HL Deb 21 February 1928 vol 70 cc175-86

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Buckmaster.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Protection of lapwings.

1. It shall not be lawful for any person—

  1. (a) during any time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh day of August to sell any lapwing for human consumption, or to have any lapwing in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption; or
  2. (b) to sell for human consumption, or to have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption, any egg of the lapwing.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "any time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh," and to insert "the period between the fifteenth day of March and the first." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether my noble friend will accept this Amendment. The object is to bring the dates of this Bill into line with the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1980. Your Lordships may be aware that there are already eight Acts dealing with the protection of birds and it is very difficult for everybody to know all of them. They are almost contradictory. The Wild Birds Protection Bill, which was introduced in this House and unfortunately was lost in another place, would have repealed all those eight Acts and the dates which are in the Bill of my noble friend are taken from that Bill. But that Bill is, unfortunately, dead, and I make this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, that instead of introducing any new dates he should if he has no objection, keep to the dates of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("during") to ("day"), in line 8, and insert ("the period between the fifteenth day of March and the first").—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

This is a Government Amendment to my Bill. I should like to know whether it is introduced for the purpose of prefacing the adoption by the Government of my Bill, or whether it is merely a niggling, interfering Amendment which has no real substance at all and is put forward on behalf of the Department which the noble Lord, if I may say so, so ably and so amiably represents in this House. Unless I know that I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. I desire that there should be no reserve at all about my attitude. I am anxious that there should be no delay whatever in getting this Bill through this House and for this reason: the Government have put forward a number of reasons, each one of which, I think, is wholly inadequate, why they will not adopt this Bill. I do not want to give them another excuse and enable them to say: "Now, see how late it is; we cannot possibly take up the Bill now. If we had had it a day or two before it might possibly have been done." And if this Amendment had any real substance in it at all, why did not the Government introduce it last year when precisely this same Bill was before the House, when precisely the same conditions as those to which the noble Lord referred existed, and when there was just as much cause for the Amendment as there is to-day? On the contrary, on that occasion they introduced two other Amendments both of which, I am glad to think, were rejected, as I felt sure they would be, by the unanimous opinion of this House. Neither of them did the noble Lord think it necessary to pursue. It is for that reason that I do not desire to accept this Amendment.

There really is no reason at all why you should attempt to make this Bill agree with any other Act of Parliament. It is a Bill that has special reference to a special bird, under special conditions. And I cannot see the reason why, when other periods are fixed for other birds, you should change this period, which was originally the Government's own period, selected for this particular Bill. I might further suggest to your Lordships that it would be possible to introduce an infinite variety of Amendments, proposing a day earlier or a day later, or proposing to cut off a bit here and to extend a bit there. There is no limit to Amendments of such a class if you really want to go into them, but there is no reason why any of them should be accepted.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I can assure my noble friend that there is no Machiavellian plot at the bottom of this small Amendment, and I think I can more or less easily explain why it is suggested now, and why it was not suggested before. My noble friend will remember that the last time he brought forward this Bill he did take these dates from a Government Bill which was before the House.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Not before the House then.

LORD DESBOROUGH

It had been passed by the House of Lords, and there was a Bill—

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble Lord will forgive me. Last year this Bill of mine was introduced at the same time as this year, when no Bill was before either this House or the other House.

LORD DESBOROUGH

But the dates were taken from a Bill which had passed this House.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Certainly.

LORD DESBOROUGH

And which was taken up in another place.

LORD BUCKMASTER

And dropped.

LORD DESBOROUGH

And unfortunately dropped. But the point is this, that these dates were in that Bill which was dropped, and which would have repealed those other eight Acts, and so it, was no use trying to alter the dates in this Bill when they were in a Bill which the Government had passed through this House. If the Government had done that they would have been going against their own Bill. What has happened is that the Bill which I bought forward in this House—I thought it was a very good Bill, and think so still—was killed in another place, and therefore it has disappeared. Now we come to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, and on behalf of the Home Office, who make suggestions about all Bills, good, bad or indifferent, I suggest that, considering the lamentable fate which befell the Bill last year, it would be just as well to alter these dates to bring the Bill into line with the Act of 1880. Of course, if there is any real objection I shall not press the Amendment.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I ought probably not to have interrupted the noble Lord, but I do at least desire to make it perfectly clear where we are. In the Session before last there was a Government Bill, and in that Bill there was this provision, and that Bill was dropped. Last Session I introduced this Bill when the other Bill was dead and buried, and when there was no such Bill, either in contemplation or on the Statute Book; and then, as I say, the Home Office did not propose this Amendment. There was no conceivable reason why they should not have done so then, just as they do it now. The noble Lord has not answered my question. I asked him whether the Government are introducing this Amendment as a preface to adopting the Bill, because, if so, both this and every other Amendment I would most gladly accept.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I always admire the Parliamentary skill of the noble and learned Lord. He is very anxious that the Government should undertake this Bill. So far as I am concerned, it would be an admirable Bill for the Government to undertake if they only had time, but the noble and learned Lord knows quite well, as I explained at some length on Second Reading, that I am unable to give him that assurance, and I am extremely sorry. It would have been much easier for me to promise the noble and learned Lord, who is always very persuasive, that I would accept his Bill, but I cannot do that, and, even if I were to make a promise, it could not be performed. I cannot control another place. As for these few days, I should have thought it was hardly worthy of the forensic eloquence of the noble and learned Lord to insist that it was a matter of vital importance that these few days more or less should be granted. But my noble friend has said that he does not want to force this Amendment upon the noble and learned Lord. Had I been in charge of the Bill, I should have thought that the way in which the noble and learned Lord has received that kind of Amendment is hardly a good prelude for getting the Bill through; but he is as good a judge as I am.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

I have some sympathy with the view of the Government, and I think this Bill should be made to harmonise as much as possible with the legislation already existing in numerous Acts to protect birds of various descriptions. If every bird had a Bill of its own, the difficulties of legislation would be greatly increased. It would be as well to have the whole of this bird legislation reviewed, because a great many most destructive birds are protected which ought not to be protected. On the other hand, there is this particular bird with which, I am sure, we have the greatest sympathy, and which we desire to see included in the general legislation. But I think it would be as well if this Bill could be made to harmonise as far as possible with the seven or eight Acts which have already been passed.

On question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), before "sell," to insert "kill or." The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands at present, I am afraid it is rather a bad example of a law for the rich and a law for the poor. Under this Bill, a poor man cannot sell the plovers themselves or their eggs, while a rich landowner can glut himself and his friends upon the birds and their eggs. I beg therefore to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, after ("to") insert ("kill or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD DANESFORT

I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept this Amendment, which I think improves the Bill. Surely, as the Bill now stands, it is possible for a man to kill any number of lapwings, providing he eats them himself and does not sell them. The only prohibition, as I understand the Bill, is against selling. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill desires, no doubt, to protect lapwings, and therefore I think he ought to put words into it prohibiting a man from killing lapwings for his own consumption.

LORD DESBOROUGH

In the view of the Government, this Amendment is unnecessary, as the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, already makes it an offence to shoot or trap any lapwing between March 1 and August 1, The lapwing is included in the Schedule to that Act and is therefore protected absolutely during that period.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I am very grateful indeed for the assistance of the Government, and it is extremely pleasant to receive it. This Bill is not designed for the purpose the noble Lord has in mind. As Lord Desborough has pointed out, the protection of birds from destruction is already provided for, and the noble Lord will see the reason why it is desirable to stop the lapwing being sold. If that is not done, they may be sold during the whole of the close season, poulterers saying that the birds were not killed during the close season, but during the open season, and kept in cold storage until wanted for sale. It seems to me that there is really no need whatever to introduce into this clause the words suggested by the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I, of course, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), after "sale," to insert "or use." The noble Viscount said: I do not think the plovers's eggs are protected in any way, and therefore I move this Amendment. As I said before, the rich landowner can give them to his friends and eat any number of them.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, after ("sale") insert ("or use").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the interest he has taken in this Bill. I am deeply concerned in its fortunes and it is a great pleasure to find somebody who also takes an interest in the subject. It is perfectly true that as this Bill stands, a man may take plovers' eggs on his own land for his own consumption.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

And that of his friends.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The Bill is not designed to stop that, nor do I think it is right that it should stop it. He cannot sell then; nor would he give them to any extent. Would it not be a little hard if a farmer was not to be at liberty to take the plovers' eggs at certain times? In these matters you have to look all round and it is not really quite fair to say to a man: "You are not to take eggs on your own land for your own consumption." The real purpose of the Bill is to stop the wholesale destruction of these birds by the wholesale taking of their eggs, which, as we know perfectly well, will flood the poulterers' shops in a few weeks. I would ask the noble Viscount, therefore, not to insist upon his Amendment.

LORD DANESFORT

Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to press this upon the noble and learned Lord. As I understand the position to-day, it is that a landowner can send out his keeper at the time the plovers are laying to collect all the eggs he can find upon the land and that landowner can eat them himself or give them to his friends or invite the noble and learned Lord or anyone else he likes to eat them. In that way a very large number of plovers' eggs have been consumed every year and are being consumed. I may be wrong but that is my impression. My noble friend's Amendment would prevent people from picking up the eggs on the land and eating them themselves or presenting them to some one else, and in that way would give very material protection to the plover. I really cannot imagine why the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, who is so anxious to protect the plover, should not accept this Amendment. It is not an unreasonable one and I cannot see why anyone should object to it.

LORD BUCKMASTER

If I were to accept this I should be going back on something that I have said not only on this occasion but on former occasions when this Bill was passed. Your Lordships' first consent was given on the view I then put forward. The idea of landowners scouring their fields and meadows and moorlands to gather together these eggs in baskets and distribute them among their friends is really a wild vision and has no relation whatever to the actual facts.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:— (2) So much of Section three of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, as relates to exposing or offering for sale or having in control or possession wild birds recently killed or taken shall, as respects lapwings, cease to have effect. The noble Lord said: This Bill being somewhat wider in its scope than the Act of 1880, which it replaces in respect of the protection of lapwings, it is necessary that this subsection should be put in. It is really a drafting matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough).

LORD BUCKMASTER

It is true that this Amendment does not affect the purpose of the Bill but it does affect its chances of becoming law at the time I desire. It is entirely a matter that is in your Lordships' hands. I do not want to have Amendments put in if it is possible to avoid them without in any way doing violence to the judgment of the House. What I do want, if possible, is to save stages on the Bill. I say quite frankly that is what I seek to do. If there were any Amendments that your Lordships thought really ought to be put in, of course I should not urge that consideration upon you. If the Government would take charge of this Bill they would be able to put this matter right.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I must respectfully protest against the line taken by the noble and learned Lord which seems to be in the last degree trivial. He wants to avoid at this early stage of the Session a Report stage on this Bill. Does he really think there will be any difficulty in getting the Report stage? If I had only such trivial problems to face I should be abundantly satisfied. There is no difficulty whatever in the noble and learned Lord geting the Report stage. He knows well that I cannot give him any promise. The only reason why I am not particularly keen is that if I urge the House to accept Amendments it may look as if I were going to help the Bill and I cannot help it more than by putting the noble and learned Lord's case before my colleagues. I can do nothing more than that and that, I have no doubt, my noble friend beside me (Lord Desborough) will do. As the Leader in your Lordships' House, however unworthy in that office, I should suggest that it is our duty to make the drafting of the Bill as good as it can be made and if this Amendment is necessary for drafting the noble and learned Lord should, I think, accept it just as the Government would have to accept it if we were in charge of the Bill instead of him.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble Marquess is hardly doing me justice. It is not that there is not time now. When the noble Marquess says it is a trivial thing I want to point out that these are matters of consequence and what will happen at the end will be—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Not now.

LORD BUCKMASTER

Yes, but this is to begin on March 14, and unless we can get it through here so that the Government can have time, they will be able to say: "Now it is no use; we will let it go." It is that which I seek to prevent. I want to save hours over this in order that at the end I may be able to tell the noble Marquess frankly that there was no conceivable reason why the Government should not introduce this Bill—time, merits or anything else. That is why I want to save time now if I possibly can.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Penalties.

2. A person guilty of any offence against this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsection:— () Where a person convicted of an offence against this Act is a company, the chairman and every director of the company and every officer of the company concerned in the management thereof shall be guilty of the like offence, unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or consent. The noble Viscount said: I noticed in the Nursing Homes (Registration). Bill a clause which I think is a model clause, identical to the one which I have on the Paper. Poulterers and restaurants, when they are limited liability companies, would under this Bill be in a favoured position and I therefore think that my clause should be inserted. For that reason I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection. — (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

The objection which the Home Office have to this subsection is that it brings rather too heavy artillery to bear on a somewhat small matter. The instance to which my noble friend has referred was really instituted under D.O.R.A. for the purpose of safeguarding the health of the people. I think this subsection is quite unnecessary in the present case. There is no doubt that if any of these people do break this law they can be proceeded against and adequately punished under the existing law. In view of that the Government think this subsection is unnecessary.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

If the people can be proceeded against there is nothing more to be said and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Short title.

4. This Act may be cited as the Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928.

LORD TEYNHAM moved to insert at the end as a new subsection:— (2) This Act shall remain in force for five years. The noble Lord said: After the somewhat violent objection offered by the noble and learned Lord to the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord on the Front Bench (Lord Desborough) I can hardly hope that this Amendment will find favour with him. The noble and learned Lord, in introducing this Bill, urged its acceptance on the ground that the lapwing was rapidly diminishing. That is, unfortunately, no doubt the case in many localities, though in many other places there are large flocks still to be seen. It is doubtful whether this diminution, where it occurs, is altogether due to the collecting of eggs; still the passing of this Bill ought to have some good effect. The Bill is in the nature of an experiment and I submit that as such it should be given a trial for a fixed period before it is put permanently on the Statute Book. The result of the Bill may be that the lapwing may increase so enormously that these restricted provisions may be no longer necessary, and people may be able to consume plovers' eggs at ball suppers without thinking they are doing a definite injury to agriculture. On the other hand, the result of the Bill may be negligible, in which case there would be no point in continuing it. I think that reasonable protection should be given to the lapwing, because all agree it is a most valuable bird; at the same time, I think that opportunities should be given for testing this experiment. Your Lordships may think that five years is a sufficiently long period in which to see what effect this Bill would have. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

I do not want to oppose the noble Lord violently. He admits two things that really lie at the root of this matter—one, that the bird is diminishing; the other, that it is useful. He says that at the end of five years you may have too much of a good thing. I doubt it very much. This is not a bird that lives on anything excepting farmers' pests. That is the great point about the bird. There are other birds that have a mixed diet, but this bird lives on all the things that are most hostile to the farmer and therefore the more of them you have the better it will be. If you had enough of these birds you would have no need of the Poisons Act which was passed last year, because these birds would do the whole of the work. I must say that I feel a little uneasy about accepting this limitation to five years. It is not as if there was a question of any harm being done. It is admitted that good will be done. Yet at the end of five years, if this Amendment is accepted, we should have to begin the battle all over again. This is the third year that I have tried to get this Bill passed and even now I am not certain of its going through. I certainly do not want at the end of five years to begin all over again. Unless the noble Lord is seriously attached to this Amendment I would far rather that the Bill should stand as it is drafted. If it is found that circumstances have completely altered at the end of a period of years, which I doubt, then something could be done to amend the law.

LORD TEYNHAM

I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.