HC Deb 09 April 1954 vol 526 cc684-5

Amendments made: In page 3, line 29, leave out "injuring."

In line 30, at end, insert: or by reason of the injuring of such a bird in the course of an attempt to kill it.

In line 31, leave out "a wild bird so included," and insert "such a bird."—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Lady Tweedsmuir

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert: or by reason of the taking of an egg of a wild duck, wild goose or swan if it is shown that the egg was taken for the purpose of causing it to be hatched.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas (Portsmouth, South)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am a little worried about the term, "authorised person." I raised in Committee the case of a farm labourer who found a wild duck, part eaten, and a nest of eggs nearby which, obviously, had not been sat on much. He put the eggs in his cap and took them to a keeper on a neighbouring estate, who put them under a broody hen and gave the labourer 5s. for his trouble. In that case he was not an authorised person and would be liable to imprisonment and a fine. I think the matter should be clarified in another place.

Lady Tweedsmuir

I think my hon. Friend is unduly alarmed because the person who permits someone else, like the farm labourer, to do that is authorised by the gamekeeper, if the gamekeeper is an authorised person himself.

Sir J. Lucas

In this case, the farm labourer was on a neighbouring estate and, if he applied to be an authorised person, by the time he became such the eggs would have been bad.

Mr. Hayman

I hope that the question of the authorised person will not be pressed too far. The Amendment seems very wide and it seems that anyone could take the egg of a wild duck, a goose or a swan anywhere and not be strictly within the confines of the instance given during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.