vulnerable creature, as we have already decided, will differ as between those creatures, even within those on the Third Schedule. We have decided that some or all you can take, identify and release, but some under licence you will be able to take home and identify with the microscope or whatever as and when necessary.
As I tried to explain on the two previous Amendments, it is absolutely essential that the Nature Conservancy Council should be given full discretion to decide whether or not a vulnerable wild creature must be put on Schedule 3. They fall relatively easily into two categories. All of them by definition are scattered, sometimes in only one colony, but some of them are already so reduced in numbers because they are at the extreme end of their geographical range, or for some other reason, that they need the partial protection which putting them on Schedule 3 would give them. Others may be in only one colony, and your Lordships perhaps will bear with me if I go back on my own experience of snails.
There is a marshy stretch of woodland fen near me, the only site on which one rather uninteresting-looking and very small snail is found, and it is therefore obviously vulnerable because if that site 1993 were drained the snail would disappear, but within that site the creature is abundant. You can pick up a handful or two of litter and sieve it and you will find a dozen, or a score or more. Clearly, the Nature Conservancy Council will wish to put the first lot on Schedule 3, but will not wish to put the second lot on the Schedule at all, because they do not require partial protection against killing or taking which putting them on that Schedule would give them. We must give that discretion to the Nature Conservancy Council. That is why these two paragraphs are quite deliberately phrased in different terms. My second Amendment is intended to make that abundantly clear, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may be ready to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, I wonder whether I could make an inquiry from the two noble Lords who have just spoken with regard to the way in which this Amendment would operate? Your Lordships may recollect that some 12 years or so ago there was a Private Bill before the House for setting up a dam and reservoir in Yorkshire. The purpose of this, of course, was to increase the water supply, especially for chemical industry on Tees-side. At the time it was pointed out that in this part of the country there were plants which, I think I am right in saving, were pre-Ice Age, the only plants in this country, I understood, which could be clearly identified in that way.
The decision of your Lordships' House at the time was that the Bill should be allowed to go through. But what I am really inquiring about now is what would be the procedure with regard to any case of that type which might come up now. The particular species would not be endangered or likely to be made extinct unless the Bill was passed. Otherwise I think I am right in saying they would not be on any particular Schedule. How would one deal with an important case like that? Has it been in the minds of the noble Earl and the noble Lord as to how this should be dealt with?
§ 4.10 p.m.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, I speak again only with the permission of the House. Quite clearly on the question of Cow Green, to which the noble 1994 Lord referred, I think that my noble friend on my left and I would find ourselves on opposite sides. The species which were there endangered were wild plants. He is a botanist and I am a zoologist. I thought that the botanists grossly exaggerated the danger to the species as a British wild species then, and so perhaps we had better avoid a discussion on that particular site in Teesdale.
The real point that the noble Lord is making is, why do we not in this Bill try to protect the environment? That is something that you cannot do in a Private Member's Bill. It must ultimately be a Government Bill. It will inevitably involve compensation for people whose sites you take by compulsory purchase. The Nature Conservancy Council has the power to do it now. It has always been a little pusillanimous—in fact, completely pusillanimous about it, because I do not think that it has ever bought any site by compulsory purchase except one or two in an estuary in Wales where the owners were unknown and the various plots were just lying their waiting for somebody to pick them up, and it picked them up.
The real answer to the noble Lord is that I could not have done that. It could not be done in a Private Member's Bill. All a Private Member's Bill can do is to protect wild creatures against actions by human beings when they are harmful to them. That is what this Bill does. If there is going to be protection of the environment it is a Government job and a Private Member cannot do it, whether in this House or the other.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, far be it from me to intervene in any quarrel between botanists and zoologists. We think that the present wording of the Bill as it stands is preferable to what the noble Lord has put forward to us today. We have got the reference that we are coming to later on in an early Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, where he is inserting his words to make quite plain the difference in the Schedules. I must advise the House that if they decide to accept Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment then we would want to see a similar insertion of the word "if" in line 5 of his paragraph (c). We have not any strong views 1995 about it, and we do not really see why the Bill should be changed.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEMy Lords, I too am not going to get involved in perhaps a one-sided discussion with my noble friend on the differences of interpretation over a dale in Yorkshire that happened 12 years ago.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKIt was in Durham.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI beg your pardon, my Lords—in Durham. The noble Baroness has rather pre-empted me. I was hoping to be able to tell your Lordships that my Amendment in fact so fragmented the Bill as to make it far easier to understand. I would agree with her that the "if" in my new paragraph (c) would fit in with Lord Cranbrook's thoughts, and I was about to ask your Lordships whether you would consider that this might be put in on Third Reading.
I strongly feel that the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) are so complicated and difficult to read and understand, that if in effect you come to a stop after "times of the year" in line 27 of page 6 of the Bill, and then carry on with another paragraph, it makes it slightly easier to comprehend. In moving all the various Amendments, I have tried to make it possible for a layman, such as myself, to be able to comprehend the Act so far as the law is concerned. I rather hope that your Lordships will agree that my Amendment does this.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
The Earl of CRANBROOK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("and") and insert ("that").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put in this Amendment in order to try to placate my noble friend on my left, but from what he said a little earlier he does not seem to be placated, and I beg leave not to move this Amendment.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 37, after ("and") insert ("if").1996
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
§ Clause 12 [Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act]:
§ 4.16 p.m.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
§
Page 17, line 17, 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 Lord said: My Lords, this is quite definitely a probing Amendment in the first instance (shall we say?), although it rather depends on what the noble Baroness has to say. We shall then decide on what action to take. At the Committee stage the noble Baroness offered to find out for us what the procedure was, and indeed whether it was possible at all to get statements of this kind on the Pink Paper, which would mean therefore that the need not be enshrined in what we all hope will become an Act of Parliament. The probing part of the Amendment is to find out whether this is feasible, and whether in fact she has done it. I think that that is all I need say at this stage. I beg to move.
§ The Lord CHANCELLORMy Lords, the Amendment as printed has a misprint. I think that it should be "Page 7".
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I undertook at the earlier stage of the Bill that we would look at the question as to how we could get information to those Members who were interested. I have been discussing the question of the Pink Papers, that the noble Earl suggested with our Parliamentary Branch and the Printed Paper Office. I am informed that this is limited to Lords' Papers, the Bill Papers and Command Papers, and therefore it would not be appropriate for this kind of statement to be included on the Pink Paper.
If the Amendment concerning the laying of the NCC statement to both Houses is accepted, I understand that a reference to that statement would then be included in 1997 the appropriate Minutes of Proceedings which we receive daily; the big quarto-sized document. But even in this case of course the text would not be printed in full. So although it goes part way towards meeting the noble Lord's wishes it it does not go the whole way.
We are required under the 1976 Act to have consultations with the interested bodies and organisations before we make any order to amend the Schedule. Before the Otters Order, for instance, was made we consulted between 30 and 40 bodies and people, and also published the report of the Joint Otter Group. Therefore, I think that on that occasion anybody who was interested in the Otters Order at least knew that something was coming up and was able to get some information about it.
If something more than this is required, perhaps we could send the statement either to the Lords' Printed Paper Office and the Commons' Vote Office, or to the Lords' and Commons Libraries, or to both. In addition, any order to amend the Schedules will be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and they are entitled to ask for an explanatory memorandm. I am certain that we can give the undertaking that if the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ask for such a memorandum we would include in that memorandum all the NCC statement of reasons. Unless we are asked for that, the only assurance I can give is that we could make the statement available in the Lords' Printed Paper Office for those noble Lords who were interested in it. However, I regret that we are not able to include it on the Pink Paper.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I do not know what my noble friend will say to that, but I think the Minister has done extremely well by us. I understand her difficulty over the Pink Paper and I believe that, if what she suggested were carried out, it would meet the reasonable demands of the interested Members concerned.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, I was rather disappointed in the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because I thought, from conversations , with her, that she might be able to do more than she said. I accept that it will 1998 be virtually impossible to give us notice of the fact that this evidence is available before the order is made. When the order is made two things happen; it is sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and, with it, goes an explanation. The Joint Committee grumbled in his First Special Report that the explanations, or a great many of them, which have been sent with Statutory Instruments, have not been satisfactory.
It seems to me that two courses are open to the Minister; she could send, with the intimation that an order has been made, the statement to which we are referring as part of the explanation of that Statutory Instrument. With that, she could ask the chairman of the Joint Committee whether he would look on that as evidence given to the Joint Committee and recommend that it should be printed as a Lords' and Commons' Paper, as already happens when verbal evidence is given before them. If the noble Baroness could give an assurance that she would send the statement and would ask the chairman of the Joint Committee to have it printed as a Lords' and Commons' Paper, it would then appear in the Pink Paper. Your Lordships will have noticed that in the Pink Paper but one we could have the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The second alternative is on the Minutes which come round on which it is reported that an order has been laid. I cannot believe it would not be possible on those Minutes to add, as an addition to the bald statement that an order has been made, the fact that the evidence which led the Minister to make that order cannot be seen in the Printed Paper Office and cannot be seen in the Library. I am speaking as a backwoods Peer; there are many of us and we do not go every day into the Printed Paper Office or the Library, and therefore we should be given the information that is available.
If the noble Baroness could assure us that, when the notice is put on the Minutes that an order has been made, at the same time a note will he affixed in the Minutes which we all get saying there is available on demand from the Printed Paper Office the evidence which led the Minister to make that statement—which led them to advise the Minister to make that order— 1999 I think we should be happy. Perhaps my noble friend would now withdraw his Amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will consider the two alternatives I put before her. My noble friend could table the Amendment for Third Reading, and then, if she cannot satisfy us, we would have no alternative but to divide the House on how the information is to be given to us.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he is dealing with the matter. I could not give such an assurance this afternoon because I think it would involve Parliamentary procedure and I should have to take advice from our Parliamentary Division on how far we are allowed to go in relation to what is put in the Minutes of Proceedings. I suspect we are not allowed to go as far as the noble Earl would want us to go, but I will happily take this matter back, have further consultations about it and write to both noble Lords before the next stage of the Bill.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOKMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to go a little further than simply asking the people concerned about this? They will inevitably say it cannot be done because nobody likes something new. However, I am certain that, if she were to put the matter to your Lordships' House, noble Lords would see to it that the information was placed on the Minutes so that we could have it. The House is the ultimate authority as to what goes into our Minutes and Papers. If the noble Baroness gets the usual, No, which one so often gets from one's advisers in the Civil Service, will she consider putting the matter to the House?—whereupon I think she will get the answer, Yes.
§ Baroness STEDMANI will explore the possibilities, my Lords. I can give the assurance now that we will make the statement available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. So far as the other matters are concerned, I will discuss with and make known to the people concerned the strong feelings expressed in your Lordships' House on the matter, and perhaps we can take it from there at the next stage.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEMy Lords, I was impressed by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, but I have another possible solution to offer, a somewhat radical one about which I do not expect to get more than a nod at the moment. It is an eccentric question to ask, but would it be possible—as the Nature Conservancy Act and the principal Act in this case both require that the reasons must be published in the annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council —at the same time as laying an order, to print a special supplement to the annual report of the Nature Conservancy? That, I should have thought, would cover all possibilities, because then I understand it would be an Act paper and would appear on the Pink Paper. It is only a suggestion, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 13 [Authorisation to he given in writing]:
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 18:
§ Leave out Clause 13.
§ The noble Earl said: This provision would provide that a person should have his authority in writing. I moved the inclusion of this provision with some doubts and, after discussing it with representatives of the various Government Departments, my doubts were increased. After all, it would be possible, if someone were found doing such an act without authority in writing, for it to be given ex post facto. I do not think it is worth having this provision in the Bill, and that is why I move the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
§
Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of Amendment No. 1.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2001§ Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
§ The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 36:
§
Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
Provided that an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of any action taken in respect of an endangered wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.".
§ line 19, leave out ("unweaned") and insert ("dependant")
§ line 23, after ("creatures") insert ("(a)")
§ line 23, at end insert ("; or
§ (b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice.")
§ Page 9, line 1, after ("that") insert ("(i)")
§ line 2, at end insert ("and
§ (ii) an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of any action taken in respect of a vulnerable wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.")
§ leave out lines 10 to 13.
§ line 45, after ("forthwith") insert ("by order")
§ Page 10, leave out lines 39 to 42.
§ Page 11, line 3, leave out ("(bb),")
§ Page 11, line 6, leave out ("paragraphs (e) or (ee)") and insert ("paragraph (e)")
§ Page 12, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("that")
§ Page 12, line 35, after ("and") insert ("if")
§ Page 13, leave out lines 19 to 21.
§ Page 13, line 33, leave out ("in writing")
§ Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
| Area where restrictions apply |
§ ("Common Otter Lutra Iutra England and Wales.")
§ leave out from beginning of line 34 to end of line 18 on page 16 and insert—
§ ("SCHEDULE 3
§ Vulnerable Wild Creatures
§ INVERTEBRATES
| Scientific name | Common name |
| Spiders | |
| Dolomedes plantarius | |
| Butterflies | |
| Carterocephalus palaemon | Chequered Skipper |
| Melitaea athalia | Heath Fritillary |
| Moths | |
| Idaea lineate | Black-veined |
| Pareulype berberata | Barberry Carpet |
| Thetidia smaragdaria | Essex Emerald |
| Beetles | |
| Chrysolina cerealis |
| Dragonflies | |
| Aeshna isosceles | 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 cartusiana | Carthusian snail |
| VERTEBRATES | |
| Fish | |
| Lota lota | Burbot |
| Mammal | |
| Muscardinus avellanarius | Dormouse."). |
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a series of Amendments designed to amend the Schedule in line with Amendments made earlier this afternoon and some moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in Committee, but which have not been reflected in the Schedule.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ In the Title.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 37:
Line 2, at end insert ("and of plants growing wild".).
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a feeling that, Parliamentarily speaking, I am being slightly naughty in putting down this Amendment. The noble Baroness very kindly let me have a few words with her advisers at the end of the Committee stage, and at that time they rather doubted the advice that they had given her in advising me to withdraw my original Amendment in Committee. Therefore, I have put it down again hoping that there will be an agreed result one way or the other. I beg to move.
§ Baroness STEDMANMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment again. I apologise to him and to the House. My advisers and myself gave further consideration to the Amendment after the noble Lord had spoken on it at the Committee stage, and we decided on reflection that parts of the Bill—Clause 11—related to plants. Therefore, perhaps in the initial stages we were wrong to advise your Lordships to oppose it, and I am very happy to ask you to accept it this afternoon
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEMy Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.