HL Deb 24 May 1978 vol 392 cc970-80

3.5 p.m.

Bill read 3a.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1:

Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:

Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures. ("1.—(1) In the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, for the word "protected" there shall be substituted the word "endangered" except in section 5 and in the definition of "protected plant" in section 15(1). (2) In section 10(d) of the principal Act, after the word "or" there shall be inserted the word "protected,".").

The noble Lord Said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for putting down on the Third Reading what seems to be a rather long list of Amendments to this Bill. Of course, the custom of the House is that no new matters should be raised on Third Reading but that it should be used as what one might describe colloquially as a "nuts and bolts" exercise. That is exactly what I am trying to do, because the object of the Bill as it was first drafted—and I think that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will agree with me—was, in fact, not to touch plants at all but to give certain added protection to vulnerable and rare wild creatures.

It will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak not only to Amendment No. 1 but also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 10 and 13, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 being duplicates because they are in the Schedule. The substantive part of Amendment No. 1—and, indeed, the others—is to make quite clear the distinction in this Bill between creatures and wild plants. The principal Act—the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975—was very much to the point so far as plants were concerned in that it gave two completely separate categories of plant. These were those that were then called the "protected plants", which are to be found in Schedule 2 to the Act, which in effect cannot be touched by any means except by an authorised person; that is to say, they cannot be picked, uprooted, destroyed, run over with a bulldozer or whatever. Every other plant had all these protections, with the sole exception that they were allowed to be picked.

In the Bill as it now stands plants can be put into the Schedule only if they are in danger of extinction. The point at issue here is that many of the plants are not in fact in danger of extinction. I should like to mention just two from the current Schedule, that is, Schedule 2 to the Act. The Spiked Speedwell—Veronica spicata—has only four stations and these are currently threatened by ploughing and by proposed tree planting. In other words, that plant is not in danger of extinction by virtue of offences under the Act or the Bill at all. Secondly, Gentiana verna is reasonably widespread and has about 55 stations in England, but it is declining rapidly in vigour in at least one station and is sparse and very local in most of the others. So it could well be argued that these plants would never have got into Schedule 2 if the Bill was part of the original Act.

Perhaps more important is the fact that both Schedules for creatures and wild plants will come up for revision in 1980. There are two plants in particular which would greatly benefit from being included in the Schedule and which—because they are not strictly speaking in danger of extinction—will, as I understand it under the terms of this Bill, never get there. They are Lencajum Vernum, the Spring Snowflake, and Cyclamen Hederifolium, the Autumn Sowbread, both of which only exist in up to five stations and are rapidly declining, but which are not in any sense as yet in danger of extinction.

My Amendment, therefore, is to reinstate the position as it was in the Act. In order to do that I am afraid that I have been slightly long-winded. However, I have set out to keep the creatures part of the Bill as it is at present and to exclude the plants, and wherever the word "endangered" occurs with reference to plants, to put it back to being "protected". I beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I am not a botanist and I am prepared to fall in with the advice of my noble friend, in particular because it is supported, I think, by the Botanical Society of the British Isles and also the Nature Conservancy Council. But I must offer one word of warning, because from what my noble friend said it is quite clear that this is slightly debasing the currency. If we go too far it could lead to a very considerable increase in the number of wild plants put on Schedule 2, which means that it will become increasingly difficult for the man in the street to realise what plants are on Schedule 2; there is a greater risk of him unwittingly committing an offence because he does not realise which plants he may pick. It only stops plants being picked; no plant may be uprooted, as my noble friend said. Provided this power to add to Schedule 2 is not abused, I should be perfectly happy, but it does mean that it will have to be done with discretion or it could do serious damage.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and, if I may do so in passing, congratulate him on his absolutely first-class display at Chelsea this week. In addition to that, there was one point in the noble Lord's speech which I did not entirely follow. The Speedwell he referred to would surely be on the Schedule anyway, because it is not necessary that a plant should be in danger from the specific threats with which the Bill deals. So long as it is in danger of extinction at all, it should be, and it has every right to be, on the Schedule. Apart from that point, however, I think that to extend it in this way, providing, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, says, care is taken not to spread the net too wide, is a very good thing. I would certainly support it.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, if I may very briefly answer both noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is worried about the possibility of a large number of plants appearing on the Schedule. May I say that the alternative is to me absolutely mind-boggling? It means two Schedules, one of completely protected plants and one which in fact gives much the same protection as the general protection given to all other kinds of plant. I think that, certainly at this stage and until we have any good reason to approach the Government on this score for a second or even a third time, we should do better to leave it as I have suggested. The other point was about the danger of extinction. The Act, I agree, talks about danger per se; the Bill talks about "in danger of extinction", and these are two completely different things.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:

3.13 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("or marking").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Section 3 of the 1975 Act it is an offence to mark or put identifying rings or other similar things upon what we now call endangered wild species. Very little harm is done to an animal by marking it. The common way is to put, for instance, a dab of nail varnish on to a snail or the wing of a butterfly, so that one can identify it again and realise that one has seen it before. That is a very convenient way of finding the density of the total population. So far as vulnerable wild creatures on Schedule 3 are concerned, it does no harm at all. But there does seem to be a possibility that, under Clause 3 of the Bill, it might be prohibited although that was not intended. This is just a series of drafting Amendments intended to make it clear that that would be allowed. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 37, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 4: Page 4, line 41, leave out ("or wild plant").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5: Page 5, line 1, as amended by the Correction Slip, leave out ("and") and insert ("that").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships on this particular occasion for having got myself into a muddle at the Report stage. My noble friend moved this Amendment on Report, and I was incautious enough at that stage to say that it made not a jot of difference. In fact I have now been re-reading this and I believe it makes a great deal of difference, in that it makes the wording of the Bill very much easier to follow. I beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, this is really a semantic argument that I have had with the noble Lord on two previous occasions. The real question is whether age should give way to youth or youth give way to age. I think perhaps age might give way to youth on this occasion.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 5, line 8, at end insert— ("(aa) if any wild plant has become so rare that its status as a British plant is being endangered by any action designated as an offence under this Act and that it should be included in Schedule 2 either generally or with respect to a particular area or in relation to a particular category or has become so common that its status is no longer endangered and it should be removed therefrom; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Amendment of S.14 of principal Act]:

Amendment No. 7:

Page 5, line 40, 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 has been a continual thread in our debates on this Bill, and the Government, in the shape of the noble Baroness, have promised to come up with an answer. If I may rather naughtily remind her, this is the Third Reading and, in a sense—as it said on a notice on the desk of one American President—the buck stops here. I beg to move.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, the noble Lord has been very patient with us through the preceding stages of this Bill and we have tried to meet his requirements. But we have finally to tell the House that we have come up with a considered opinion that there are other cases where Government action is based on the advice of a body like the Nature Conservancy Council, and that if we were to require in every case that a statement should be laid before the House it would be a very serious additional burden on the two Houses, as well as on the Government.

We have looked into all sorts of suggestions which were made to us in the two previous stages. I have looked at a number of possibilities, including use of the Pink Paper, and inclusion in the explanatory note which is printed with every order. I find that the Pink Paper can only list Command Papers, Lords' Papers and Lords' Bills, and the NCC statement could not, therefore, be included. As for the explanatory note attached to an order, that may only explain the effect of the order, and has to be as short as possible. Therefore the justification for the policy is expressly excluded. We looked at several other fringe ideas as well which did not come to anything, and while I fully accept the reasons and the concern of the noble Lord I think the best that I can do for him at this stage—I appreciate, as he said, that the buck stops here—is to undertake that a Question will be put down on each occasion that changes are made to the Schedules. This will ensure that the availability of the NCC advice is reported in Hansard. I understand from Mr. Goldsmith of my Department, who has been dealing with this, that this solution might perhaps be acceptable to both noble Lords opposite. I think this is really the best we can come up with at this point.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, in fact the buck started with me. I think the noble Baroness has put forward an admirable solution, and I hope that my noble friend will accept it.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for going to all this trouble to sort out a sensible solution, and most certainly I accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as amended.]:

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8: Page 8, line 20, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9: Page 8, line 23, after ("identification") insert ("or marking").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10: Page 10, line 40, after second ("or") insert ("protected").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11: Page 11, line 2, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£200").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to do with a provision of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and it ought to be on the Schedule. I beg to move.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I hardly gathered from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whether this was merely a technical and legal change or whether it was an alteration in substance—that is to say, doubling the existing possible fine from £100 to £200. If it is a substantial increase in the fine I wish to oppose it and I should like to be able to give my reasons for doing so.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, the Act to which I referred put up a very large number of fines, and this was among them. I am not putting it up on its merits and I hope the noble Lord will not want me to discuss its merits. I am merely putting it here because it is now the law of the land under the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I still adhere to my view that it would be excessive to increase this fine from £100 to £200. The noble Earl referred to recent increases that were prescribed in certain fines, but we must bear in mind that this particular piece of legislation was not at that stage on the Statute Book.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, this is an Amendment to the Act of 1975, not to my Bill. It is an Amendment to the Act of 1975 which was made by the Act of 1977. I think that if the noble Lord had wanted to alter it he would have had to put down an Amendment, because it is now the law of the land.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, perhaps it would help my noble friend behind me if I confirm what the noble Earl said. The penalty in Section 11(1) of the Act was increased by the Criminal Law Act 1977. This was not noticed when this Bill was drafted, and this is purely a technical correction.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, if it is a technical correction I have nothing more to say.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No.13: Page 13, line 15, leave out ("endangered") and insert ("protected").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.25 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so I must first thank all those of your Lordships who have helped me to improve this Bill since we gave it a Second Reading: the noble Baroness opposite and her department who have been of the greatest help to me, and those of your Lordships who have made suggestions which have been incorporated in the Bill. It is certainly a very much better Bill than it was when I first presented it. In particular I should like to thank noble Lords for agreeing to Amendments which have made this Bill conform to what must be an essential feature of any conservation Bill—that it should not unnecessarily put the man in the street in danger of committing an offence if that can be avoided. The Bill now conforms in that way.

By definition the wild creatures which are placed on Schedule 3 are not being endangered by killing or taking, and the Bill therefore provides that it shall not be an offence for the man in the street to kill one, either inadvertently or even on purpose. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on Second Reading, there are a number of people who dislike spiders and cannot resist jumping on one if they see it, and if one with that little phobia jumps on a protected spider he does no harm and it would not be an offence. It also allows the field naturalist to continue his ordinary studies; to capture, identify, and now mark and then release a wild creature and continue with his studies and research. Your Lordships would doubtless feel that that is something right and proper for a Bill of this nature to provide for.

The Nature Conservancy Council does not agree with that proposal. The Nature Conservancy Council would put all these wild creatures on Schedule I of the existing Act, which was intended, like Schedule 2 to which my noble friend has recently referred, to give protection to wild creatures which are being endangered by killing or taking. It can only do that; it only does that; but it gives such complete protection that the man in the street would be committing an offence if he had unwittingly killed or taken one and the field naturalist would be unable to pursue his ordinary studies and research to which I have referred. That of course is directly contrary to what we have come to feel is, as I said earlier, an essential feature of any conservation Act, and we take all the trouble that we can to prevent people from being put at risk of that sort.

Let me remind your Lordships that a very large number of wild creatures which are now going to be placed on the Schedule—certainly the ones that I have placed already on Schedule 3—are invertebrates, largely insects, largely ones (and I am an enthusiastic naturalist) which I would not be able to identify myself without a great deal of trouble, several books and probably some scientific papers. You cannot expect the man in the street to be able to keep himself up to date with that sort of problem. The trouble is that this is not a scientific problem; it is a legislative one for which we have to take the necessary decisions. The Nature Conservancy Council is obviously designed to give scientific advice, but not necessarily advice on legislative problems which are the essential prerogative of your Lordships and of Members of another place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me that we must have this amendment. We must have this Schedule 3 in order to protect the people for whom we are responsible; that is, the man in the street, as well as the creatures that we wish to protect. The way that the Nature Conservancy Council suggests doing it is contrary to every reasonable canon for a conservation Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

3.31 p.m.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

My Lords, I should like to say that I think the whole House is most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. We are lucky that he has recovered his health to enable him to come from a bed of sickness and move these Amendments and take part so ably. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has added his expertise in his field, and I would be churlish if I did not say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that I think that in meeting Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment No. 7 today she has come up extremely well with her suggestion. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook wanted this. I did not think that there would be such a simple answer, and I think that she and the Government have done extremely well on this. This is a non-Party measure, and from these Benches we can only say "Thank you" to the Government for meeting my two noble friends' points so well.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, may I say from these Benches that I appreciate the comments that have been made from noble Lords opposite, and also the comments that have been made about the help rendered by my officials. It is nice to know when they go out of their way to help us that it is appreciated, and it is nice to have it said in public. When I came to this Dispatch Box at Second Reading I had to advise your Lordships' House that, in the view of the Nature Conservancy Council, this piece of legislation was neither necessary nor desirable, and everything it sought to do could be done by existing legislation. The noble Earl did not accept that. We have had much consultation and he has given a great amount of time in discussion on this Bill, with the result that the Bill as amended is one that we can be very proud of in this House. We should like from this side of the House to offer our congratulations to the noble Earl, and to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the work they have done on this Bill. It leaves the House now in a very satisfactory state.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

My Lords, since my name has been referred to I think far too often in the course of these exchanges, perhaps I should say that I do not regard myself as being in any sense on a par with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber I have learnt a tremendous amount from him, and I hope I shall continue to do so for many years to come.

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