HL Deb 13 February 1979 vol 398 cc1175-82

6.37 p.m.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

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 Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("there shall be substituted the word "endangered" ") and insert ("wherever it occurs").

The noble Lord said: I appreciate that, with 36 Amendments, both numbered and unnumbered, in my name, I may well be laying myself open to the charge of having put my name indelibly upon somebody else's Bill, because, of course, this is the Bill as originally proposed last Session by my late noble friend Lord Cranbrook, as I said at length on Second Reading. In fact, I have not gone as far as this, but I have followed suggestions of the Government draftsman, as put to me by officials of the Department of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The Amendments in my name have two main objects: firstly, to arrange the proposed Amendments more effectively; and, secondly, to avoid the repetition of material in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, which hereinafter I shall refer to as "the principal Act". There is, I am afraid to say, plenty of that in the Bill before your Lordships for consideration this evening.

There are also a few changes of substance, which I shall explain in detail when we get to them; but I should explain that, as I have just said, I have had countless meetings with the noble Baroness's Department, mostly, I must confess, with one particular officer, without whose help I would not be in a position to ask your Lordships' permission to improve the Bill to the extent necessary to get it in an acceptable form for the Statute Book. I have also had a meeting with the Nature Conservancy Council, and several with the amateur naturalists' umbrella organisation, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. Officers of all these bodies agree that the Amendments I am proposing will make the Bill substantially more acceptable, and, without committing themselves finally at this stage, have given me to understand that the Bill as I propose to amend it will fit the purpose for which it was originally designed, and that they will now agree with that purpose.

The main objective of my Amendment to Clause 1 is to bring together into one clause all the Amendments to the 1975 Act which are necessary to create the concept of an endangered wild creature. I am told that it is necessary to do this to achieve a distinction between creatures already protected by that Act and the new category of vulnerable wild creatures introduced by this Bill. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment. Thus, there is no parallel Amendment in the keeling Schedule to the Bill (which we shall get on to later) and which sets out the effects of this Bill on the principal Act. It is printed at the end of this Bill on page 7 onwards. I bee to move Amendment No. 1.

Baroness STEDMAN

I think that to save time over the later Amendments, it might be convenient if I were to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said. He has been extremely cooperative about this Bill and we are grateful. So far as we are concerned in the Department, my officials are now satisfied that the Bill is in a fit state—or it will be so when we have finished with it tonight—to pass on to another place. We hope to give it a fair wind. For the most part, with one or two minor observations, the Government will raise no objections to the Amendments which are down.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 9 and insert ("definitions of" protected plant "and" protected wild creature "in section 15(1), there shall be substituted the word "endangered".

(2) In section 10(d) of the principal Act after the words "creature or" there shall be inserted the word "any".

(3) In section 15(1) of the principal Act—

  1. (a) after the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted the following definition—
  2. (b) the definition of "protected wild creature "shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: Like so many of these Amendments which have been introduced originally at the instigation of the draftsman, this covers various points. I hope to make them as clearly as possible; but if I do not do so, please interrupt me. The first paragraph of this Amendment is a purely drafting one. It is already covered in a different form in the Bill. Subsection (2) of the Amendment is a clarification of the existing Clause 8(3)(a) which it replaces; and it is paralleled by Amendment No. 27 in the Schedule. Subsection (3)(a) of the Amendment is a tidier place than that currently occupied by Clause 13 of the Bill which it now replaces and subsection (3)(b) is needed because the word "protected" disappears throughout the Bill and it is replaced where appropriate by the words "endangered" and "vulnerable". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Disturbance of mammals.]:

Lord CRAIGTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 15, after ("mammal") insert ("amphibian or reptile").

The noble Lord said: I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said. I think that my noble friend has done a really magnificent job and, as I was the only person in this House to speak against this Bill on Second Reading, it is, I feel, proper for me to suggest a few minor Amendments. My Amendment arises for this reason. Under the principal 1975 Act it is illegal to kill, injure or take one of the protected wild creatures listed in Schedule I to that main Act. In this amending Bill my noble friend extends the protection from killing, injuring or taking, to "disturbance". But he limits the disturbance to the disturbance of mammals. Schedule I to the 1975 Act includes three animals: the sand lizard and smooth snake (which are reptiles) and the natterjack toad, which is an amphibian. All these three rare and endangered species can hardly be said to hibernate, but they go into a sort of hibernation when in winter their body metabolism slows down. During that period, for their own safety and survival, they should be left undisturbed. Having said these few words, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SKELMERSDALE

I have been pre-empted by the happenings of the last few minutes. I was going to ask my noble friend if he would withdraw his Amendment. In the event, what he wants is an Amendment to one of my later Amendments. We will get there eventually at the next stage of the Bill. I should like to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw Clause 2 from the Bill in favour of Amendment No. 7 (or, at least, part of it) on the Marshalled List.

Having in Clause 1, as amended, disposed completely of the endangered category I am advised that the next clause in the Bill should cover the vulnerable category which the Bill seeks to introduce. The existing Clause 2 is dealing with a completely different subject and it should therefore be after the new Clause I am proposing in Amendment No. 7—which is a neater and tidier way of saying what is in Clause 2 at the moment. It also avoids a verbal mistake. The object of the old clause was to protect a nest whether occupied or not. This was unclear in the original drafting. I am advised that the new wording, "place which is used for shelter or protection", gets over this particular problem. Head (b) of the proposed new Clause 1A tidies up the clause to the effect that it also becomes a new offence to disturb either adults or young while they are in occupation of such a refuge or nest. I beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

May I intervene to point out that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is applicable to those species which are at present on the proposed Schedule of endangered animals. If this Bill becomes law, that proposed Schedule will potentially contain a larger range of species. Not only amphibians and reptiles go into a form of torpor in winter but also snails and other invertebrates may be found in the same state. Snails are particularly vulnerable to being disturbed from the place where they are hidden. They are sealed up in their state of hibernation and, if disturbed, they are vulnerable to predation from birds and so on. If, at a later stage, an Amendment on the lines of that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is adopted, I think it would be simpler if the term "creature" was used because the capacity to hibernate exists in many animals which are potentially members of the Schedule.

Clause 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3 [Restriction on sale of vulnerable wild creatures]:

6.50 p.m.

Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 5, at end insert— ("(2) In section 2(2) of the principal Act for the words" or skeletons "there shall be substituted the words "skeletons, parts or derivatives".").

The noble Lord said: I shall move this Amendment very briefly. I want to add to the word "skeletons", the words "parts or derivatives". In the May 1975 Act it is illegal to barter or exchange protected creatures alive or dead, including skeletons and skins. Since then we have had some experience of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. We know from the workings of the very detailed Schedule 3 to that Act that it is not difficult to make goods from parts or derivatives. We do not want such goods made out of endangered or vulnerable species scheduled in the Bill that we are discussing. I refer to such goods as brooches made from butterfly wings, ornaments made from otter fur or snail shell, necklaces or ornaments on key rings. My Amendment echoes the principles of Schedule 3 to the 1976 Act in making such trade in vulnerable and endangered species illegal. I hope that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will approve of my Amendment, in which case I shall withdraw it and put it down again at a later stage. I beg to move.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

I most certainly approve of the tenor of the Amendment. Yet again, I rather think that it is not in the right place, especially as it is in a clause which, again, I am going to ask the Committee to remove. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to withdraw it at this stage.

Lord CRAIGTON

May I have leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SKELMERSDALE

Again I am going to ask the Committee's permission to leave out Clause 3 of this Bill. I am proposing to leave it out in favour of the first part of my Amendment No. 6: in other words, subsection (2)(a), which incidentally is paralleled by Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 in the Schedule. I am advised that it is far tidier to have a whole section of the Bill covering vulnerable creatures rather than to have its various parts scattered throughout the Bill as they are at the moment.

Clause 3 disagreed to.

Clause 4 [Restriction on marking or ringing]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SKELMERSDALE

Again, I should like to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw Clause 4 for exactly the same reason as I have given. It is covered by my Amendment No. 6.

Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord SKELMERSDALE

We now have something on which I am going to have a complete volte-face. On Second Reading I praised one of the potential improvements which were slipped into the Bill at a late stage last year, by which I mean what is popularly referred to as the phobia clause. I shall get to that later. Let me first say what leaving out Clause 5 entails and then I shall go back to the phobia clause.

Subsection (1)(a) and paragraph (b) are, I am told, repetitious of the Act and so they are not necessary in their present form. In any case, I propose to repeat them by my new Amendment No. 6; that is to say, the word "vulnerable" will be added to the word "endangered "which has been inserted by the removal of the word "protected" by Clause 1 as amended already. Sub-paragraph (ii) is repetitious of the Act. Paragraph (b) comes into subsection (4) of my Amendment No. 6. Subsection (2) is replaced by paragraph (b) (2) in my Amendment No. 6 which leaves us with the phobia provision, which I have already mentioned, and the slightly doubtful paragraph (ii) which is covered, as I have just said, by part of my Amendment No. 6. I know that the Nature Conservancy Council for one are not too happy about having this in the Bill and I undertake to take this back and consider it. But since it is part of a very much larger Amendment, I should be grateful if your Lordships will allow me to have the Amendment as it is. I undertake to do something about it before the next stage.

Now, back to phobias, the proviso was inserted into the Bill last time to go some way to give protection to the man in the street who has a natural aversion to spiders, snakes, slugs and everything else that one can think of. It was so widely drawn that it drove a coach and horses right through the Bill and completely negatived the whole operation. It was quite unintentionally what I believe is popularly known as a wrecking Amendment. It had all the best intentions behind it. The word "phobia" could not be used because I understand that this, carried to its logical conclusion, sends people absolutely rigid and, by definition, it could not possibly cause them to kill invertebrates or any other creature.

Omitting this clause does not give the man in the street the protection which I, for one, should like to see in the Bill. I have had many sleepless nights over this particular matter. If any members of the Committee can suggest an improvement, I shall certainly be truly grateful even if it does nothing more than improve my sleeping habits. In the main, however, where the person who suffers is an authorised person—in other words, a landowner or a home owner—he would have a defence against injuring or killing any vulnerable creature by the provisions in my Amendment No. 6. But, as I say, this is the only piece which gives me any cause for regret. I beg to move.

Lord KILBRACKEN

May I clarify one point? Where does this clause or subsection about phobias appear?

Lord SKELMERSDALE

On page 2 of the Bill, the proviso of the new section states: it shall not be an offence against this section to kill or injure an invertebrate wild creature …". This is the point which gives cause for alarm.

Lord KILBRACKEN

There is no reference to phobias.

Lord SKELMERSDALE

No, I did not say there was a direct reference to phobias. I said it was becoming popularly known as the phobia clause.

Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6 [Schedule of vulnerable wild creatures]:

7 p.m.

Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5: >Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 3 and insert ("1 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule:—

Forward to