| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his remarks. I am glad that he and all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate tonight have agreed that the amendments are not contentious. I was also glad to hear the noble Lord opposite give an undertaking to consult with me and others should he be in a position so to do. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara stole the note that I had written down when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke. I wrote down,
- "I hope I have no reason to take him up on that offer".
He would expect me to say that, would he not?
Perhaps I may address one or two remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom, I notice, is extraordinarily well supported on the Benches behind her on this occasion. I wonder why? Had she engaged me in some meaningful consultation, it might not even have been necessary for me to have kept the Committee this late tonight. I am glad that she emphasised the matter of partnership. We seem to be moving in that direction. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. I am also glad that she spoke about this Bill not being anti-car. We talk so glibly about being anti-car. It is not only the car, as part of the transport system, that does damage; it is the whole of the system, whether it is the private motor car, a truck, a bus, tram or train. In dealing with the matters in the Bill, we are dealing with the transport system--not just one element of it. I say to the noble Baroness so that all her friends can go home; that I shall not divide the Committee.
I now turn to my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to him for agreeing that there will be full identification of consultees. I hear what he said about guidance being preferable. I do not agree with him, but there it is. He will not be surprised that I was not surprised that his legal advice was that there are technical deficiencies in the amendments. Were there more time, I would take these amendments and trim them for Report stage. I have had my say and I have heard the answers. I am not convinced. I have the feeling that the Committee is not minded to go through the Division Lobby at this time and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time and passed.
Birds (Registration Charges) Bill
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill and will clarify the powers of the Department of the Environment to charge fees for registered sellers of dead wild birds under Section 6 and for the birds registration scheme under Section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The charge was made on registered sellers and keepers by the department when administering both these schemes. However, following a review some doubts arose about the proper statutory basis for charging these fees. The Bill will simply clarify those powers.
The Bill has three main provisions. First, it will permit future charges to be made for the registration scheme and the registered sellers of the dead wild bird scheme should such a new scheme be reintroduced. Secondly, it will permit the recovery of charges for bird registrations which were made between 21st May 1996, which is the date on which the announcement was made in another place that the requirement for the payment of any fees were suspended, and the date when the Bill comes into force. Thirdly, it will validate all registration charges which have been made under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The Bill will affect about 1,000 registered keepers of birds. The Bill is an uncontroversial measure. It will simply restore the situation to that which the department and the bird keepers had previously believed to be the case. It will not remove any rights which they expected it to have. The Bill makes no other changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (England and Wales)
7.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would also like to speak to the Treasure Act 1996 (Northern Ireland) Draft Code of Practice. These codes mark the final stage in
the procedure needed before the Treasure Act can be implemented. At this point I would like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has fought so long and hard to reform the archaic law of treasure trove. I should like to explain that when the Treasure Bill was being debated last year we gave a commitment that the Act would not come into force until these codes of practice had been approved by both Houses.The codes have three main aims. They describe the requirements of the Act; they provide guidance to finders of treasure; and they set out the guidelines on the payment of rewards. A separate code has been prepared for Northern Ireland to take into account the different legislative regime that exists in the Province. The codes have been revised and improved after extensive public consultation. They were approved by another place on Tuesday after debate and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence. He was greatly looking forward to being here and to expressing his thanks to those who have worked so hard to complete both codes of practice. He referred particularly to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and to Dr. Roger Bland of the British Museum. I think that we should all pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has worked for seven years to get such provisions on to the statute book and to have the code of practice approved. This result is a great and patient achievement on his part.
The noble Earl asked me to make two other points. The first is that the Act and the code of practice combined will be of great value in bringing about a better understanding of our history through archaeology. Secondly, the noble Earl wished to point out that by regularly reporting their finds, metal detectorists have a great contribution to make. It is a contribution to our heritage that they are proud to make. We wish them well in doing so and we have good reason to believe that they will be conscientious.
This is a great moment in the fulfilment of a change in the law which has lasted for too many centuries. We can rejoice that the codes of practice are coming into force and we can be glad that in due course the whole of the Act will be implemented.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton succinctly encapsulated the raison d'etre for what we are proposing in the combination of the Bill and the codes. I commend the draft code to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (Northern Ireland)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I spoke to this when referring to the code of practice for England and Wales. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 17th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am conscious not only of the late hour of the day--although this is not necessarily an unusually late hour at which to take Northern Ireland business--but also of the fact that this is a late hour in the life of this Parliament. I shall attempt to be brief, but I stress that that does not mean that these are not important issues.
This order would withdraw from effect the statutory provisions that set up last year a forum for discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is obliged, subject to parliamentary approval, to make such an order, if it appears to him that the multi-party talks that have been proceeding in Northern Ireland since last June are suspended. At the meeting of the open plenary session of the talks on 5th March there was a general recognition that further progress in the talks was impossible before the election. Accordingly, the plenary agreed to meet next on 3rd June. The Secretary of State has concluded that, in the terms of the Act, this constitutes suspension of the talks.
This order reflects the important principle that the two institutions--talks and forum--are parallel, and that the forum should not continue to meet when the talks are no longer in process. In any event, that accords with the realities: it is unlikely in an atmosphere increasingly dominated by electoral considerations that the forum could go properly about its remit of discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding. The practical difficulties of meeting during an election period have in any event now led the forum to adjourn itself over the period.
The work that the forum has undertaken, chaired with much effort and commitment by Mr. John Gorman, has been valued by some. Others have doubted that it has taken significant steps in the promotion of dialogue and understanding that were seen as the essence of the forum's remit. But evidently the parties at the forum have come to a greater understanding of one another's views. I should say that we firmly believe that the forum would have been a better institution had the Social Democratic and Labour Party continued to attend it rather than withdrawing from it as it did last summer. I hope that its position may be open to reconsideration.
Even without this order, the forum's initial lifespan would in any event have expired at the end of May this year. But the Secretary of State is empowered to revive it,
with parliamentary approval, for a further period, or periods, until the end of May 1998. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that it would be the intention of a Conservative Government to revive the forum as early as practicable in the life of a new Parliament; and the Opposition have spoken in similar terms of the intentions of a future Labour Government.The forum should, in conformity with the scheme which your Lordships approved last year, cease to meet because the talks have finished. That is right in principle and is a recognition of the practicalities as we approach a succession of elections. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page