| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 283 to 285:
Page 16, line 23, leave out "for the purpose of ascertaining whether" and insert "if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may find there evidence that"
"(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where an inspector seizes a substance under subsection (1)(c).
(6) The inspector must give to a person on the premises, or affix conspicuously to some object on the premises, a notice stating—
(a) what he has seized and the ground for seizing it, and
(b) the address for service for any claim for the return of the substance.
(7) The inspector—
(a) may retain the substance for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purposes of any investigation or proceedings in respect of an offence under section 43;
(b) subject to any order for forfeiture under section 43(5) or any claim made within the relevant period by a person entitled to the return of the substance, may retain the substance or, after the relevant period, destroy or otherwise dispose of it.
(8) "The relevant period" means the period ending 28 days after—
(a) any proceedings in respect of an offence under section 43 are finally determined, or
(b) if no such proceedings are brought, the time for bringing such proceedings expires."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 285A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 288 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 289 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 46 [Protection for nests of certain birds which re-use their nests]:
27 Feb 2006 : Column 26
Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert "if there is evidence that the nest was constructed or used within the preceding five years"
The noble Earl said: The amendment attempts to define the meaning of the word "nest" in this part of the Bill, which refers to the 1981 Act. The birds included in the Bill that reuse their nests are the golden and white-tailed eagle and osprey. The Government have the power to extend the list, and could cover such ground nesting birds as hen harriers or merlins. Such birds tend to return to the same area to nest, but do not necessarily use the same specific nest site. The same applies to the golden eagle. I know of one golden eagle nest in Scotland, where the birds nested for three or four years. Sometimes there is a build-up of parasites in the nest and the birds might move to another site, but it may possibly come back to the original nest site.
I can see a situation possibly arising where relatively large tracts of heather moorland—I declare an interest as somebody who owns and manages heather moorland in the north of England—could become permanently protected under the Bill, thus prohibiting large areas of heather from being burned because of the protection of nests in that area. In reality, however, if a previous nest has been burnt out or ceased to exist for whatever reason, birds such as merlins and hen harriers will, like most other ground-nesting species, happily readjust and find a nest site nearby. It is important not to be over-restrictive, given the importance of heather burning as a key ingredient of good moor management. The amendment simply tries to bring a reasonable time limit to the restriction. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I speak to Amendment No. 291, which is grouped with this amendment. It simply adds the swallow to the list of birds which may well reuse their nests—or sites, in which category the swallow would be regarded under this legislation.
I have chosen the swallow in particular because, in Forts Orchard in Chilthorne Domer where I used to live, there was a pair of newly constructed houses. Both houses had swallows' nests constructed on them within a year of being built, which I thought a tremendous triumph—not least for the swallows, which were quite brave. The people in the right-hand house were delighted with the swallows moving in and, despite the swallow droppings all down the front, continued to be delighted to have such a wonderful species choosing to live on their house. The people in the left-hand house, however, felt quite differently about the swallow droppings. Despite the swallows making every effort to lay eggs and hatch their young, the occupants continued to knock down the nests as fast as they were built.
The swallow is in severe decline, for whatever reason. Perhaps the Minister will have some more information on this from her officials, as my amendment refers particularly about swallows. Going back to what we were saying about biodiversity, any bird—particularly a bird in decline—which reuses its nest in the UK should be worthy of protection. My
27 Feb 2006 : Column 27
amendment simply aims to probe the Government as to which birds are protected, which are not and why that is.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is important to have some guidance from the Government on the point at which a nest becomes an "ex-nest", as it were. The briefing we received, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out, says that:
"The amendment seeks to address the issue of the length of time a nest can be unoccupied and still remain a nest".
"There is no clear point at which the distinction between a nest and an ex-nest can readily be made".
When I read this, I was irresistibly reminded of the "dead parrot" sketch in "Monty Python". One can hear the occupier saying, "This nest is dead, it is kaput, it is finished, it is no longer with us". The inspector would turn around and say, "The nest is not dead; it is just unused and might be resurrected". It is extremely important, if the "five years" is correct, that the Minister spells out exactly when a nest becomes an ex-nest.
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend's amendment. In another place there was some discussion about whether a nest was being used as a nest or whether it was no longer used as a nest and could be used again. I believe that my honourable friend Jim Paice originally suggested three years for that. We have had, as I am sure have other noble Lords, briefings from various organisations on this. The RSPB suggested that a five-year limit would be appropriate. It is not as simple as one might think on the face of it, because it is clearly an offence already for anybody to disturb a prescribed nest and take the eggs or the young ones from it. That provision exists, but it is possible for birds to move to another nest within the close vicinity and maybe vacate that nest for a time and to return to it afterwards.
I have two other points that I would like to contribute to the debate. The first is on the question of safety. Nests are built in trees. Trees grow old, fall down or need their branches lopping. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish trees to remain unsafe and, as the Bill stands, I understand that it would not be possible for what I call "normal" health and safety precautions to be taken; the same would apply if somebody wanted to re-site a nest so that the general public could view it, which has been done already in one part of the country. It seems a nonsense for the Bill to restrict that being done.
My third point is on the question of land management, particularly for land managers. I highlight the difficulty with bracken clearance. The noble Baroness will remember very well—she has responded to me—our debates on the difficulty of controlling bracken, particularly in the light of the fact that nowadays we are more worried about under-grazing than we were in the past, and that there will be more bracken which will get stronger and older and become a much more serious problem.
27 Feb 2006 : Column 28
I recently received a letter from John Thorley from the National Sheep Association, who followed our discussions on 5 December. He says in his letter that the issue which concerns him is that,
"there appears to be uncertainty about whether bracken is carcinogenic and yet my understanding is that it is carcinogenic in three parts . . . the fronds, the spores and the roots.
"There is then the issue of animals eating it and again it is known that it is poisonous to cattle and sheep and whereas, as I understand it, very young shoots do little damage, the mature plant is quite toxic".
The question was discussed in another place, although I have opened it slightly further. It is a point we would like the Baroness to clarify when she responds. Those on these Benches do not want to condone anybody wrecking nests. There is no question of that, but we want greater clarification. I support my noble friend.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |