CLAUSE 5.—(Short title, citation and extent.) (Hansard, 21 April 1939)

§ Sir T. Moore
I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert: This Act shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine. In order to get the advantage of this Bill at the earliest moment so as to protect the young birds that will come on in the summer, I ask the House to accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. Harvey
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Porritt
On the question of the preservation of game and the provision that it should be sold on 12th August, it seems to me unfair, when people have properties a long distance from London, in provincial centres, that game should be sold on the first possible day on which it may be shot. It may be game that has been poached in order to get a high price. I think the prohibition should be extended.

§ Sir Thomas Cook
As one who objected to the Bill as originally drafted, I rise to support the Measure as amended. I welcome the opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who incidentally is a constituent of North Norfolk, and all those who have been responsible for carrying out the negotiations that have resulted in the present position.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
When the Home Secretary reviews this ornithological question I hope he will also review the dates on which birds can be shot or not. Nothing is more confusing to a local policeman than to find that one bird can be shot on the 1st and another on the 2nd of the month. In Scotland and England the same dates do not apply. The system ought to be modernised, and probably now is the right time to do it.

§ Mr. Denman
I want to repeat the question I have asked. As the Bill came to us, the close season began on the 15th and the latest date on which birds might be offered for sale was the 28th. The close season is now to begin on the 1st, and yet the 28th February is retained as the last date on which birds may be offered for sale. Why should we now allow a whole month, instead of a fortnight, in which birds may be offered for sale after the close season has commenced?

§ Sir S. Hoare
The difficulty to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has referred is really inherent in the exception we have made for shore shooters. They may go on until 21st February, and, that being so, I am afraid it is inevitable that we 696 should allow ducks to be sold up to 28th February. I have been asked one or two other questions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) asked whether I would take up the question of the revision of the Game Laws. I hesitate to give an undertaking upon so controversial a question, but I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I will ask my committee to look into the question of the confusion of dates and to see whether, in the new Wild Birds (Protection) Bill, which we hope we shall have some time, we can in any way deal with that matter. My own view, as an ornithologist and a shooter, is that the shooting season, in several cases, is too long. With the more efficient methods of killing birds, with the easier methods of transport, and perhaps most of all, because of the fact that it is now much more difficult to keep the country quiet for birds than it was in the past— and it has always seemed to me that what birds mostly need is quiet— I think we may well have reached the time when the shooting season in the case of some birds should be still further restricted.
Meanwhile, I am very glad that we have taken a step in that direction today. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) on having piloted through the House another of these birds protection Bills. Upon his tombstone— may it be many years hence— he will be entitled to have his executors place, "This was the friend who restricted the slaughter of quails and the massacre of ducks," and that is an epitaph which I very much envy him. I believe we are taking a step in the right direction to-day in making these further restrictions, and I believe that in future years we shall go further still. Criticism can be made against this Bill, as it can be made against any Bill, but I can only say that the dates that have been agreed upon have been the result of innumerable discussions between ornithologists and people interested in questions of this kind, and it is satisfactory that, whereas 18 months ago it looked as though it would be impossible to find agreement upon any dates, we have at least found agreement on these dates.

§ Sir T. Moore
I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his 697 remarks, but I would ask him please to hurry up with the new Wild Birds (Protection) Bill, for otherwise my demise may come before the Bill is presented and the work completed. I would like to thank the Home Secretary for the help which he and his competent staff at the Home Office have given us. If there is any credit in this matter, it is due to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary more than to me.