Found: Stop the DVLA divulging driver information to car parking companies 163 Add hedgehogs to Schedule 5 Wildlife

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to tighten restrictions on the sale of slingshots following reports of them being used to cause damage to vehicles and wildlife.

Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

The Government is clear that slingshots should not be used for illegal purposes, whether against wildlife, people or property.

Under provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and Animal Welfare Act 2006, there are a range of offences around injuring and inflicting unnecessary suffering on wildlife. These measures give the police broad powers to deal with cases where wildlife is attacked, including cases involving the misuse of slingshots.

It is an offence to carry an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, under provisions in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. If a slingshot is carried in a public place with the intention of causing injury it is likely to engage the legislation. The maximum penalty for having an offensive weapon in a public place is 4 years imprisonment. Where a slingshot is misused as a weapon, and a person is injured, there are a number of offences which may apply, such as causing actual bodily harm, which carry significant sentences.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 creates offences around destroying or damaging property and possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property. The maximum penalty for offences under the Act is 10 years imprisonment.

Slingshots do however have legitimate uses, for example within competitions and fishing and at present we consider that existing legislation provides the correct balance between protecting the public from the small number of individuals who misuse slingshots, while also allowing the public to enjoy legitimate pastimes. We have no plans to ban the sale of slingshots or slingshot ammunition at this time.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports that slingshots are being used to cause damage to vehicles and local wildlife in rural areas.

Answered by Lord Benyon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

The Government has not made an assessment of reports that slingshots are being used to cause damage to vehicles and local wildlife in rural areas. We have been made aware by the National Wildlife Crime Unit of a perceived increase in the use of catapults against animals. The Government takes wildlife crime seriously and it is a matter of concern. Under provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there are a range of offences around deliberate attempts to kill, injure or inflict harm on wildlife. We expect all crime to be reported to police and investigated appropriately.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether DEFRA has the power to authorise individuals to release and catch non-native species, such as Asian hornets, for track and trace purposes.

Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Licenses for the release of non-native species after capture can be issued under the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The licensing authority for these licences is Natural England (NE).

The Licencing Authority may only grant licences for certain specified purposes. For example, where the release is part of a rapid eradication measure. NE have therefore granted licences where appropriate to allow for the release of Asian hornets (Vespa velutina).

Any interested party may submit an application to NE to obtain a licence. The application should include comprehensive supporting information to enable NE to make an informed decision on whether a licence can be issued. Any conditions as stipulated by NE upon the issue of the licence must be complied with.

In the case of Asian hornets, the conditions include but are not limited to the immediate reporting of any sightings of individual Asian hornets or their nests to the GB Non-native Species Secretariat. The individual must also regularly report to NE on how the licence has been used.

Found: from the garden except— (a)ash, (b)plants, or any part thereof, listed in Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Wildlife

Found: you can check the County Records Office for this information contains protected species listed in the Wildlife

Found: and Countryside Act 1981)TEWMiscellaneous crimes against society99.9 Other triable either way (non motoring

Found: There is no AONB which could be affected by the Installation. 7.2.5 Wildlife and Countryside Act

Found: to the above exemptions, you must follow any other rules or legislation in place, for example, the Wildlife

Found: NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949 WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 MOCCAS PARK

Found: NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949 WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 BORROWDALE

Found: same assessment as a European Site • site of special scientific interest within the meaning of the Wildlife

Found: NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1949 WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 BRADGATE PARK

Found: and Countryside Act (1981) as amended.

For 12 years I've applied for licenses that support sustainable cultural use of natural resources which also benefits conservation and yet NatureScot's refusals direct me to use non-native species, which they believe is another "satisfactory solution". I don't understand how their decisions are proportional or how they apply consideration of "no other satisfactory solution". Their actions contradict their published guidance but they ignore my requests for clarification.

When the Government Minister informed the Scottish Natural Heritage CEO of their new code of practice in 2015 he stated the code "requires regulators to take a risk-based enabling approach, communicate clearly and effectively, and understand who they regulate." This is not my experience and I feel there are hidden agendas. This has left me, part of a cultural minority, feeling discriminated against to the point of persecution. The present situation is also contrary to judgement of the European Court of Justice (C-339/87) on transposition of EU Directives into national law.

Found: Ministerial guidance to clarify the criteria for assessing licence applications under section 16 of the Wildlife