Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

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. 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.