HC Deb 16 June 1967 vol 748 cc966-84
Mr. Farr

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 33, after '10', to insert '(1)(e)'.

The purpose of the Amendment is to provide special protection in special conditions for those wild birds which are the subject of an Order made under the Clause as a result of severe weather conditions. If the weather is so hard and the birds presumably so weakened that shooting is stopped, it is undesirable to allow the widespread exceptions to the ban which are listed in Section 10 of the principal Act. Those exceptions were listed for operation during a normal close season, but I am referring to an artificial close season which would be brought into effect if the relevant Order were made, for a period not exceeding 14 days.

If an artificial close season were brought into effect, it would be during a winter, perhaps the middle of January, when the weather was so severe that the birds had become unfit to shoot and too weak a quarry, so that sporting interests would have decided that an artificial close season should be introduced. Some of the specifications in Section 10 would therefore not apply, because they are related to the conditions of a normal, warm weather close season.

This may have been an eventuality which had not been considered when the original Act was introduced. It was only as a result of one or two very severe winter periods in 1963 and 1959, after the original Act, that it was found necessary to have provisions such as those in Clause 6 to define the type of special protection which ought to be given to certain species of birds in severe weather.

The first four paragraphs of Section 10 are unnecessary during a period of an artificial close season. The fifth paragraph, (e), I do not find objectionable, for it relates to ringing, which would probably be expedited in such circumstances, as the birds would be easier to catch and handle. An additional reason why I am in favour of that paragraph is that when the birds were caught and ringed, they would normally be fed and strengthened before being released. Thus they would be more easily able to face bitter weather.

The first of the other four paragraphs relates to scientific and educational purposes and to nests and eggs. It is out of context in any case, because if there were an artificial season and Clause 6 were operated, it would be during the winter, probably in December or January, when there would be no question of nests or eggs being disturbed. Paragraph (a) is therefore unnecessary, and educational and scientific purposes would be served at this sort of especial time if the pupils concerned were informed why this practice was discontinued during an artificial close season.

Subsection (b) in the original Act refers to falconry. I am sure that it is not desirable during this savage little Arctic period of 14 day's that the sport of falconry should continue. I do not know why it has been left in. I know many falconers and none of them would dream of conducting their sport under such un-sportsmanlike conditions, when the quarry was too weakened to effectively evade capture.

Subsection (c) relates to the permission being granted as an exception to collectors, to protect their collections and to take specimens for the purpose of transfer between such collections. Again, this subsection is out of place in an artificial close season, because collectors want birds and specimens in tip-top condition. They do not want to exchange poor specimens which are in a weak or undernourished condition, as they would be as a result of a very hard spell of weather.

Subsection (d) in the original Act, which I propose should be left out, relates to the use of poisoned or stupefying baits of any description and the use of them in relation to the powers listed in the Second Schedule to the 1954 Act. I am concerned, the more I consider it, with this subsection, and feel that it should not be included in the Bill, because it gives people power to lay poisoned and stupefying baits on the ground.

In a period of an artificial close season, introduced because of the severity of the weather, the Minister will realise that a poisoned bait laid down for wood pigeon by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it is doing regularly at the moment, will not specifically be consumed only by wood pigeons. In very cold weather, every bird that can fly will endeavour to consume it as quickly as possible, and there will be a real risk that the poisoned bait laid by the Ministry inspector for a wood pigeon, which in any event could be picked off a tree in bad weather, will be consumed by some bird in Schedule 1, which would not normally have consumed the bait. For the reasons which I have listed, I suggest that another look should be taken at this Clause and that this Amendment of mine should be incorporated.

Amendment negatived.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Farr

I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 43, at the end to insert: (d) the views of those identified with the conservation and propagation of the species in question. This Amendment relates to page 3 of the amending Bill. It will be seen that, again relating to Clause 6, the Minister, before making an Order under the Section, as to whether there is a sufficiently hard spell of weather to warrant the cessation of shooting activities, must consult and call for advice from three specialist bodies. Under the Bill he has to seek advice from

  1. "(a) a person appointed for the purposes of this section by the appropriate advisory committee;
  2. (b) the Natural Environment Research Council; and
  3. (c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species proposed to be protected under the order."
And, if my Amendment is accepted: (d) the views of those identified with the conservation and propagation of the species in question. My reason for moving this Amendment relates to the structure of the three bodies laid down to advise the Secretary of State. It appears that there is not a single advisor called for as a representative of an organisation which is predominantly and especially concerned with conservation and propagation of the species in question. It cannot be said that the person appointed under (a), which would be the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds for England and Wales is a Committee specifically concerned with conservation and propagation. It is not. The Committee is composed of many interests, those concerned with shooting, propagation, scientific activities and various other things. The Minister cannot hope to get the specialist advice on conservation from the Home Office Committee.

Again, he cannot expect to get this advice from the Natural Environment Research Council. That is composed of many people with a wide spread of interests covering such far-ranging interests as geology, meteorology, geomagnetism, hydrology, oceanography, forestry and nature conservation, fisheries and marine and fresh water biology. Obviously, this Council cannot provide the specialist advice required by the Secretary of State. The third advice called for under the Clause is a person who appears to the Secretary of State: … to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species …". Again, that person must be a specialist or primarily concerned with shooting, and cannot be expected to have the specialist knowledge on conservation and propagation. Subsection (d) should be adopted, so that the Minister can obtain, from some authority, such specialist advice.

If he gives this matter further consideration, he may wonder where to find such specialist advice. He could turn to Slimbridge, which has perhaps the greatest name for the conservation and propagation of wild fowl species. Alternatively, he could turn to another body, which I shall mention in a moment, or he may establish a special sub-committee, with a representative from all the conservation bodies sitting on it. The other people I was about to suggest are the Wildfowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. It has produced more hand-reared duck than any other body in the country. In a few years it has reared and released nearly 80,000 duck. Last year, it released about 12,000. It has a very wide network of clubs and affiliated associations. It operates no fewer than three main wildfowl reserves where wildfowl cannot be shot, destroyed or disturbed, including one in Buckinghamshire, which is designed primarily for educational and scientific purposes. In addition to these three main reserves, some of which are operated jointly with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, its affiliated clubs and associations have numerous other reserves.

If the Minister sees fit to accept my suggestion, certainly one of the representatives who would provide him with the necessary expert information on the question of conservation—and in very hard weather it might be a question of the continuance of the species—would be from the Wildfowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland.

I commend the Amendment to the House.

Sir T. Beamish

I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) most interesting. I am sorry that I do not feel able to recommend the House to accept his Amendment. However, I hope that he feels that he has had the opportunity to put on record several important things about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could impose a ban on shooting in very severe weather, although it is more likely that there would be a voluntary ban, as was the case in the severe winter of 1962–63.

My hon. Friend, I think, exaggerates the situation when he says that the three people whom the Secretary of State would be required to consult do not have excellent advice on conservation and propagation of the different species of duck. I think that such advice is readily available to them. The body from which one of the representatives would be drawn is the Nature Conservancy, which comes under the Natural Environment Research Council.

My hon. Friend has made some thoroughly valid points of which I am sure account will be taken. Although I do not feel able to ask the House to accept the Amendment, I hope that he feels that by tabling it—it is not a dissimilar Amendment to the Amendment which he argued so cogently in Committee; incidentally, it would have the the same effect, although he argued from the opposite angle—he has performed a useful service. I hope that he will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Farr

In view of the kindly remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, which I much appreciate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.55 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has had various ups and downs since it was first introduced in another place by Lord Hurcomb, two years ago. It has all-party support. Because it received a Second Reading on the nod last Session, and this Session, there has been no explanation in the House of its contents. I shall be grateful if hon. Members will allow me to make the quickest explanation which I can of its main provisions.

The Bill sets out to amend the principal Act of 1954 which was so efficiently piloted through the House by Lady Tweedsmuir, who, sadly, is no longer a Member. It is based on the advice during the last decade of the Home Office Advisory Committees—one for England and Wales and one for Scotland.

I should like to explain what the Bill sets out to achieve. The principal Act permits the selling or importation of the eggs of lapwings without licence up to, but not after, 14th April. This provision was by way of an experiment, which was recognised at the time. Its intention was to protect the lapwing. There is a good deal of doubt about whether it has had that effect.

As a result, the Advisory Committees have given very careful thought to the question, and therefore we have Clause 1, which gives effect to their recommendations by prohibiting the sale or import of lapwings' eggs before 15th April—it is already prohibited after that date—while still permitting the taking of these birds' eggs before 15th April.

I think that we are returning the Bill to another place in rather better shape than that in which we received it by reinstating the Clause to extend the protection of eggs to the eggs of common wild birds. Under the principal Act the Home Secretary is empowered to issue a list of common birds whose eggs may be taken. Such a list was published in 1955, the year after the principal Act. It included such birds as the hedge sparrow, song thrush, linnet, chaffinch and moorhen. After the abnormally severe winter of 1962–63 which killed birds in their millions, both common and rare, the Home Secretary withdrew the list on the advice of his Advisory Committees without any parliamentary protest and thus gave these common birds protection against the ransacking of their nests. This has remained the position ever since as the list has not been renewed during the last four years.

When Lord Hurcomb introduced his Bill in 1965 in another place, and again when he reintroduced it the following year, he included a Clause to remove this power from the Home Secretary and so give permanent effect to the present position whereby the eggs of these common birds are protected. This was a step foreshadowed in our debates 13 years ago when the principal Act was passed. This Clause met with no opposition in 1965, but when it reached the Committee stage in another place this Session an Amendment to delete it was approved by a very small majority after a debate which, I felt, did less than justice to the important principle involved. About 80 noble Lords voted and the Amendment was carried by, I think, five votes.

That Amendment was entirely contrary to the Advisory Committees' views, which were strongly held, and to the advice of the sponsor of the Bill, Lord Hurcomb. I am glad to say that its reinstatement was approved by hon. Members in Standing Committee without a Division after I had explained in detail and at some length the reasons for the proposal. If any hon. Member wishes to know exactly what the reasons were, I refer him to columns 71–78 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings of 12th April. I hope that another place will welcome and confirm the step which this House has taken, which is in line with its own earlier views.

Clause 3 prohibits the sale of dead wild geese at any time of the year instead of merely during the close season, as at present. We discussed that matter on Report. Although I originally intended to put something further on the record, I will not now do so.

Clauses 4 and 5 are self-explanatory and non-controversial.

Clause 6 empowers the Home Secretary to put a temporary ban on shooting during an abnormally severe winter after consultation with one person appointed by the appropriate Advisory Committee, one by the Natural Environment Research Council and one representing the interests of wildfowlers. The Clause is based on the experience of the historic deep freeze in 1962–63. Then an appeal for a period of voluntary restraint on shooting met with a satisfactory response. When we discussed the Clause in Committee we were given an assurance, which both sides welcomed, that the Secretary of State's powers to enforce the ban would be exercised only if an appeal for voluntary restraint failed.

Clause 7 provides for licences to be granted for specific purposes and takes account of reasonable claims for such people as falconers and aviculturists and others whose hobbies, work or livelihood might put them at risk if the law were too stringent. I am not entirely happy with the Clause, because a very unattractive and unpleasant "racket" is going on on a widespread scale in spite of the strenuous attempts to enforce the law.

I am speaking of the "racket" in trapping wild birds and the cruelty involved in close-ringing adult wild birds for sale or showing. This is entirely contrary to the law. It goes on on a large scale. It ought to be stopped, but I have not been able to find a satisfactory formula for stopping it. if such a formula could be found, I would gladly do anything I could in the House to further any proposals that were made which, I feel sure, would meet with the approval of the Government, particularly if they were based—in which event, I suppose, it would be automatic—on the advice of the Advisory Committees.

That is an unpleasant feature of what is going on and I am sorry that it has not been possible to deal with it satisfactorily. There are some ways in which I think that it could be dealt with. Several suggestions have been made, such as a system of enforced coded close-ringing—this is under discussion between the organisations concerned with aviculture—and, possibly, registration and insistence that those who deal in wild birds should register the source from which those birds come. I must not pursue this, however, because it is not in the Bill.

I want to make a brief reference to Clause 8 simply because this is an example, of which the House should know, of the very great care taken by the Advisory Committees to consider the interests of very small minority groups or areas. It has been traditional for at least 400 years for crofter fishermen from the Ness district of Lewis, known as the Men of Ness, to make annual visits to the uninhabited rocky island of Sula Sgeir. I do not know how many hon. Members could put their finger on it on the map. The Men of Ness visit that rocky island to take the young of the gannet, known as gugas, both to salt down as winter food and to sell.

Under the principal Act the gannet is a protected bird throughout the United Kingdom, but an Order was made allowing the Men of Ness to take the gannets on Sula Sgeir outside the close season. This means that the annual trip to the island cannot be made until September, when it is made hazardous by rough seas. Clause 8 provides that the close season for gannets on Sula Sgeir will end two weeks earlier, on 14th August. This will allow the Men of Ness to visit the island and to collect what is described in my brief as "this delicacy" in reasonable weather.

It sounds to me like a fishy story, I have never eaten a guga. I have never seen it included on the menu in the Members' Dining Room, although I remember eating a whale and something once described as black plover, which turned out afterwards to be rooks and several other quite strange things. I give that interesting story as a serious example of the immense care taken by the Advisory Committees to make sure that minority interests are catered for.

Clause 10 is of especial importance. Under the principal Act, a police constable may stop and search any person found committing an offence against the Act and any vehicle, boat or animal which that person may then be using. Experience has shown that these powers are not enough in certain cases of determined and wanton vandalism.

By way of illustration, I would like to tell the House that only three years ago someone sawed halfway through the trunk of a Scotch pine tree in which that exceptionally rare and beautiful bird the osprey built its nest. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) knows all about that incident. Ten years ago, a man climbed up to an osprey's nest to steal the eggs, which he replaced with domestic hen's eggs daubed with brown boot polish. The avocet, the bee-eater and other rare birds have been driven away from these islands by that kind of persecution. It is something which we certainly all want to avoid in every way we can.

The reason behind such senseless destruction is, in most cases, money. The eggs of these rare birds fetch high prices and thieves find it worthwhile to take physical risks as well as breaking the law and risking the penalties involved. They are usually far too clever to be caught in the act of committing the offence. Societies like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I have the honour to be President, following Lord Hurcomb, and the British Trust for Ornithology keep a close watch round the clock on very rare birds during the nesting season.

Twenty-four thousand people went out last summer to get a glimpse of the osprey breeding. The work of the wardens in protecting these birds from the curiosity of people is sufficiently difficult without unnecessary problems being created about whether vandalism can or cannot be stopped by the police.

Clause 10 extends the powers of the police to this extent: it allows them to search any person or his vehicle, boat or animal if a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person has … taken or destroyed an egg of a bird included in Schedule 1"— that is, the rare birds which are specially listed in Schedule 1 to the principal Act. In other words, there is no longer any need to catch a vandal in the act. If the police have reasonable cause to suppose that the law has been broken concerning a rare bird, they have the right to search that person or the vehicle in which he is travelling.

Some people feel that the Clause does not go quite far enough in giving the police power to deal with serious offenders because it does not give the right of entry on land or property without the permission of the owner of the land or a warrant. I do not take that view. I think that the Clause is probably just about right. It has been fairly extensively debated. There is a proper reluctance to extend police powers too far. I hope that experience will show that this added power sufficiently eases the difficulty in dealing with the clever and determined egg thieves who, unhappily, exist. Certainly, the Clause reflects the public condemnation of those people's activities.

I have already expressed my rather mixed feelings on the reintroduction of the Clause which makes it an offence wilfully to disturb a Schedule 1 bird, which we debated on Report: that is, to disturb a bird when it is on or near its nest during the breeding season. I am glad that it has been possible to estalish this principle without interfering with the legitimate and useful work of scientists and expert naturalists or with the work of those who practise bird photography as a profession or serious hobby, all of whom contribute to our knowledge and, in many cases, to the protection of our rare birds.

The Bill makes no change in the penalties for offences specified in Section 12 of the principal Act, although I think that there are strong arguments for doing so on two grounds. The first is that with money so very much fallen in value, a fine of £5, which is the ordinary penalty, or £25, which is a special penalty, seems to some people to be too low to act as a deterrent, particularly as magistrates' courts seem very reluctant ever to impose the maximum fine. This I greatly regret.

The other reason why I am doubtful about the suitability of the penalties is that there is widespread concern about people being given very short prison sentences. The principal Act provides for a sentence of one month for certain first offences and of three months for second and subsequent offences. The general trend nowadays is not to provide penalties of very short prison sentences, something which I personally do not like. However, I was not able for various reasons to deal with penalties in this Bill and I would be wrong to proceed with this on Third Reading, since I must deal with only what is in the Bill. I will, therefore, leave that subject, having spoken on it only briefly.

Clause 11 specifies that the Bill shall not come into force until six months after it has been passed. I was asked in Committee whether it would not be possible to speed up this process. I looked into this carefully and came to the conclusion that for various reasons it would be too difficult to do it. We must, therefore, keep to the period of six months.

That is all I have to say. I have purposely speeded up my Third Reading speech. To try to make it easier for other Measures to come before the House today, I did not want to speak too long. I am very grateful indeed to the House for bearing with me while I explained the Bill at some length, and it is with confidence that I strongly recommend the House to give it its Third Reading and thus make some important and useful amendments to the 1954 Act.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell

I am very glad to be able to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), because I should like to congratulate him on the way in which he has piloted this Bill through its stages in this House. As he has explained, the Bill provides useful additions to the 1954 Act. I know that in this matter, while there is very often wide agreement on the objectives, there are sometimes divergent opinions, and sharply divergent opinions, on the methods of reaching those objectives. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken immense trouble and has most conscientiously consulted all the bodies which could be interested in the subject, and he has contrived on occasions to bring them together and to compose differences. He has done a great deal of work in so drafting the text of the Clauses of the Bill that most of the bodies concerned could agree.

The Clauses which provide extension of protection should in particular help where rare or specially interesting birds are nesting—for example, Clause 10, which my hon. and learned Friend has just described. Now in Scotland, as was said on Report stage earlier this morning, we have the phalarope, but perhaps the best known bird which is nesting in Scotland, one which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned just now, is the osprey.

Only in recent years has this bird started to nest again by Loch Garten after an absence of a great many years, and more recently two nests a year have appeared. One of them has been in the same place. It has a covered approach and is, therefore open to the public, because they can come to a hide and observe the bird through a telescope. Even more people have come in some years than the number just mentioned, as many as 28,000 who, I know, came one year, just during a period of about two months, in the north of Scotland to observe the ospreys at their nest. The other nest is too open to be publicly visited, and the site of that nest has been a well-kept secret. A 24-hour watch has been kept on both nests during the nesting season by what I can only describe at a dedicated band of volunteers under the supervision of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Even with this surveillance, as my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, there have been regrettable attempts to steal the eggs and, inexplicably, to destroy the nests. Unfortunately, egg collecting can become a mania in certain persons, and this, of course, introduces the commercial incentive. Clause 10 in particular, and the other Clauses which extend protection, should help to provide additional safeguards against this.

There are other birds in greater numbers which nest only in certain areas, and problems will arise in the countryside, including the hills, as they are used increasingly for recreation purposes which, I am sure, both sides of the House fully support. I will simply give one example, and that is the dotterel which nests at 3,000 ft. and above, and can indeed be called, on that account, a Highlander. But the areas where it nests are now becoming, some of them, popular skiing slopes in the winter and ski lifts take people up to that height—I am glad to say—at other times of the year—in order to enjoy the countryside. This is the kind of problem which will increase in the future.

Fortunately, most of those who visit the countryside and the hills, even though they may be town or city dwellers, want to see these birds. It is a matter of great interest to many of them when they are able to see them. Therefore, they do not wish to do anything deliberately which would disturb the birds nesting and so reduce their numbers.

This Bill, if it can be carried out in the right spirit, should help by these additional provisions, and I myself have doubts only about Clause 3, which we discussed on Report. It is clear that there are difficulties concerning the question of wild geese in large numbers in certain parts of Scotland, and this, clearly, must be further examined. But the purposes of the Bill as a whole appear to have the support of the whole House, and I am very glad to think that soon we shall see it enacted.

2.16 p.m.

Mr. Farr

I know that there are other hon. Members who want to get on with other business today, so I shall say very quickly only a few words. First, I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. And gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who has piloted this Bill through the Commons. He really has applied his expert knowledge to no little degree, and he has done an excellent job in applying his great knowledge to this subject.

There is only one point I wanted to raise in particular, in relation to Clause 7(2,d) about which I have received quite a number of letters, including one this morning. For the purposes of agricul- ture it permits people to take birds by licence granted by the Home Office. I would say to the Under-Secretary of State that I hope that these licences will be issued as infrequently as possible. It is repugnant that wild birds should be permitted to be taken and kept in captivity which is alien to them. That Home Office licences should be issued to trap birds, and cage them, is not really in accordance with the wishes of most people today.

I do not seek to detain the House for a moment longer, but I recommend the Bill to the House.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. Sharples

One of the pleasanter features of life in this House are the opportunities we have from time to time to switch our minds from great affairs of State to matters such as the welfare of birds, and I think it is particularly appropriate, perhaps, that this House should be giving a little of its valuable time this morning to discuss the welfare of birds at a time when bird life on the southern coasts of our country has probably suffered the greatest disaster in the whole of its history.

I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) upon having brought forward this Bill, and also, if I may say so, upon the very able way in which he combined a Second and a Third Reading speech in explaining the provisions of the Bill. I was glad that reference was made to the part which was played by Lady Tweedsmuir in the introduction of the 1954 Act.

The 1954 Act established the principle, leaving room for fairly wide flexibility, that wild birds in Britain, and their eggs, were entitled to protection. I think we knew, when the 1954 Bill was being passed, that it would need amendment in the light of experience. It is almost 13 years since that Bill was passed, and I think it is an appropriate time now to have opportunity of looking again at the provisions of the Act, and seeking to amend them in the light of the advice which has been received from the Advisory Committee and also from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As I understand it, this Bill incorporates the recommendations of those two bodies, and I am sure that we are grateful to all those serving on them for the work which they have done and the advice which they have given.

My hon. and gallant Friend has explained very cogently the main provisions of the Bill, and it is not my purpose to go over them again. I wish only to refer to two aspects, the first of which is Clause 2. One effect of that Clause will be to remove one of the main obstacles preventing our ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of Birds. When the matter was discussed in another place on 20th May, 1965, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham said, speaking for the Government: … if your Lordships will support Clause 1 of the Bill "— which has now become Clause 2 of this Bill— a major obstacle to United Kingdom adherence to the Convention will be removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th May, 1965; Vol. 266 c. 595.] I have given notice of this point to the Under-Secretary of State, because I am sure that the House would like to be told what is holding up our ratification of the Convention. My understanding is that it was signed "ad referendum" by the British Government in 1950, and that the British section has been pressing the Government for many years to introduce legislation enabling us to ratify the Convention. I have found it difficult to obtain even a copy of the Convention, and I understand that there is no official English text of it.

One of the reasons put forward by the Government in a statement issued on 12th April, 1966 is: The main problem in our view is that the convention contains too much detail; the United Kingdom fully supports the principles embodied therein but is prevented from ratifying it because of inability to accept all the detailed requirements. I have been through the Convention, and it is difficult to find any detailed requirements which would prevent our ratification of it, especially as Clause 2 of the Bill removes the principal objection.

The other aspect to which I wish to refer is Clause 9, which gives power to local authorities to take such steps as they think expedient for bringing the effect of the principal Act and the provisions of this Measure to the attention of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) referred just now to the destruction of the ospreys' nest. We have moved a long way towards educating public opinion on the welfare of birds. I welcome Clause 9 particularly, and the House will be interested to know what steps the Government are taking to bring the provisions of the Bill to the notice of the general public. The Royal Society has done a great deal of valuable work in seeking to bring the provisions of the 1954 Act to the attention of the public, but I hope that the Government will give an indication that they intend to take positive steps in that direction themselves.

I conclude by again congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on having succeeded in bringing his Bill to this stage. I want also to pay tribute to Lord Hurcomb who has played a tremendous part in bringing forward the Bill. It has all-party support, and I hope that, without more delay, the House will proceed to give the Bill a Third Reading.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Ennals

I wish particularly to join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on the way in which he has guided the Bill through its various stages. His interest in the conservation of wild life is well known. He has shown his mastery of the subject, and we are all grateful to him.

The Bill originated as long ago as 1958, when a deputation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is president, made a number of suggestions to the Home Office in the light of the discussions which followed the principal Act. Thereafter, the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds, to whom I am sure that the House would wish to extend its gratitude for the advice which we have received, undertook a long and painstaking review in consultation with a large number of interested bodies. It is much to the credit of the Advisory Committees that their conclusions have throughout a long period continued to command general assent.

The principal Act of 1954 was the turning point in the law relating to the protection of wild birds, and the present Bill is a fitting successor. For reasons which the House will understand, the Government have taken a neutral attitude to this Private Member's Bill. It is a relief for me, as a keen conservationist, at last to come off the fence and say on behalf of the Government that we welcome the passage of the Bill and regard it as a most useful Measure.

It provides something of help for everyone. For the birds, protection has been extended, directly or indirectly, by a number of provisions. The prohibition of the sale of lapwings' eggs, of the taking of eggs of common birds and of the use of certain devices and poisons except under licence, the control of ringing and marking, all have immediate effect. Less directly, the prohibition of the sale of dead wild geese and the possibility of special protection in severe weather will help in the protection of wildfowl. On the other side of the balance sheet, the extended powers of licensing will allow birds to be taken for aviculture and falconry, with discretion, and even allow rare birds to be destroyed to protect crops. The police, too, will be helped by the new powers of search where thefts of very rare birds' eggs are suspected. Last but not least, local authorities are given powers to publicise this legislation, and I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that we shall look into what we can do to make the provisions well known. The Bill reflects the interest and efforts of many organisations which have come together all concerned with the protection of wild life.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a word or two about the International Convention. The United Kingdom has not signed the Convention. As he said, its requirements are expressed in very detailed terms, and I am advised that it is doubtful whether the new provisions made by the Bill will bring United Kingdom law into line with it. That fact has been well known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Lord Hurcomb and the Advisory Committees in their preparation of the Bill.

One difficulty is that the Convention applies to game birds, whereas most of the provisions of the 1954 Act do not, and our game legislation does not protect game birds in the same terms as the Convention. Another is that the provisions of Section 6 of the principal Act regulating the sale of cage birds is almost certainly not consistent with those of the Convention. The Advisory Committees and the interested bodies who were consulted by them, however, advised against amendment of these provisions. Therefore, I cannot be encouraging about the possibility of the Government finding themselves able to ratify the Convention.

In 1965, the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds in England and Wales expressed the view that, because of its very detailed terms, the Convention was unsuitable for worldwide application. It might be better to try to secure a revision of the Convention itself, rather than try to adapt United Kingdom legislation to conform with it, and I understand that the interested organisation, the British section of the International Council for Bird Preservation, is pursuing this in consultation with similar bodies overseas. In spite of the fact that the Bill will not enable us to sign the Convention, I believe that it will make our standard of bird protection as high as that which exists in any other part of the world.

For this we owe very much to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has piloted the Bill through the House, and I conclude by paying my tribute to him for the part that he has played in bringing this legislation on to the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.