§ The noble Lord said: This again is a drafting Amendment and is repeated by Amendment No. 33 in the Schedule. The object of the exercise is to avoid a rather awkward sandwich in the Schedules to the Bill which, as printed, deal with endangered creatures, then plants and then vulnerable creatures. I am advised that it is far easier to have the first two categories of creatures followed by plants. As a "plants man", I am not sure whether 1183 I approve of that: nevertheless I entirely accept it. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
§
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) Section 1 of the principal Act shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—
§ (3) In section 2(1) of the principal Act after the words "Schedule 1" there shall be inserted the words "or Schedule 1A".
§ (4) In section 3 of the principal Act after the word "endangered", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or vulnerable".
§ (5) In sections 6, 8, 10, 11 of the principal Act and in the definition of "authorised person" in section 15(1) of that Act after the word "endangered", wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or vulnerable".
§
(6) In section 15(1) of the principal Act after the definition of "uproot" there shall be inserted the following definition—
' vulnerable wild creature ' means a wild creature specified in Schedule 1A to this Act found living wild, and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such wild creature." ").
§ The noble Lord said: Since I started on these Amendments, I seem to have been referring almost ad lib to my Amendment No. 6. Now that we have reached it a last, I shall try to explain in detail what it actually achieves. I have spoken to all of it with the exception of subsections (5) and (6) on page 3 of the Marshalled List. We have dealt with paragraph (a) by the Amendments to the first clause, and we have dealt with (b) by leaving out Clause 2. We have just dealt with subsection (3) by Amendment No. 5. Subsection (4) starts the process of giving rise to a "vulnerable" category, which is 1184 continued in subsection (5). That again, as I say, is purely concerned with drafting. Subsection (6) replaces the existing Clause 13(1) and completes the process of putting all the cases of vulnerability into one clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOKMay I niggle zoologically and just draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this Bill has attempted to be zoologically accurate by listing eggs, larvae and pupae. It is a zoological fact, which the departmental pundits will confirm, that grasshoppers and crickets go through a nymphal stage and therefore have neither larvae nor pupae. I think, therefore, that at some stage, if we are to be zoologically precise all the way through the word, "nymphs" ought to be introduced.
§ Baroness STEDMANI am sure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will take note of those comments. I should like only to refer to the comments he made earlier when he was going through this long group of Amendments. He said that, over the question of marking, the Nature Conservancy Council had expressed concern as to whether there was some inconsistency in the Bill as it stands. They would prefer the marking by the members of the public to be subject to licence by the Nature Conservancy Council, as in the case of the endangered category. The noble Lord has said he will look at this before the next stage, and we will raise no objections.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness. I shall most certainly read Hansard very carefully after today, not least to discover what I myself have actually said, because I feel I am perhaps making rather a mouthful of it! But I am certainly sensible of the fact that the word "nymphs" should be included.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Viscount SIMONI do not think I have ever been through the Committee stage of a Bill which was so difficult: I commend the noble Lord on his handling of it. I have tried to understand the two Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 as related to Clause 6. It seems to me that this long 1185 list of creatures under the heading of Schedule 3, except for the heading, is still in Clause 6: is that right?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEYes.
§ Viscount SIMONIn that case, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill one question, of which I have given him notice. I was a little surprised, and so were some of my lady friends, to find among the species we were seeking to protect something called the Barberry Carpet moth. Unless its name belies its characteristics, I wonder whether it is a moth which consumes carpets and, if so, whether we are wise to give it this "endangered" qualification which will seek to ensure its survival. In any case, I would say that if anybody saw a moth eating his carpet I am afraid he would stamp on it first and find out later whether or not it was the Barberry Carpet moth. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI am happy to relieve the noble Viscount's mind. The Barberry Carpet Moth is one which some people would have us believe looks a little like a Persian carpet and it lives on the barberry plant. The barberry plant is being removed at a rate of knots—not least, I should say, by the noble Baroness' Department in one or two of its operations. For that reason, if for no other, it needs protection under this Bill. Incidentally, should any moth shown in one of these Schedules be found to be eating a carpet, the householder would be an authorised person and would be quite at liberty to stamp on it!
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
§ Disturbance of certain wild creatures
§ (". After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Disturbance of certain wild creatures.
1A.—(1) If save as may be permitted by or under this Act any Person—1186he shall be guilty of an offence.
- a) wilfully damages or destroys any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection by an endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal; or
- (b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is in occupation of any structure or place which is so used,
(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of anything done—
- (a) within a dwelling-house; or
- (b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice."")
§ The noble Lord said: The first part of this Amendment, in other words, (1), I spoke to at the time when I asked your Lordships to leave out Clause 2. The Second part of the Amendment is also in Clause 2, but is far better drafted than we managed to achieve before. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
§ Variation of Schedules
§
(".—(1) For section 7 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following section—
Variation of Schedules.
7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order—
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section except—
and the Secretary of State shall send to any body or person consulted under paragraph (b) above a copy of the Council's advice and of the statement of their reasons for giving that advice.
§ (3) An order made under subsection (1) of this section shall not remove a wild creature from Schedule 1 to this Act without adding it to Schedule 1A to this Act.
§ (4) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply either generally or in relation to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wold creatures or plants in question or particular times 1187 of the year; and an order so made may make different provision for different circumstances."
§ (2) Section 14(2) of the principal Act, which is superseded by subsection (1) above, shall be omitted.").
§ The noble Lord said: This is another tidying-up operation, and I am glad to be able to tell you that it replaces no fewer than two of the old clauses and part of a third. Subsection (4) replaces Clause 11 and puts the duty on to the Secretary of State rather than on to the Nature Conservancy Council. The Secretary of State is in any case advised by the Nature Conservancy Council although, under the Bill as amended, he does not necessarily have to accept that advice. So this is the reason why it is better to leave this particular provision to the Secretary of State rather than to make it a duty placed upon the Nature Conservancy Council. The rest of this Amendment replaces Clauses 9 and 10. The wording is almost exactly the same as those two clauses. I beg to move.
§ Baroness STEDMANMay I add to what the noble Lord has said, and say that this Amendment tidies up both the Bill and the Act, in some respects, and controls the order-making processes. May I also remind the House that in the debate on the earlier Bill I gave an undertaking from this Box that we would arrange for a Parliamentary Question to be asked, when there was an availability of statements by the Nature Conservancy Council, and that we would make those statements available in the Library. That, of course, still applies.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7 [Forfeitures]:
§ 7.10 p.m.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
§
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("following ") to end of line 12 and insert ("subsection—
(2) The court by which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture of—
§ The noble Lord said: In this Chamber at some stage last year, my late noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I had a prolonged semantic argument, with the noble Baroness coming in and supporting the two of us at moments, and this is one of the points on which she did pre cisely that. Amendment No. 9 replaces Section 7 in the principal Act, which your Lordships will find in the keeling Schedule. It is a very much tidier way of getting at exactly the same idea. I am sorry for the delay, but—
§ Baroness STEDMANMay I come to the assistance of the noble Lord, and say that this is another tidying-up operation in the Bill which, as your Lordships will have gathered by this time, has been almost completely redrafted. It enables the Nature Conservancy Council to decide how to deal with forfeited creatures, which is one of the points at issue on the last occasion.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She and I, between us, beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10:
§
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) In section 10(d) of the principal Act the words "or restored" shall be omitted.").
§ The noble Lord said: These words are not now needed, because of the complete redrafting in the last Amendment of Section 7 of the principal Act. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Consequential amendments of principal Act]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEAgain, for drafting reasons, I shall ask your Lordships to leave out Clause 8 of this Bill. Subsection (1) of the clause has already 1189 been covered by Amendment No. 9, to which your Lordships have agreed; subsection (2) has already been covered by subsection (5) in Amendment No. 6; subsection (3)(a)has already been covered by subsection (2) in Amendment No. 2, and subsection (3)(b) has already been covered by the last Amendment, No. 10.
§ Clause 8 disagreed to.
§ Clause 9 [Schedules to be altered only in accordance with Section 12 of principal Act]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEThis clause was pre-empted by my Amendment No. 9, which completely replaced Section 7 of the principal Act. So that the Amendments to this section are not now needed.
§ Clause 9 disagreed to.
§ Clause 10 [Removal of creatures from Schedule 1]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEAgain, this is drafting, and was covered by subsection (3) of Amendment No. 8. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to leave out the clause.
§ Clause 10 disagreed to.
§ 7.16 p.m.
§
Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
§ ("Penalties
§ .In section 11 of the principal Act for the words "£200" there shall be substituted the words "£500".").
§ The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which, if my noble friend will accept it, I shall not have to put down again. Before the otter was added to Schedule 1 to the principal Act as an endangered species, a live otter sold for about £600. Now they are more rare and have gone up in price. Surely, it is common sense to raise the maximum fine to £500, and 1190 so make it less worthwhile to risk being found taking an otter for sale. I beg to move.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:I should like to intervene here, and say that I strongly support my noble friend Lord Craigton. I think that this figure is much more realistic.
§ Lord KILBRACKENCan the noble Lord say how much a live otter is fetching nowadays?
§ Lord CRAIGTONWe have been trying to find that out, but have not been able to do so. But they are now more difficult to obtain than there were before they were made an endangered species, so we presume that it is a good deal more than £600.
§ Lord KILBRACKENIn that case, is the £500 a sufficient deterrent?
§ The Earl of LISTOWELI support this new clause. I am sure that the maximum penalty should be increased, but I wonder whether £500 is sufficient. We all want to protect the otter. I think we all regard the otter as the most interesting and attractive of all the animals protected under this Bill. But we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that it used to fetch £600 and it fetches more now. That means that a poacher could very well take an otter, sell it and make a profit after he had paid the fine imposed under the Bill. Should we not be considering an even larger fine than the maximum proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton?
§ Lord CRAIGTONConsiderable thought has been given to this Amendment, and we feel that to over-price the otter, like making the fine £1,000, would not be a wise thing to do. The figure of £500 is about right. It has not been lightly picked upon and I hope your Lordships will accept my view, and the view of my advisers, that £500 is as much as is acceptable.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEThere are several points involved here. Your Lordships will perhaps have noticed that under Amendment No. 15 to Clause 14, I am proposing to insert the relevant provisions of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977, which "ups" the fines chargeable all across the board from £100 to £200. 1191 This is all very well, but it is too low and several noble Lords have spoken to this effect. But the next stage in the Home Office's ruling of linked fines is £500, and the stage above that is £1,000. If you insert £1,000, which is the obvious thing to do, you have a problem in that, as I understand from the conservation bodies, it is likely to drive up the price of a live otter on the open market, which no one wants to do. The other point is this: Although it is marginally less than the last available price for a live otter, I would suggest that £500 is not unrealistic. Not only would you have to pay the fine of £500 but also you would have to pay for your own defence and suffer the opprobrium, as I think the Home Office describe it, of your fellows—in other words, the opprobrium of the rest of the conservation and dealing fraternity. For all these reasons, I would suggest that £500 is about the right level.
§ Lord MISHCONMay I ask whether I am acting under a misapprehension? Is this not a maximum penalty? In other words, cannot a lower penalty be exacted?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEYes, it can.
§ Lord MISHCONIf that is so, is there any harm in having a £1,000 penalty as the maximum? Obviously, no harm would be done if a lower penalty can be exacted.
§ Baroness STEDMANMay I intervene at this stage to say that earlier we had some problems with the Home Office over this Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has just said, it would be out of line with their very recently simplified levels of fines. There was some doubt as to whether it was appropriate to try to raise the fine in this instance so soon after the new levels had been determined, particularly in view of the fact that it will still be a criminal offence. Therefore, it will act as some deterrent. And there may well be legal costs awarded, in addition to the fine, whatever it is.
Subject to various discussions we have had with the Home Office throughout the day, the Home Office have finally agreed that they would not object to the Amendment as it stands at the moment, subject to obtaining in due course an explanatory note from the appropriate division in my 1192 Department. With that assurance, I hope that noble Lords might agree to this Amendment.
§ Lord KILBRACKENMay I clarify one last point? In a case where a live otter is sold and this comes to be known, I suppose that the otter would be returned to the wild state. So a person would not make a profit on the transaction if he had to pay less than what it was worth.
§ Lord CRAIGTONHe would not make a profit on the transaction.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
§ 7.22 p.m.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
§ Page 4, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("them ") in page 5, line 45 and insert—
- ("(a) to add to Schedule 1 to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered;
- (b) to add to Schedule 1A to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is likely to become so endangered if existing casual factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer likely to become so endangered; and
- (c) to add to Schedule 2 to this Act any plant which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British plant or is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any plant which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered or likely to become so endangered.
§ (2) Advice may be given under subsection (1) of this section either generally or with respect to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year.
§ (3) Any advice given by the Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which led them to give that advice.
§ (4) The Council shall include any advice so given and a statement of the reasons which led ").
§ The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12 is paralleled by Amendment No. 30 in the Schedule. Again it is a question of drafting. This is infinitely better than what my late noble friend and I came up 1193 with during our debates last year. Also, it replaces Clause 12, which I think noble Lords will agree is all to the good. I beg to move.
§ Baroness STEDMANI should like to take this opportunity to say that this is the clause to which the Nature Conservancy Council feel that they can give their wholehearted support, because it removes the restriction which was placed upon them by Section 12 of the Act. It requires creatures and plants to be designated as endangered or protected only if their status has been caused by actions designated as an offence under the Act. This Amendment would allow creatures and plants to be scheduled solely on the basis of their status in the wild. The definitions of an endangered or a vulnerable wild creature more accurately reflect the internationally accepted definitions. The Nature Conservancy Council give it their wholehearted approval, as does my Department.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12 [Amendment of Section 14 of principal Act]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI spoke to this matter when I moved Amendment No. 12; that is, Clause 12 is now superseded by that Amendment. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw Clause 12.
§ Clause 12 disagreed to.
§ Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI should like to ask for your Lordships' permission also to leave out Clause 13. The first part of Clause 13 is covered by subsection (6) of Amendment No. 6. The second part—that is subsection (2)—is included in Amendment No. 13, when we reach it. I beg to move.
§ Clause 13 disagreed to.
1194§ Clause 14 [Short title, citation and extent]:
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("The") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("principal Act ").
§ The noble Lord said: I must confess that this was an oversight when the revised version of the Bill was prepared. It should, of course, have followed immediately the Amendment that was made on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("to") and insert ("and")
§
The noble Lord said: Despite the fact that on page 6 of the Bill we read that the 1975 Act and this Bill, when it becomes an Act,
may be cited together as the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 to 1978
and that these words have a perfectly respectable statutory history, I am advised by the draftsman—who, it seems, is having a tidying-up session—that the word "to" implies that there are more than two. In other words, the word "to" implies that there are more than two Acts involved, whereas the word "and" makes it absolutely clear that only two Acts are involved. This will help people who are making searches in libraries. I beg to move.
§ Viscount SIMONIs there not a slight slip here? Surely this is going to be not a 1978 but a 1979 Act.
§ Baroness STEDMANEventually, yes.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI am not sure whether the date is the date when it receives the Royal Assent or whether it is the date when it started on its course in one or other of the two Houses of Parliament. However, I shall certainly look into the noble Viscount's point and deal with the matter.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1195§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 15:
§
Page 6, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) In accordance with the preceding provisions of this Act, Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977 (which amends section 11(1) of the principal Act), the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 (which makes an addition to Schedule 1 to the principal Act) and the Transfer of Functions (Wales) (No. 1) Order 1978 (which transfers certain functions of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 8(l)(e) of the principal Act to the Secretary of State), the principal Act shall have effect as set out in the Schedule to this Act.").
§ The noble Lord said: I spoke in part to this Amendment when we talked about the otter. The point is that the italicised note at the beginning of the schedule will disappear when the Bill receives the Royal Assent and is printed as an Act. It is therefore necessary to incorporate it in the main body of the Bill. The Amendment recognises that the original Act has been superseded in part by various orders over the last three or four years. In the first place Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977, which increased the fine. It might well be that this part will have to disappear when we study this between now and the Report stage, since your Lordships have agreed to the insertion of £500 rather than £200.
§ In other words, this part will have nothing to do with the situation that will then obtain. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 adds the otter—I think mistakenly—to Schedule 1 to the Act. I think that when we get a Schedule 1A or a Schedule 2 or whatever it eventually becomes, probably in the interests of science that would be a better place to put it, but I am not prepared to get into that argument this evening. Nevertheless, the order was made and it should be reflected in the Bill.
§ Lastly, the Transfer of Functions (Wales) (No. 1) Order 1978 which transfers the functions from the Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment to the Secretary of State for Wales. I am advised that the devolution Act for Wales does not complicate this issue any further. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
1196§ Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
§ 7.31 p.m.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
§ Page 7, line 13, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
§ Page 7, line 14, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
§ Page 7, line 20, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
§ The noble Lord said: I have been trying to speak to all the parallel Amendments as we have gone along. I appreciate that I may have gone rather fast on some occasions, but where my Amendments are in blocks and not separated by Amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Craigton, unless any noble Lord objects I propose to move them en bloc. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 inclusive.
§ Lord KILBRACKENI think there is a small slip in Amendment No. 19.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford)In that case I will put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 first, and then take Amendment No. 19 separately.
§ On Question, Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 agreed to.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
§
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of the taking or attempted taking, for the purpose of identification or marking, of any vulnerable wild creature:
Provided that any vulnerable wild creature so taken is identified or marked without reasonable delay and is released on the spot where it was taken immediately after the identification or marking.")
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19 which is consequential on part of Amendment No. 6, which we agreed to earlier.
§ Lord KILBRACKENI should like to point out that there seems to be a mistake in that a vulnerable wild creature has to be identified or marked "without reasonable delay". Surely the noble Lord means either "without unreasonable delay" or "with reasonable delay"?
§ Lord MISHCONWith respect, I was about to make the same point.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEIt is perfectly correct, but I suspect that the advice from the Table would be that this is in fact a printing error. It should exactly parallel that part of Amendment No. 6(a) which mentions "unreasonable delay ", and therefore it can be corrected in the reprinting and does not need amendment.
§ Baroness STEDMANI understand that this can be corrected now, if it is moved.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI beg to move.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESPage 7, line 22, at end insert the words on the Marshalled List with the manuscript Amendment making "reasonable" into "unreasonable".
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESI should explain that, if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 20:
§ Page 7, line 24, leave out from ("person") to end of line 30 and insert—
- ("(a) wilfully damages or destroys any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection by an endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal; or
- (b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is in occupation of any structure or place which is so used,
§ he shall be guilty of an offence.
§ (2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of anything done—")
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon part of Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
§
Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 37, leave out ("3") and insert ("1A")
§ The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 is consequential on part of Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
1198§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("or skeletons") and insert ("skeletons, parts or derivatives ")
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEThe noble Lord, Lord Craigton, did not move this in its parallel form in the main part of the Bill, as I remember, and therefore with respect I think he should withdraw it now.
§ Lord CRAIGTONI withdrew the Amendment which amended the original Bill because the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has changed the Bill around, but this Schedule is consequential and if I moved the correct Amendment to the first part my Amendment here should still stand.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI give way to that argument. I agree to the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
§ Page 8, leave out lines 1 to 26.
§ Page 9, leave out lines 1 to 18 and insert
§ Variation of Schedules.
§ ("7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order—
- (a) add any wild creature to, or remove any wild creature from, Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A to this Act; or
- (b) add any plant to, or remove any plant from, Schedule 2 to this Act.
§ (2)The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section except—
- (a) in accordance with advice given by the Nature Conservancy Council under section 12(1) of this Act; and
- (b) 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;
§ (3) An order made under subsection (1) of this section shall not remove a wild creature from Schedule 1 to this Act without adding it to Schedule 1A to this Act.
§ (4) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply either generally or in relation to particular provisions of this Act, particular 1199 areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year; and an order so made may make different provision for different circumstances.")
§ Page 10, line 10, after ("in") insert ("Wales or")
§ Page 10, line 43, leave out ("protected") and insert ("any")
§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 to 27. They are all consequential.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 28:
§ Page 11, line 2, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£500")
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 34:
§
Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—
("(2) The court by which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture of—
and any creature or plant so forfeited shall be dealt with as the Nature Conservancy Council may direct.")
§ Page 11, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("them") in line 7 on page 12 and insert—
- ("(a) to add to Schedule 1 to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered;
- (b) to add to Schedule 1A to this Act any wild creature which, in their pinion, is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer likely to become so endangered; and
- (c) to add to Schedule 2 to this Act any plant which, in their opinion is in danger of extinction as a British plant or is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any plant which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered or likely to become so endangered.
§ (2) Advice may be given under subsection (1) of this section either generally or with respect to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year.
1200§ (3) Any advice given by the Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which led them to give that advice.
§ (4) The Council shall include any advice so given and a statement of the reasons which led ")
§ Page 12, leave out lines 20 to 25.
§ Page 13, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("1A")
§ Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
| SCHEDULE 1 | |
| VULNERABLE WILD CREATURES | |
| Common name | Scientific name |
| INVERTEBRATES | |
| SPIDERS | |
| Dolomedes plantarius | |
| BUTTERFLIES | |
| Chequered Skipper | Carterocephalus palaemon |
| Heath Fritillary | Melitaea athalia |
| MOTHS | |
| Black-veined | Idaea lineata |
| Barberry Carpet | Pareulype berberata |
| Essex Emerald | Thetidia smaragdaria |
| BEETLES | |
| Chrysolina cerealis | |
| DRAGONFILES | |
| Norfolk Aeshna | Aeshna isoscles |
| GRASSHOPPERS AND CRICKETS | |
| Wart-biter | Decticus verrucivorus |
| Field Cricket | Gryllus campestris |
| Mole Cricket | Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa |
| MOLLUSES | |
| Glutinous snail | Myxas glutinosa |
| Sandbowl snail | Catinella arenaria |
| Carthusian snail | Monacha cartusiana |
| VERTEBRATES | |
| Fish | |
| Burbot | Lota lota.") |
§ Page 14, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 15.
§ The noble Lord said: In moving Amendments Nos. 29 to 34, we have finished a steeplechase which I, for one, am very relieved to have finished. I am very pleased indeed that your Lordships have been patient when it has been necessary to be patient in order to follow me and also have accepted my remarks, on the whole, without question. I can only hope that I have not been so fast that I have made a complete nonsense of this entire Committee stage. I beg to move.
§ Baroness STEDMANI am sure that before we finish this Committee stage all the Members of the House who have sat through it would like to offer their congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He, with the help of some of my officials, has done a major redrafting 1201 job. Since I have been in the House I do not think that I have seen a Bill so completely turned upside down, as this one has been, and come out the sort of Bill that we can send on its path. I should like to offer the congratulations of the House to the noble Lord.
§ Lord CRAIGTONI should like to support that. I have been in this House or the other place since 1950 and I have never seen such a dog's breakfast so well handled.
§ Lord SKELMERSDALEI am very grateful.
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.