PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS

HL Deb 03 December 1952 vol 179 cc705-46

2.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD rose to call attention to the need of better protection for wild birds; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name, I make no apology to the House for raising once again the question of the protection of wild birds. Noble Lords will remember that mere than two years ago we had a debate upon the subject in which the keenest interest was expressed from every quarter of the House, and the keenest wish that action should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. My noble friend Lord Haddington raised the question in a very persuasive speech, and his Motion stating that the existing state of legislation was both inadequate and confused was accepted not only by the Government of the day but unanimously by the whole House. Indeed, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who was then Lord Chancellor and leading the House, described the existing state of legislation as deplorable.

When the debate ended, many of us hoped—and I think with some reason—that in view of this unanimous demand for action something would be done in the comparatively near future. My noble friend Lord Ilchester, Chairman of the Home Office Advisory Committee upon the Protection of Wild Birds, undertook a comprehensive inquiry into the kind of legislation that ought to be passed. I am not in a position to comment upon the details of the proposals that have emerged from his Committee—so far they are confidential—but I de know that they made their Report nearly a year and a half ago, and that their Report had behind it the maximum of support from the individuals and societies interested in birds. Since then, however, no action has been taken by the Government, and in the meanwhile the state of affairs has become worse rather than better.

Rare birds have continued to be shot, bird sanctuaries have continued to be harried and, incidentally, invaded by the Service Departments—this in the face of constantly growing interest in birds amongst the general population. As one who has always been interested in birds in the Eastern Counties, I should say that one of the most notable features of modern life in the country is this new interest in birds. Indeed, it is so great that sometimes it becomes almost embarrassing to the people whose duty it is to look after bird sanctuaries. In any case, whilst nothing has been done by the Government, the state of affairs has become even worse than it was two and a half years ago when the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, raised this question in the House. The state of affairs was described then as "inadequate and confused." It is even more inadequate and confused to-day.

Let me, in a sentence or two, remind noble Lords what exactly is the state of the law—and I may say that I would challenge any noble Lord, even after weeks of study, to be able to pass an examination in it. At the present moment, the protection of wild birds is dealt with in fifteen separate Acts of Parliament and in 250 different regulations in this country and in Scotland. The legislation started rather haphazardly in 1880, when a list was made out, very unscientifically and very inadequately, of a certain number of birds which were not to be shot in the breeding season. The Act was subsequently enlarged in 1896 to extend the prohibition over the whole year. This very inadequate list was drawn up, so far as I could judge, in a way that certainly would not satisfy the modern ornithologist. It was made subject to variation only when a local authority applies (that assumed the interest of the local authority, but very often local authorities were not greatly interested in the question), and subject to the Home Secretary's final approval. The result has been that some authorities have taken action, whilst others have not. In any case, there has been a considerable delay in getting a bird added to the prohibited list, and, in the meanwhile, these rare birds and other birds we wish to protect have continued to be shot.

I cannot imagine a more anomalous state of affairs—these scores of different authorities dealing with a question like the flight of birds, a matter which, obviously, ought to be dealt with only in big areas. I have here several instances that have been given to me of these anomalies. I have the instance, first of all, of that very delightful little hawk, the hobby—one of the prettiest little hawks in the list of British birds. There was recently a hobby's nest in the neighbourhood of a county boundary. At the place where the nest was, the hobby was protected, but when the hobby flew 100 yards over the county boundary it was liable to be shot. Still more notable is the case of a bird that has aroused a very great interest, particularly in the Eastern Counties, the avocet. In my early days, the avocet had become almost extinct in Norfolk. It had not bred in England for a century. I remember being told that it was driven away when the local inhabitants started to eat the eggs about a hundred years ago. To everyone's delight, in 1947 the avocet returned to the coast of Suffolk. It was very well looked after by the local naturalists.

The result has been that this bird, which had not bred in England for a century, was again breeding to the extent of forty couples this year, with every likelihood of its spreading beyond the county of Suffolk into my own county of Norfolk and neighbouring counties. Yet what is the position? The avocet, very wisely, started to breed in Suffolk, where it is on the prohibited list; but if it flies into Cambridgeshire—as we hope it will—it can be freely shot. Could anything be more anomalous? I quote these two instances of birds which may well breed again if they are left safe and quiet in these shores.

Let me now come to another category of bird—the very rare birds which in recent years have visited these shores for the first time. I do not know whether it is because so many more people are watching birds than formerly, but in recent years a number of species have been identified that were never known in this country before. I have here three or four instances of these new species. There is the blue-cheeked bee-eater. Bonelli's warbler and two kinds of shrike—the Isabelline shrike and the Pallas shrike. Most notable of all is a new and extraordinarily interesting bird which visited Great Britain for the first time this spring—the eastern collared dove, a kind of turtle dove which in the past inhabited Central Asia and which, during the eighteenth century, gradually moved across the Middle East, and in recent years it has been moving over the whole of Europe. It has now reached almost every country upon the Continent, as far north as Scandinavia and as far south as Italy. For several years past ornithologists have confidently prophesied, when this general migration was going on, that the time was comparatively near when the bird would appear in Great Britain.

The bird did appear this year in Lincolnshire. It was carefully identified. Experts who had studied the bird in Asia and knew all about it went down to see it. The B.B.C. sent someone down to record its songs. There was no doubt about it at all. It is this bird that has been spreading over Europe and breeding in many countries, and it will certainly breed here, eventually, if it receives protection, just as the turtle dove has bred here in the last fifty years. But because it is a new rare bird, it is not on any list, so that anybody can go and kill it whenever he likes. I hope that these instances are enough to show your Lordships how very anomalous is the present plan, with this somewhat haphazard list. There are great difficulties in making additions to it, and if a rare bird comes which has not been known in England before and which is not on anylist, anybody can shoot it.

I pass from that side of my objections to my second objection, the inadequacy of the penalties provided. The penalties for killing birds on the prohibited list are quite derisory. A man may get off with simply a verbal reprimand. He may be fined a few shillings or even a pound or two, but when it is remembered that with some of these rare birds he can sell one to a collector for fifty pounds next day, it will be seen that, from the point of view of the offender, there is very good business in it. Therefore I hope that, in any proposals which are made, the penalties will be made more effective, and I hope that the complications in obtaining a conviction will be simplified. As things are now, an offender has to be caught red-handed. If noble Lords will think of the difficulty of catching the culprit red-handed when he is probably operating on some remote marsh, miles away from anywhere, possibly at dead of night, it will be seen that the fact that he has to be caught red-handed almost nullifies the chance of getting a conviction.

Lastly, my third objection to the present state of affairs is that we have lagged behind many other countries—indeed, behind most of the civilised countries—in our methods of protection. The result is that we cannot take our full part in the various international movements which are now going on for the better protection of birds. It is these international movements which probably matter more than almost anything. What has emerged in recent years is greater knowledge about the almost incredible movement of birds from one end of the world to the other. Quite common birds like the mallard or teal can be found in Eastern England one day, in Siberia the next and in South America the next. That means that if the better protection of wild birds is to be effected, it must be based on international movements.

In recent years there have been several hopeful signs of international movement. There have been conferences, and there is a convention which the countries interested in bird protection are promoting. But the fact remains that, because we have not put our own house in order and have not brought our protection up to the standards of other countries, we cannot take our full part in these movements. Let me give your Lordships an example of what I mean. I spoke just now about the eastern collared dove. I understand that all the countries which are parties to the convention have agreed to prohibit the killing of the eastern collared dove. So long as we allow the eastern collared dove to be killed, we cannot take part in a convention of that kind. Therefore, it is essential that we should bring our legislation up to the standard of that of these other progressive countries. That is all the more important because in the past we have always been the pioneers; but now, from having been the pioneers, we have become the laggards.

I remember very well, when I was at the Home Office, sponsoring two Bills, to which I think I made allusion in our last debate. One of them was for increasing the close season for the killing of ducks and geese. The other was for prohibiting the sale of quail in the British market during the spring and summer. Only in the last two or three days I made inquiries about the effect of these two little Acts. I am told that they have had considerable effect here, but they have had an even greater effect abroad. As a result of them, Denmark has made a longer close season for the killing of surface feeding ducks; the Netherlands have prohibited the killing of ducks in decoys after January 15; Belgium has made a close time for ducks and geese; France has also made a close time for ducks and geese, and Northern Ireland, moving much more quickly in the matter than we have moved, has put on the Statute Book an excellent Act that can be a model to everybody else, under which all birds—subject to certain obvious exceptions—are protected. It is very regrettable that, having given the lead in this way, we should now have dropped back to being a laggard and not even competent to enter into some of these international conventions. Those are my three objections to the present position and my three reasons for pressing action, and urgent action, upon the Government; first, the confusion of the legislation; secondly, the inadequacy of the penalties and, thirdly, the need to bring our standards up to the more progressive international standards.

Now what action should the Government take? I will not attempt to-day to go into any detail, particularly as the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and his Committee must know a great deal more about the detail than ever I could. I would say only that what is needed is to make the legislation a great deal more simple than it is at present. As things are, nobody knows what bird may be killed and what bird may not be killed. As I have said, it is now necessary to refer to fifteen Acts of Parliament and 250 different regulations to know that. I would say: simplify the provisions into categories. Start not so much with a list of the birds that must not be killed, as with a list of the birds that may be killed. A general prohibition should be the basis of the Act but after that there should be categories. Obviously, everybody would wish to kill pests—crows and magpies, and so on—and obviously no one wishes to prohibit the killing of ducks and geese, provided that the season is restricted (I think it should be definitely more restricted than it is at present) and that the killing is properly regulated. That is my idea: a general provision of protection and then two further categories, the one of pests and the other of semi-game birds.

I have purposely not said anything about the game birds, not because I should not like to see certain changes made in the game laws. For instance, I should like to see the close time for partridges begin on December 1. I have always noted in my own experience that partridges begin to pair about December 1, and everybody has had whatever chance he wishes to shoot partridges before December comes. I think that, with the greater difficulties in the way of maintaining a stock of any bird, the time has now come for further restrictions. But as I say, I do not wish to complicate what I have been saying about what are technically wild birds with a disquisition upon the game laws.

Having said this, I come next to the delays which have taken place and to the pressure which I hope this House will place upon the Government to deal with this really scandalous state of affairs. I had hoped very much—particularly as so much general agreement has been reached in Lord Ilchester's Committee—that the Government would have included a Bill of this kind in the Queen's Speech. They have not. They have given me the reason which, when I have been in office in the past, I have often given to other people—that: "We have so many Bills this Session that we cannot possibly add another." Even so, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—whom we are delighted to see representing the Home Office in a matter of this kind—comes to reply he will be able to say that, even if it is impossible this Session (because it is a short Session and the Coronation will make it still shorter) to get this Bill through, he and the Secretary of State will get it through, somehow or other—shall I say, in the next year and a half. I wish it could be sooner. If he could give me a little hope that it will be sooner I should be delighted, but I think that eighteen months ought to be the limit.

Two and a half years ago we all thought in this House that there was going to be immediate legislation. We have been very patient, but we feel now that a Bill, upon which I do not believe there would be any substantial controversy, should be introduced. I believe that if it were introduced in this House we could get it through in a matter of a few hours. May I suggest to the noble Lord that if he thinks it may be difficult for the Government to include a Bill of this kind in the Government programme, there are plenty of private members, both in this House and in another place, who I am sure would be delighted to take over such a Bill, with a little Government support from the Government draftsman? We could do what I did in similar circumstances with the quail and the ducks in 1938 and 1939, and we could put the Bill upon the Statute Book. I have made my case, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is a very strong one. It is a very urgent case, and, quite irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, we all wish to see urgent action taken in the matter. I beg to move for Papers.

3.18 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend has put down this Motion, because time has been passing and we do not seem to be going ahead very fast with what he has told us and explained to us—the extraordinary importance of pushing through a Bill to deal with this matter. We both look upon it as extremely urgent, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the same view and will take every opportunity to get a Bill on to the Statute Book.

I need not go into the past history of the whole of this case, but I will say two or three words about the request from the late Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, that the Home Office Advisory Committee on Birds should take up the matter and produce suggestions for a Bill. When this matter came up for consideration by your Lordships on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, it was stated on both occasions that we had been asked to produce a Report. Incidentally, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been present on either of those occasions. Notice was put down for rather a short time ahead and, to my regret, being busily engaged elsewhere, I could not possibly get here. It was not the case that we had been asked to produce a Report. We were asked to produce a Bill. This seemed an easier way, I suppose; at any rate this was the line which we took in our Committee meetings. Then we were suddenly told that we were not going the right way, because the Parliamentary draftsmen would probably cut the whole thing to ribbons and produce something entirely different from what we wanted. I may say, my Lords, that this was an extremely technical matter. A very useful contribution was, however, made by our secretary, in the form of a most able memorandum on the subject, which will, I think, when the Bill comes before Parliament, be placed before your Lordships and the Members of another place in a somewhat modified form.

The whole matter of these Wild Birds Protection Acts goes back to 1880, but the first real attempt to consolidate a number of Acts—there are at the moment fifteen Acts with which we have to deal—was made by the Montagu Committee in 1919. That Committee reported that nothing to speak of had been done. A few more Acts were added to the number. So we come to the present time, or at any rate to the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947. At that time the late Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, asked me whether I would succeed my noble friend the late Lord Onslow as Chairman of this Committee. After some hesitation, I confess, I decided to take on this office. I did so with some uncertainty because I was aware that my knowledge of birds was far less than his. At the same time Sir Hugh Gladstone was Chairman of the Scottish Committee. However, I finally agreed. I promised that my Committee would give this matter careful consideration and would try to produce material for a Bill. I am glad to say that our Committee was an admirable one: it could not have been better. It represented various bodies, and the knowledge of many of its members was far reaching and vast. But the more we saw of the matter, when we began to get down to discuss it in detail, the more complicated we found it. For instance, on several occasions we got through a certain clause and then at the last moment somebody would say, "Oh, I think w have forgotten that point "—and very often we had to go right back to the beginning. It was all most difficult.

We started our meetings in March, 1948. We had twenty-six of them; and we finished at the end of July, 1951. The Scottish Committee was reappointed, after the death of Sir Hugh Gladstone, with Professor Ritchie—than whom no one knows more about birds. The Committee started its work in 1949. Throughout the whole of our series of meetings, with the exception of the first, we had the assistance of a representative from the Scottish Office, Mr. Fairreave, who gave us most valuable assistance on both the legal and technical side. We had an excellent secretary, Mr. L. M. Baker, who came from the Home Office. I think I am right in saying that at that time he knew very little about the subject—indeed I have never been able to discover anybody in the Home Office who did know much about it. Mr. Baker, however, set to work to master the subject, and he is now an authority on it. Not until recently did I discover that he was doing nearly the whole of the work of our Committee in his spare time, out of office hours.

That brings me to the end of our deliberations. The suggestions of the Committee went to the Home Office in September, 1951, and with them went a covering letter, signed by Professor Ritchie and myself, urging all possible speed in going ahead with this matter. Unfortunately, many of us believed—at any rate I certainly did—that the matter would go at once to a Parliament draftsman. But no doubt the change of Government upset the arrangements very seriously—at any rate, so far nothing whatever, or very little, appears to have been done. When my noble friend put down this Motion I at once wrote to Sir David to ask whether I could go and see him. He rather procrastinated and said that he did not think it would be very much good at the moment, because he and the Secretary of State for Scotland were about to suggest certain changes in our recommendations, which would make a good many differences to the Bill we had proposed. He said he thought I would agree. I am afraid that I did not agree. I said I thought it advisable that I should go and see him, because rumours had come to my notice, to the effect that we were not on good terms with the Scottish Committee—which was, so far as I knew, perfectly untrue. There are other reasons, of which I shall speak in a moment.

However, I saw him about three hours before your Lordships met to-day, and he has given me permission, which I confess I had not expected, to give your Lordships a short summary of what our suggestions, if approved, would mean. I say that I did not expect it because all through I have strongly taken the view that our minutes were entirely confidential between my Committee and the Home Office. As the Home Secretary's letter clearly showed that the whole matter was still sub judice. I thought we should not be allowed to say anything. However, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships a little more about the proposed Bill. I had not made any study of it for that purpose and I have had only a short time in which to get my facts. So your Lordships will get only a skeleton of it, but I think I shall be able to give the gist of what we propose.

I mentioned that there was some suggestion that the Scottish Committee and our Committee did not always see eye to eye. As I have said, I do not think that is correct. Professor Ritchie came down and some of our experts went up; in fact, our Secretary went up twice. We were in very close touch with the Scottish Committee all the time. Your Lordships must remember that from Cape Wrath to Dover is a very long way, and there are climatic reasons why the habits of birds in the North of Scotland are often entirely different from the habits of birds in the South of England. That all has to be taken into consideration, but I hope that we were able to co-ordinate our efforts in some way. There were one or two matters from which Scotland desired to be excluded, and, quite frankly, we left those points out of the Bill. We said specifically that this Bill did not apply to those particular points.

I feel that I have wearied your Lordships too long, so I will come now to the few suggestions which I have been able to put down. I should like to say, first, that I feel that our Committee was not dilatory, although it might be accused of being so. We sat for three years. It must be remembered that we had twelve members scattered all over England, and since it was most important to get as full a Committee every time as possible, we did our best to get them together, but it naturally took longer than we expected. As regards the Bill, as your Lordships will realise from what I have been saying, the Bill refers to England, Wales and Scotland. We did not deal in any way with game birds. We found that the game bird question was much too complicated, and as it did not come within our terms of reference, we left it severely alone.

The first really important point—and it is the basis of the whole Bill—is that we recommend all-round protection of birds and their eggs, with far larger fines, in view of the changed value of money, than are laid down at the present time. We recommend special protection for rare birds (of which there will be a schedule) and their eggs, because the egg trouble is probably worse than the bird trouble. People get to know where a nest of these rare birds is. As my noble friend, Lord Temple wood, told your Lordships, they come along specially and go off with an egg. If they are caught, under present conditions they are fined £2. We suggest a £50 fine for killing any of these rare birds or for taking any of their eggs. I do not think that is too much. One must remember one thing, as regards killing these rare birds. Probably people do not know what they are killing. That is one of the difficult points which we have to face. Even in the case of some of the commoner birds, some of the hawks and the eagles, it is quite likely that people do not know what they are, and they would shoot them without ever intending to shoot a rare bird.

The next category is the harmful bird, the bird that does harm to agriculture and to other birds. Generally, they have to be kept down. For them, we suggest no protection at all. All through the year you can get rid of those birds; you can break up their eggs; you can do anything you like to them. The third section—these are all in the schedules—is the edible birds, the ducks and the geese and so forth. We suggest that these birds should be allowed to be shot at any time other than the close season, which, with one or two small exceptions, as to snipe and so on, would extend from February 1 to the end of August. That is much longer than it is at present. Under the present law you cannot begin shooting duck and that sort of thing until August 1, except where the prohibition has been specially altered by the local authority. The local authority will have power to recommend any alteration in the Schedules which they think fit. We suggest that they should go to the Home Secretary to be dealt with. He will refer them to the Committee, who will deal with them. That is really the only close season there will be, because every bird and its eggs will be protected. That simplifies matters enormously.

Birds which are destructive to agriculture and forestry will, by leave of the Home Secretary, and I think the Committee, be allowed to be shot. We tried to suggest more bird sanctuaries and also co-ordination between the different countries. That would get over my noble friend's point that at present the hobby may be shot at on one side of the fence and not on the other—or at least I hope it would. Then there were the questions of the possession of live and dead birds—a very complicated matter; the importation of live and dead birds; rules connected withtaxidermists—which would also mean the eggs in their possession, or as I think they now call them, eggshells. Caged birds, too, would be dealt with. The method of taking or pursuing birds and the powers of the police are all matters covered in our various suggestions together with exceptions for scientific purposes. As I have said, orders can be initiated by the Secretary of State in conjunction with the local authority.

That is all I wish to say. I apologise to your Lordships for not being able to tell you more, but I think that is probably because of the suggestion of the Home Secretary that, to a certain degree, the whole thing may be altered, and that therefore we should not go too far. Finally, I again suggest most humbly that this Bill should be pushed forward. My own personal view is that it ought to be a Government Bill, but it might be possible to work it through more quickly as a private Member's Bill. As to that, we shall have to see. Anyhow, I want to see this Bill on the Statute Book, and I sincerely hope that something will be done to hurry it up. I hope very much to see this Bill going through, but at its present rate, it does not look to me, in view of my age, growing deafness and other infirmities, that I shall be "in at the kill"—to use hunting parlance. Anyhow, I hope that your Lordships will do all you can to push forward the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD

My Lords, I have always felt as I rather gathered the noble Viscount, Lord Temple wood, also feels, that our Wild Birds Protection Acts begin at the wrong end. Instead of the Acts' giving lists of protected birds, all birds should be protected, with the exception of those which in any circumstances can be considered harmful to legitimate human interests. Some time ago I amused myself by drawing up a list of unprotected birds, with appropriate dates, but as it would take up rather too much time to read the list this afternoon I will try to confine myself to general principles. It is, I think, desirable that the list of unprotected birds should be a very liberal one—for various reasons. We already have far too many Government rules and regulations which tend to make criminals even of normally law-abiding citizens. It is not reasonable to expect any person to tolerate a bird which is doing real harm to his property, and we do not want a Wild Birds Protection Act to add to the list of Acts and Regulations which make criminals of normally law-abiding people.

Again, the saying that one man's meat is another man's poison is peculiarly applicable to certain kinds of birds. For example, naturalists who neither fish for trout nor keep ornamental fish in their gardens enjoy seeing the stately appearance of the heron—and it is very right that, in the proper place, they should be able to enjoy watching this bird. But the heron in the trout stream, or in the garden where ornamental fish are kept, is a most unmitigated pest. Then again, many people who are not particularly interested in their fruit gardens, or in protecting their fruit by netting it, enjoy the beautiful song of the blackbird and the thrush, and will want these birds to he as numerous as possible; but it is not reasonable to expect the owner of a cherry orchard to take a similar view.

There is also the problem which arises particularly in connection with birds of prey. From time to time, as in human society, even the most harmless species are apt to produce what are known as "rogue" individuals, whose thieving habits are different from those of the majority of their brethren. The majority of buzzards, for example, are harmless and useful birds, but especially in districts where buzzards are common, a small minority become determined poultry-killers. I therefore feel that a suitable Wild Birds Protection Bill should include a clause absolving people who kill even protected birds if they can produce reasonable evidence that they have done so in order to protect their property. But they must, of course, be required to provide reasonable evidence. It should not be enough, for example, for a farmer who has shot an eagle to say that he did so because he thought it would attack his lambs, or even because he saw it feeding on the carcase of a lamb which might have died from natural causes. He must be able to provide reasonable evidence that the bird was seen taking or trying to take live lambs.

Coming to new measures to secure more adequate protection of birds, I am not quite sure how the law at present stands on this matter, but it might be a good plan to make a rule that the owner or occupier of land might protect any bird he wished on his own land, unless the county agricultural committee desired that he should destroy it because it was particularly harmful. That would mean that a person who went on to some one else's land, and killed there even unprotected birds and took their eggs, would be guilty of an act of trespass if he was acting contrary to the wishes of the owner or occupier of the land. Much heavier fines should be imposed for the killing of rare birds, and the skins of these birds should in all cases be confiscated and, if of sufficient interest, be presented to a public museum. I rather think that in the United States, where shooting is much more democratic than over here, all wading birds of the seashore are protected. I must confess that I should very much like to see a similar rule adopted over here, but, as shore-shooters would, doubtless, consider themselves hardly treated, perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to allow them, within certain seasons, to kill certain common and reasonably edible wading birds, such as curlews and golden plover. But they should be required to abstain from killing all the rarer and more interesting species. In the same way, I see no reason why people should be allowed to shoot harmless and completely inedible ducks. The shelduck is as beautiful to the eye as it is disgusting to the palate. I see no reason why it should be killed.

With regard to the edible ducks and geese, the close season should be regulated in accordance with expert surveys of the world status of these birds. There is, unfortunately, evidence that water-fowl, as a whole, are tending to diminish in numbers, and too much attention should not be paid to the views of those rather greedy and short-sighted individuals who, just because a certain species of duck are still locally abundant, refuse to see that the world status of the species is declining in a dangerous way. Then, if a bird is totally protected in this country, it should be unlawful to sell on the market individuals of the same species which have been killed on the Continent. If, as we should do, we protect the green plover everywhere, it should not be legal to import green plover from abroad and sell them on the London market.

The protection of birds' eggs is every bit as important as the protection of the birds themselves, and I am inclined to agree with the view that whereas the killing of rare birds for collections is somewhat on the decline, the same cannot be said with regard to the taking of rare birds' eggs. Societies interested in the protection of birds are still put to great trouble and expense—sometimes, alas! unavailingly—to protect the birds' eggs from the ravages of the collector. There is no branch of ornithology which yields less of genuine scientific interest than the study of egg shells, and the egg collector is really no better, in my opinion, than a harmless stamp collector who has turned into a dangerous lunatic. He needs to be dealt with very severely, partly by much heavier fines and confiscation of the eggs he has taken. An Australian friend of mine, a very distinguished ornithologist, told me that in Australia they used to have the same trouble with egg collectors, but they killed the egg collector's nefarious practices by making a wise and severe rule that if he were caught breaking the law not only the eggs which he had just taken but his entire collection would be confiscated and presented to a public museum. I think that the same rule should be adopted overhere, and that that would finish the trouble with the egg-collector.

I believe also that it would be desirable, if possible, to prohibit the buying and selling of egg shells for collectors' purposes. In this country, at the present time, it is illegal to buy and sell wild British birds which have been caught, and I do not see why the objectionable practice of buying and selling eggs for collections should not also be brought to an end. There is, incidentally, a great deal of dishonesty connected with it, because eggs are frequently taken on the Continent and sold over here for very high prices as British-taken eggs. Permission could always be granted by the Home Secretary, taking suitable advice, to allow birds to be killed, or eggs to be taken, for genuine scientific purposes. Sometimes it happens that a species of bird previously quite harmless takes to objectionable feeding habits, and it is then necessary to kill quite a large number throughout the year, in order to examine the contents of their stomachs. Mention has been made of the inadequacy of the present list of our protected birds. In some cases these lists have not only been quite inadequate but they have also been absurd. I remember that when I lived in Hampshire the list for the county led off cheerfully with the auk and the American quail, regardless of the fact that the great auk has long been extinct and the little auk is a purely oceanic bird, which is found inland only in very exceptional circumstances, and usually in a dying condition, while the American quail is found only in America. Moreover, even if it were introduced into this country it would be unable to survive a really hard winter.

4.0 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, in venturing to address your Lordships for the first time I feel that I do so upon a subject which is much less controversial than some others in which I am involved, and it is in a cause to which so many members of your Lordships' House, both in the past and in more recent times, have contributed a great deal I wish to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, because from my own experience and connections I know that many societies interested not only in the protection of birds but in the wider question of the conservation of nature, will feel bitterly disappointed if, as a result of to-day's debate, no immediate and practical action follows. The reasons for amending the present law have been so clearly and so conclusively stated that I need hardly take up your Lordships' time by going over the ground again.

The first great change which is so urgently needed is the revision of the whole order of approach. We ought to say to people, not that they may kill, destroy or interfere with something which they do not know is specifically protected, but rather that they must not kill, destroy or interfere with anything which is not definitely black-listed or which can legitimately fall to the sportsman's gun. I feel that if that change were made in the law it would be not merely the law and its enforcement that would be altered, but the whole state of public opinion and public approach: we should get people into the right frame of mind and the right feeling towards birds and the whole of natural life. Then we might hope before long to have a state of public opinion and a general state of public behaviour in this country which are common enough in many countries abroad.

In recent years I have been more than once in Sweden and Norway, and in every public square, however small, in the churchyards, at wayside railway stations and elsewhere, one finds nesting boxes provided and wild birds in the neighbourhood in abundance; and no one dreams of interfering with them. The nest of the fieldfare, which builds a large, untidy nest, often quite low down, is left in the orchard or wayside tree, and boys in the neighbourhod do not drag it down and destroy it. I feel that we could get much the same approach here, with all the modern means of education which exist, if we brought the law itself into a rational state. Then, of course, on administrative grounds it would be an immense advantage to proceed on the lines which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has indicated. There is a vast and ridiculous waste of time on the part of county clerks—and of the Home Office themselves, for that matter—in trying to deal with and amend these 250 well-meant but not very expert and quite ineffective orders.

There is a third powerful reason which has been alluded to by previous speakers—namely, our position in regard to other countries. We have a varied and particularly interesting bird life in England and Scotland, not merely because of the attractiveness of our land but because we happen to lie on important migration routes. Surely we owe it to other countries to protect the birds which we find on passage or at particular times of the year, but which to them are their native birds. A stronger reason than that is that we want to increase our influence in the international bodies which deal with these matters, upon whose influence with their own Governments so much depends. It is important that we should be able to say to them that we protect our own birds, but I think it is even more important to say that we protect all our birds except those which are positively noxious. It is true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said, that some countries are ahead of us, but there are other countries which are sadly behind us. It is on the latter that we want to bring our influence to bear, those countries which expose for sale large numbers of small passerines and all the warbler tribe. It is very difficult to influence these countries. They may say, "This bird which we are eating for lunch is protected in one county in England, but not in another. You cannot really be serious in urging us to do more than we are doing." I know from my own knowledge that it is a serious handicap to our representatives who go abroad that they cannot produce a more logical state of legislation here.

If this were a difficult matter, no doubt it could be said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that in circumstances such as those now existing they had no time to deal with it. But I submit to your Lordships that it is really an easy and simple matter, and I am sure that it would be a popular step to take. It is a pity we do not know what is in the Report of the Ilchester Committee. If I may put it this way, there is a great deal of suppressed gratitude among my friends in bird protection societies to the noble Earl and his colleagues, but they cannot give expression to the gratitude they feel to him because they do not quite know what he said and what those whom he has advised are going to do about it. Would it not be a simple thing to release the Committee's Report or to state (and I am sure I am giving away no secrets) the heads of the Bill which that Committee has drawn up? It could easily be put into proper legal form by Parliamentary counsel, without having to spend many days and nights upon it. I may be wrong and may have inferred too much from what I hear, but a great many people interested in this movement believe that in the Ilchester Report there is the basis of a satisfactory and easily drafted measure.

I would urge the spokesman for the Home Office to go a long way this afternoon, if he can, in promising the early action for which such conclusive reasons have been given. If it is not practical or not convenient to have a Government Bill, surely there could be no difficulty about releasing the material to one of your Lordships who is so well able to introduce a Bill. Surely, there would be no difficulty about giving him the minimum amount of time (I am assured that it would not be great) required for Parliamentary counsel to prevent the Bill from being a nuisance to the Government draftsmen, so forcing them to put forward all sorts of Amendments during the passage of the Bill. I believe that we could make rapid progress. If that were done, I am sure there would be immense gratitude from the large number of people who are interested in this subject, not merely from those who like birds for sentimental or aesthetic reasons but also from scientific people interested in this movement, and from all those who have at heart the determination to protect the natural life of this country before it is too late. Therefore, I venture to support wholeheartedly everything that has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and subsequent speakers.

4.9 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure, on behalf of the whole House, to tender to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, our sincere thanks and gratitude for his able speech, so full of knowledge and love of the subject, and so charmingly and modestly delivered. I know, and we all know, that the high and responsible position which the noble Lord fills with such distinction sometimes prevents him from joining in the hurly-burly of this House. But may I say that we hope that on these non-political and non-controversial subjects it will not be the last time that the noble Lord will charm the House as he has done this afternoon? Now may I extend my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for bringing this Motion before the House? At one time in my political career I do not think there was any member of the Party opposite about whom I said so many harsh or unkind things as I did about the noble Viscount. I will not particularise the incidents, but even if I was not convinced that I was wrong and that the noble Viscount was right at the time and was more sinned against than sinning, may I say that his speech this afternoon would have compelled me mentally to withdraw all those things which I said about him so many years ago?

It is with some trepidation that, as a mere Londoner, I venture to intervene in this debate, because I have had none of the advantages that many noble Lords who have spoken have had in acquiring a knowledge of the subject. May I relate a personal incident? It was my accidentally coming across and reading in my teens a book which has been long forgotten—I do not suppose many people have ever heard of it—by a man called Bechstein on the Natural History of Cage Birds which first directed my attention to this subject. I do not apologise for that, because if it had not been for that book I should not have experienced one of the happiest moments of my life when, in a somewhat deserted part of Lincolnshire, I had the great joy of a close-up view of a montagu harrier—and any bird-lover can appreciate what that means. While it is quite true, as the noble Viscount has said, that there is an ever-growing love of wild birds and that in the past this country has given a lead, yet there is still a tremendous amount which remains to be done. As that eminent naturalist Seton Gordon has said, we have lost the osprey and the sea-eagle as nesting species, and there are other rare birds which seem to be well on the way to extinction.

Why is it that with all that long spate of legislation from 1880—there were even some Acts before that—this should be the position? It seems to me that the reason is that while it is true that the 1880 Act purports to protect the wild birds of the United Kingdom during the breeding season—and the definition of "wild birds" is, I understand, held to include all wild birds found in this country—it is only in the breeding season, in the close time between March 1 and August 1. Although Section 3 of the Act prescribes this specified close time for the United Kingdom, that close time may be extended or varied locally by an order of the Secretary of State. The effect of these variations is that there are different close times in different parts of the country and, therefore, before instituting any proceedings for offences under the Act, even where that is possible, it becomes necessary to ascertain precisely what protection is afforded in the particular locality.

The broad effect of the local orders is to place almost unsurmountable technical difficulties in the way of prosecutions. The R.S.P.C.A., which is as much concerned with the protection of wild birds as with the protection of animals, has been much concerned about this question for many years. Not only are there the technical difficulties which I have mentioned, but there are—and I am glad that it has already been emphasised—the quite inadequate penalties which can be imposed under the various Acts. The very fact that the Bird Protection Laws are so complicated at the present time prevents the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors, in spite of their vigilance, from ensuring that the laws are not infringed. And. so far as the public are concerned, it is very difficult for them to know whether or not they are infringing the law.

When I was a new Member in another place I was somewhat startled to receive a number of letters protesting in most vigorous terms against the threatened wholesale destruction of rooks. Looking into the matter, I discovered that the West Riding War Agricultural Executive Committee had urged all farmers to raid the rookeries. I am not going to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of that recommendation, except to say that it seems to be an apt illustration of the cases in which matters are left to a sort of local discretion. There are people who study the habits of the rook and who contend that there cannot be too many rooks in this country and that they are really the farmer's best friend. Again as a mere Londoner I dare not say too much about that.

In the first decade of the present century I listened to some lectures by Sidney Webb—afterwards Lord Passfield—on the art and science of elections and electioneering, and I still recollect his saying that in the work of organising one must organise even the bird watcher's vote. I venture to suggest that even Sidney Webb would not to-day have the hardihood to suggest that we should attempt to organise the bird watcher's vote. James Fisher, in that charming book Watching Birds, published by Penguin Books thirteen years ago and still in print in a revised edition, says this: All sorts of people seem to watch birds. Among those I know is a Prime Minister, a President, three Secretaries of State, a charwoman, two policemen, two Kings, two royal Dukes, one Prince, one Princess, a Communist, seven Labour, one Liberal and six Conservative Members of Parliament"— the Parties seem to be well balanced— several farm labourers earning 90s. a week, a rich man who earns two or three times that amount every hour of the day, at least forty-six schoolmasters, an engineer, an engine driver, a postman, and an upholsterer. I hope, my Lords, that the equalitarian tendencies of bird watching will not cause offence in any quarter of the House.

The noble Viscount who moved this Motion asks for a Bill, if not this year at least next year. We cannot reasonably, I suppose, taking all things into account, expect a Bill this year. Somehow or other—it is not for me to say why—the Government's legislative programme seems to be running into heavy weather in another place; and we have to extend our due commiseration to those who have to shoulder that responsibility. But I do not suggest that we should organise the bird watchers' vote: the wide area over which they extend would make that impossible of achievement, even if we thought of doing it. But I do say to Her Majesty's Government that we should "keep on keeping on," worrying until a Bill is produced to put right what has been described on all sides of the House as something approaching a scandal. May I conclude with some words of Seton Gordon? They are as follows: A love of birds is no superficial and transient thing. It will remain an oft-occurring blessing throughout the life of the lover, so that wherever he may find himself he will never be lonely, for, as a Gaelic proverb has it: 'Deserted indeed is that country where no voice of bird is heard.'

4.25 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I shall not attempt to add anything to the case that has been made out by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, whose intervention in this matter we all greatly appreciate, and by those speakers who have followed him. I am in no way qualified to do so, nor would it be necessary, since the case is quite established and I think your Lordships' House is substantially unanimous. The day is long past when there were in this country land owners of the type described in a novel—I forget by whom; it may have been by Galsworthy, but I am not sure—of one of whom he said that he was devoted to birds, and when a rare specimen was reported anywhere on his estate he spared no pains in having it shot and adding it to his collection.

The two points to which I wish to refer, the first briefly, relate to matters which have not hitherto been touched upon, except very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. This first point concerns the injury done to bird life by oil pollution at sea. The Motion of the noble Viscount relates to protection of wild birds. Well, my Lords, sea birds are as much entitled to protection as any other; and the sea birds are subject in these days to a greater peril and a more hateful kind of destruction than afflicts the birds of our fields. Your Lordships are aware of what is happening. Oil ships discharge waste oil at sea; the oil forms a film covering possibly acres of water, and any bird diving through this oil when it is feeding may have its feathers clogged; it becomes unable to fly and unable to feed itself, and in the course of time dies a lingering death from starvation. Thousands of these birds are being washed up on our shores all round this island every year. There have been inquiries for years past and many discussions, but nothing effective has been done. Some action, indeed, has been taken making it illegal to discharge waste oil within a certain distance of the coast, but the evil still continues.

There is now, however, a greater interest in the subject, an interest that had not been hitherto aroused by concern for the fate of the birds; that interest is due to the fact that our seaside resorts are being economically injured by the greasy coating of oily sediment which covers a large part of their bathing beaches. This is the subject now of indignant protests from many of the seaside resorts; and at last the British shipping industry itself is taking up the matter, to see by what means it can stop this abuse. It is beginning, rightly, by making a scientific research into the causes of what is happening and the best remedies that can be obtained. I do not know whether the noble Lord who will be replying to this debate will be able to tell us what is happening in that regard. If he can do so, I feel sure that the House will welcome any assurance that everything possible is being done—and without the intolerable delay which has hitherto occurred in this matter of wild bird protection and which has been made manifest in many speeches by previous speakers.

The second matter to which I would refer is the protection of birds in towns and the encouragement of town bird life. I am not myself an erudite ornithologist. I am not one of those who, either recently or in earlier life, have engaged in the strenuous work of the experienced bird watcher. I have never wallowed in swamps and clambered over mountains in order to reach a hide-out from which I could study the interesting habits of some of the rarer birds. My field of observation is limited to a small London garden, forty yards by fifteen yards, and my hide-out is behind my own library window. But my garden is within three minutes' walk of Kensington Gardens. It is one of a series of gardens which have become a feeding-place visited by a considerable variety of birds. I have counted thirteen different species in my own little garden—two of them rarities and single visitors, the others all residents or frequent visitors. I have what may be called an aviary without the wire cage.

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, spoke of a book with the title The Natural History of Cage Birds. But cage birds have no natural history; they have only an unnatural history. The birds can be enjoyed, their companionship appreciated and their high intelligence about all matters concerning their daily lives fully realised only if they come and go freely at their own will. London is unique among all the capitals of the world in its richness in parks and open spaces. How much greater would be the enjoyment of the public in those parks and gardens if they were full of birds of different varieties, and particularly of song birds! I know that sometimes there may be too much of a good thing. The starling, for instance, is not very popular at present in London. There is a multitude of starlings which have become a nuisance which must somehow be dealt with—but that is an exceptional matter The possibility that our parks may become thronged with birds in the next generation or two, or at some future time, is one that should not be undervalued.

You can walk from the north-west corner of Kensington Gardens to the south-east corner of St. James's Park, as I used often to do when living in the former region and attending Parliament at this end, for a distance of exactly three miles, and you cross only one main road the whole way, at Hyde Park Corner. An American humorist, writing a description of London, mentions the parks and says: A visitor so disposed could probably see most of central London by swinging from branch to branch. Not only have we that great heritage in central London, but, as we seldom remember, surrounding the capital, at no great distance, we have also a number of magnificent open spaces—Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches, Windsor Park, Bushey Park, Richmond Park, Kew Gardens and Wimbledon Common—and all these, according to the London Plan, are in the future to be linked together by a "Green Belt." Think what an attractive habitat all that would mean for great numbers of birds if they were hospitably treated.

Already the interests of the birds of London are cared for by an official committee, the Committee on Bird Sanctuaries in the Royal Parks. Your Lordships will believe that the Committee is conducted with great efficiency and with loving care when I tell you that its chairman is the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has this afternoon addressed us in a maiden speech. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, owing to his official position, would not be able to take part in the "hurly-burly" of our debates. I am not quite sure that that is the characteristic epithet to apply to the discussions of the House of Lords. However that may be, were joice that to-day Lord Hurcomb is able to speak on a strictly non-controversial question, one that is very close to his heart. I listened with great pleasure to his maiden speech, because about forty years ago Mr. Hurcomb (as he then was) was my private secretary when I was Postmaster General. Ever since then, I have watched his brilliant career with great interest and admiration. As your Lordships know, during the war he was the official chiefly in charge of the whole of British shipping, and now he occupies the great position of Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Ornithology is his secondary interest. He and large numbers of helpers have been doing what they could to promote the welfare and to increase the population of the birds in the London parks. This Committee is sponsored by the Ministry of Works which in this, as in other matters, shows itself a very enlightened Department, and which publishes annual reports of great interest. The report for the year 1950 mentions that in Hyde Parkand Kensington Gardens, which is my own special interest, no fewer than seventy-five different species of birds were observed in that one year. Among them were the heron also the jays have come to live there now. They are brilliant birds, the most brilliant of any of the British birds, except the kingfisher. The kingfisher itself was also seen in a previous year on Long Water in Hyde Park.

It may be asked—I put this point in conclusion—why we in the House of Lords should be discussing this subject at all. This is not an annual meeting of an ornithological society. The reason is that it is in the public interest to add to the amenities of life in town as well as in country. This question of the presence of birds and their engaging ways is certainly of importance in that regard. The success of this movement is dependent upon two things. In the first place, it is dependent upon individual action, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said. The feeling prevalent among the people should be one of encouragement, friendship and co-operation, rather than one of destructiveness and mischief. Furthermore, anyone can do as I and tens of thousands of others have done provide food and water and a friendly reception to those birds which are good enough to visitour gardens. Nothing is more remarkable nowadays, as you travel over England in an aeroplane, than to see great numbers of small gardens round the perimeters of all the towns, as well as great numbers of parks and open spaces within the towns. If all these garden owners were to take an interest of this kind, we should quickly have the birds which are now regarded as rarities becoming frequent, and soon possibly quite common. Then later generations would be thankful to those who had promoted such a movement. Secondly, it is necessary for protection to have social action and political action through Statutes, through Government Departments, through committees such as that sponsored by the Office of Works, and through great numbers of volunteers organised in their assistance. All those Departments, committees and individual workers who are now engaged in this cause will, I am sure, be greatly encouraged by the interest and the good will of your Lordships' House.

4.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, I have no intention of inflicting a long speech on your Lordships this afternoon. I did that two years ago, in moving a similar Motion to that which the noble Viscount has moved this afternoon. On that occasion he was good enough to support me, and it would be more than ungenerous if I failed to do the same for him this afternoon. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, occupied the office of Lord Chancellor at that time, and he was good enough to accept my Motion on behalf of the Government. We hoped then that something would come of it very quickly, as soon as the Report of Lord Ilchester's Committee appeared. But then came a change of Government, followed by a great weight of legislative work, and legislation relating to wild birds had to be shelved—more is the pity!—for what may have seemed more important legislation. We hope, however, that very soon what has been termed "this scandal "—and it is very little less, I fear—will be put right by the passing of a new Act.

Many noble Lords have given very clear reasons why this new legislation is needed to-day, and it would be only repetition for me to add to what has been said. But it might interest your Lordships to know that in 1923 that great champion of wild birds, Lord Grey, introduced into this House a Bill which passed its Third Reading. The effect of almost his first words in introducing the Bill were, that his excuse for so doing was not that there was no legislation for protecting wild birds but that there was far too much; that people did not understand it, neither the public who were expected to obey the law nor the authorities who had to enforce it. That point has been adequately brought out again this afternoon, so I will not say any more upon it.

Of course, the position has been much aggravated to-day from what it was then. Many new Acts of Parliament have been passed, and many new orders have been made by county, city and borough councils, and have made the problem even more confused. What has not been mentioned this afternoon, though it has aggravated the position of wild birds more than ever, is the way people are farming nowadays. There is all this awful rushed farming. The first thing that the farmers do, if they can, seems to be to cut down the hedges in order to make room for their combines, or to throw two fields into one to make it easier to reap their crop. That is bad farming. It is not right. It has been forced upon us by lack of labour, and by nothing else. Because there is not the labour on the land, we have been forced into this mechanical farming. We are taking far more out of the land than we put back. However, I must not digress. My point is that hedges are being ruthlessly cut down. Hedges provide one of the chief habitats for bird life. Birds nest in the hedges and trees which surround our fields, and insects live on the leaves of the hedges. If the hedges are taken away, the insects are free, I suppose (if they are there at all), to prey on the crops when there are no birds to feed on them. Then, of course, the urbanisation of our country, the increase in population and many other things, have aggravated this problem.

I was extremely interested to hear from the noble Viscount of some rare birds which have come into the Eastern counties of England. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but it may interest you to know that an extremely exotic bird, a roller, visited Berwickshire this summer. It is a very rare bird, with exotic colouring—a blue body and a red back. It stayed for a fortnight in some woods quite near my home.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Forestry Commission woods?

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

Yes, Forestry Commission woods. Then it went I know not where. It is probably peering through a glass cage somewhere. It is extremely doubtful if that bird ever got back again to its native country of Africa. That is just the sort of case where this protection is urgently needed. I was very glad to hear a little of the recommendations of Lord Ilchester's Committee. If I may say so, I think they are on the right lines, to give general protection to all birds and to have a black list of birds which are destructive to agriculture and which prey on smaller birds. This excellent system is at present carried out in Northern Ireland and in the Guernsey group of the Channel Islands, where it works extremely well.

May I take this opportunity of apologising to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, if during the last two years, I was in any way impatient in moving my Motion and asking Questions in the House? I did not realise what tremendous trouble and difficulty were entailed in the working of a Committee of this description. I understand it now, and I tender my apologies.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I thank the noble Earl very much indeed. As I said, this whole matter is very complicated, but we want to get it dealt with.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

One thing is quite clear: legislation is urgently needed, and that legislation must be simple and intelligible to all. I think it is no secret that agreement has been reached between the various bodies concerned. I understand that one of the most important bodies is that of the shore-shooters, who have not been mentioned this afternoon. This is an important body, with traditional rights which have to be respected. If I am right, and if complete unanimity exists, I think there is no time to lose. I think this is the time when we should bring in legislation, because opinion quickly changes, what constitutes agreement to-day may be disagreement to-morrow, and, as has so often happened in the past, all this excellent work and negotiation which the noble Earl's Committee has carried out may easily be wasted. The Bill of Lord Grey, which I mentioned earlier, failed in its passage through another place purely because these various bodies had not come together beforehand. There was no time to deal with it, and the feeling was acrimonious. As I understand that all these differences have been reconciled, this seems to me a golden opportunity which may not occur again, perhaps for another generation, to bring in legislation which is so urgently required. My Lords, some legislation may have to be shelved, in view of the important matters which have to come before your Lordships' House, but I submit that wild birds are different. If you put wild birds on the shelf, when you come to look for them later you may well discover that they are no longer there.

4.50 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

My Lords, because I am going in as last man before the finalists and because the facts have already been stated by previous and much more authoritative speakers than myself, the whole of a carefully prepared speech goes by the board. I would say, however, that all our preservation and conservation societies owe a very great debt of gratitude to Lord Ilchester, and I am quite sure that even if Lord Lloyd and his Government were to take many years in preparing this Bill, Lord Ilchester would, nevertheless, be "in at the kill." The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned the considerable work that Lord Hurcomb has been doing for bird life in London, but your Lordships are also well aware that he represents all our societies in the international field. That is why we so much welcomed his drawing attention to the difficulties that arise in connection with our dealing overseas with birds, the majority of which are immigrants one way or another.

Mention has been made in the debate of starlings which, of course, are with us every month of the year. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and his colleagues will study (indeed, I am sure they have already done so) what has been done in the Dominions and in other parts of the Empire generally. In the Bahamas the really beautiful flaming pink flamingo has only just been saved, and I think this is due to the co-operation of British people and Americans in those beautiful islands. In New Zealand, as we know, the notornis, that enormous coot, has appeared almost miraculously; and the New Zealand Government took immediate action to preserve it. In the United States, the great auk and the passenger pigeon have disappeared. A memorial has been raised to the last member of the latter species to be killed, so that all may "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest." That great naturalist, Mr. F. Osborne, the author of that well-known book, Our Plundered Planet, has written to me as follows: We in America still possess regions where even the wildest creatures are quiet and at home. Let us not let them disappear—they give strength to those who go to them, and always will. If the people of this island—and I refer particularly to Her Majesty's Government—have the desire to save and preserve wild life in this country, in all its aspects, they must be prepared very soon to make a more effective contribution to the object of preservation and conservation. Therefore, I am afraid that in that one respect I cannot support the mover of this Motion; I cannot agree with him in being prepared for a delay of a year or a year and a half in the promotion of a Bill.

4.55 p.m.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, the noble Marquess who has just sat down has reminded me of the efforts I made on a number of occasions, in another place, to have the sale of illegally imported plumage dealt with by legislation. I was no more successful in getting a Bill in that connection through another place than I was in making progress with a Bill which I brought in on a number of occasions—a Bill entitled the Wild Birds' Protection (Scotland) Bill which dealt specially with the position regarding Scotland. I am very glad that I have been able to be in your Lordships' House for part of the debate to-day. I had another duty to perform which has taken me out of the Chamber for some time, but I heard the very comprehensive and wise speech that was made by the noble Viscount who so eloquently presented to us at the beginning of the debate the case for wild birds. I do hope that progress will be made now, and quickly, in dealing with what I consider to be an extremely important matter.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the present legislation is inside out—that is actually the position we are in. We set out to protect rare birds, but the very way in which we do so—that is, by naming them—means that the most rare of all, the birds we have not the knowledge to name in any enactments we pass, are not protected. The rarest bird is one that comes here either after many years of absence or as a completely new visitor to these islands; and it is one that cannot he protected by the method that we have of making a list of protected birds. Clearly the way in which this matter must be dealt with is to make it a general rule that all birds are protected unless they are put on a black list—a list of non-protection. That was the principle of the Scottish Bill which I introduced on a number of occasions in another place. That Bill laid upon the local authorities in each area the duty of deciding which birds should be placed on that non-protected list: all other birds were to be protected. Reference was made to game birds and quasi-game birds; but that was just a matter of detail in the Bill. The general principle was that all birds were protected unless they were a menace to some public interest. If they were a menace, they could be removed from the protected list by the decision of the local authority, endorsed (if my memory serves me correctly it did require endorsement) by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

That Bill was agreed by all the interests concerned. It was a Bill that received a great deal of publicity, and there was wide support for it. So, coming to the end of this debate, let us urge upon the Government representative that there is here a great field, and one it which there is a decided opinion, so that the introduction of a Bill and its passage through this House, and I believe through another place as well, would be a simple matter. There is wide agreement, and the whole matter, as I see it, is one of common sense in dealing with one of the greatest and sweetest heritages that we have in this country—our wild birds. We are fortunate in this country in having a wealth of wild birds, and one of the things that surely falls to us as legislators is to see that that great heritage is protected.

5.0 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I am not going to inflict a long speech upon you. It seems to me that the time for talking is now over and that the time for action has come. We want to hear from the noble Lord opposite precisely what he is going to do about this matter. This debate has demonstrated that on all sides of this House, in every Party in this House, there are people who are determined that something shall be done. This is not a Party question at all. I find myself in complete agreement with everything the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said in moving this Motion. I should like to ask this question: May we have made public the recommendations of the Ilchester Committee? Because I think we should very much like to see what these recommendations are. I cannot conceive of any reason why we should not have a chance of looking at them.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will not content himself by saying that the Government have this matter under consideration, or under active consideration, or under the earliest consideration, but that he will say that he is taking steps to draft a Bill. Has the noble Lord put the matter into the hands of Parliamentary counsel? I appreciate that particulars will have to be sent round to the various bodies interested, because I realise that if one tries to short-circuit that procedure there may be a lot of trouble afterwards. But if we have the recommendations of the Ilchester Committee published, which can be done quite simply, I think we could go on. I should very much like to see what is proposed to be done about the problem of oil and sea birds mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I imagine that that would be a different topic, but we should certainly like to know that the matter is under earnest consideration.

The reasons for our anxiety have been so clearly expressed by all previous speakers that I will say no more about them. They have been ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in his most interesting maiden speech, and it would be foolish for me to attempt to add to the reasons which he and Lord Templewood gave. I think the whole country should be deeply indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and the Committee that sat with him, for the part they have played. We should like to see their Report. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will get all the collaboration and assistance he wants from this House. If it is more convenient for him to get one of the noble Lords who spoke to-day to introduce the Bill as a Private Bill, it can be done that way if he will supply the materials; but, of course, we shall want Government backing to get it through both this House—that, I think, would be easy—and another place. I know the position of an Under-Secretary. If he goes back and says that he has promised a Bill, he is almost certain to get into trouble; but, short of that, I should like him to go as far as he possibly can to-day to be definite, because all sides of the House want action on this matter, and prompt action.

I think I have a good excuse for not having been prompt when we were in office, because when the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, raised this question previously I knew that the Ilchester Committee was sitting (I think I said so), and the Report of that Committee did not become available, if I am right in my dates, until just before the change of Government. Therefore, it was impossible for us to do anything then. But when the noble Earl's Motion came up I was asked to look into the law, and when I studied the existing state of the law I found that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said, it is in a state of complete confusion. I am certain that the principle ought to be that all birds should be protected save those on the black list. The protection should cover wide areas because, as Lord Templewood said, there is little point in having a bird protected in Suffolk and not protected in Cambridgeshire, as obviously birds fly about from one place to another. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to give us all the consolation he can and to see that steps are taken within the next few weeks so that we may have a Bill, or the project of a Bill, before us in the very near future.

5.4 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, as has been pointed out already, it is over two years since this subject was last debated in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is not surprising that noble Lords who take so keen an interest in what is admittedly a matter of some importance should wish to hear from Her Majesty's Government how matters have progressed since our last discussion. Indeed, I should like to express my own gratitude and that of Her Majesty's Government to my noble friend Lord Templewood for putting down this Motion and giving the Government an opportunity of informing the House of the latest position.

It has become almost too well worn a platitude to say that there are few subjects which are discussed in your Lordships' House where there are not a number of real experts to give your Lordships the benefit of their wisdom, but I must say I never felt that so strongly as I did this afternoon. I have never felt so much deep interest and real knowledge as was expressed, not only by my noble friend Viscount Templewood, who speaks with great authority, but also by the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, who has done so much in this matter and who speaks with unique authority. I should like to add my tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for the charming speech which he gave us, and with which I think we all agree. I should add that the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, himself did a great deal for the protection of wild birds when he was Home Secretary.

I think the first thing that must have impressed anybody sitting in your Lordships' House this afternoon is the remarkable unanimity of opinion in all parts of the House on most of the major issues involved. If all our affairs could be managed so harmoniously, undoubtedly political life would be a great deal easier. I think it is agreed by all that the preservation of bird life in our countryside is a matter of real national concern. Many noble Lords emphasised the delight and interest which it gives to a steadily increasing number of people. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, said that it produced an egalitarian tendency—I am sure that that is a very good thing, too.

Here I had better say a word about the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I do not think the question of sea birds would come within the scope of any Bill we might have on this subject, but a Committee has been set up by the Minister of Transport and is at the present moment looking into this matter. It is the same Committee that produced a Bill about the dumping of oil in the sea, and amongst their terms of reference is consideration of this question of sea birds. When that Committee has reported, if legislation should be necessary I think that it would have to be a separate matter; but the question is under consideration.

I think it is a matter of general agreement that the importance of effective measures for the protection of wild birds is becoming greater with modern times. There is an ever-increasing encroachment of industry and new building upon the countryside, and the great improvements in transport make the countryside accessible to an ever larger number of the general public. Again, I think your Lordships agree that the law in its present state is most untidy. It is difficult for the public to comprehend and for the responsible authorities to enforce. It is also true to say that there has been a steadily growing opinion that the law does not go far enough and that the time has come for a further advance in the direction of more comprehensive protection. The defects in the existing law were fully dealt with in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Haddington in 1950, and I think it is fair to say that they have been fully argued again this afternoon. I do not, therefore, propose to detain your Lordships by lingering any further on this aspect of the matter. I will only say that, in broad, general terms, the Government are in agreement with what has been said this afternoon.

But what I think is peculiar to this matter and what is satisfactory is that, for once, there is almost complete unanimity (although I was not quite sure that the noble Duke agreed about all the recommendations) on what should be done to put the evil right. Only too often in our life we find that while everybody agrees on what the evil is, nobody will agree as to what is the right thing to do to correct it. But on this occasion it is different, and I think everybody agrees on the general principle that, from the point of view of simplicity and effective enforcement, it would be an advantage if the present principle of protection were reversed—that is to say, if all birds were protected throughout the entire year, except for certain harmful birds on a black list, and certain edible birds whose killing would be confined to an open season. This is, in fact, the principle behind the proposals which were submitted by the Advisory Committees to my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Those Reports were received by my right honourable friend in September, 1951.

My noble friend Lord Templewood—I think more in sorrow than in anger—deprecated the delay which has taken place in dealing with this matter since our last debate. In fairness to my right honourable friend, I must point out that the proposals did not reach him until September, 1951, and inevitably they had to be examined with some care. The noble Viscount suggested that it was all perfectly simple. I do not think any matter as far-reaching and as complicated as this is perfectly simple. There are a number of questions—questions of enforcement, questions of how far you are going about birds-nesting and what powers you may give the police—which need very careful consideration. Of course, it was also necessary to consult with other Departments and reach agreement with them—notably with the Scottish Office, It is only one of many important matters which have to be dealt with by my right honourable friend, and to some extent it had to take its place in the queue. Therefore, if I may use the words of a very well-known statement, I think I would admit that there has been an interval. I would not say that there has been any delay or any great delay.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, pressed me to agree to the publication of the Committee's proposals, but I do not think that that would be possible at the present time—for two reasons. First of all, as the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, said, in the whole thirty years of its existence the advice that this Committee have given to my right honourable friend has always been confidential and has never been published. Therefore, there is a precedent, and it would be a great breach of precedent to publish any proposals. I am not going to say that just because something has never been done, it never can be done; but I do say that at the present moment I do not think the proposals as they stand to-day are entirely suitable for publication. Therefore, I do not feel that it would be advisable to publish them as they stand.

At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I should like to summarise the recommendations of the Ilchester Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, did tell your Lordships at some length what his Committee had recommended, but if I may briefly run through it again, the Committee recommended as follows. They recommended the complete replacement of the existing Statutes by a new and comprehensive measure based on the principle of all-the-year-round protection for all birds and their eggs, except for food birds, which would be protected only during the close seasons prescribed, and harmful birds, which might be killed at any time and their eggs taken—though only by owners or occupiers of land or persons authorised on their behalf. They also recommended that rare birds should be given special protection by way of increased penalties, and that the nests of birds should be protected while in use or construction. Finally, they made numerous other recommendations on such matters as bird sanctuaries; permitted methods of killing or taking birds; the sale and import of birds, whether alive or dead, and their eggs; the powers of the police in enforcing the law; the scope of local orders and the procedure for making them, and the increased penalties for a number of other offences.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have carefully examined the proposed Bill which was submitted by the two Advisory Committees, and they find themselves fully in sympathy with the general objects and tenor of those proposals. There are several questions, however, which do raise problems of some difficulty—for instance, the degree of protection to be given to birds' eggs; whether you are going to stop birds-nesting completely, and whether this is a thing which will be accepted by the public. There are a number of other points of detail on which it is thought that the Committee's proposals will have to be modified to make them acceptable to Parliament and to public opinion, and also to secure simplicity of administration. Therefore my right honourable friend has had modified proposals drawn up and the heads of a Bill prepared, and it is hoped to discuss these very shortly with the Advisory Committees. That is to say, we have modified their Bill and we have the heads of a Bill ready for discussion with the Advisory Committees.

The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, with his experience in the Home Office, or any other noble Lord who has been a Minister, will realise that a certain amount of work is necessary to get even to this stage. After the Committees have been consulted on our modified proposals, it is intended to discuss the proposals with the Nature Conservancy and the local authority associations and other interested bodies, and thereafter to have a Bill drafted. If, owing to pressure of other urgent Government business in Parliament, it cannot be made a Government Bill, it could, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords have suggested, be introduced by a private Member, with the Government's blessing and with full facilities provided by the Government. These further consultations will take a little time and, as my noble friend recognised, there is, frankly, no possibility of introducing a measure this Session. My right honourable friend is hopeful, however, that a Bill may be ready for introduction next Session, if time can be found for it. The noble Viscount will appreciate that at the present moment I am in no position to give any guarantee about future Government business, but I do reiterate that my right honourable friend is sincerely anxious to see such a measure upon the Statute Book as soon as it is possible to place it there. In the meantime, I am sure noble Lords will agree that the first thing to do is to get the measure prepared, so that it is ready for introduction as soon as circumstances permit; and I can assure my noble friend that this will be done. It is our hope that, in the event, it will be possible to work out and agree upon proposals which will represent a very great step forward and which will provide a thoroughly practical and satisfactory basis for the effective protection of what (if I may plagiarise the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt) is a priceless heritage.

5.18 p.m.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

My Lords, in asking the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion, I should like to make one or two short comments. My feelings are a little mixed. I am delighted with the debate; I am not so delighted with the Government's answer. As to the debate, we could not have had a more interesting one. It was worth having it, if only to hear a maiden speech like that of Lord Hurcomb, and to have so conspicuous an expression of unanimity upon all sides of the House. As to the Government's answer, I cannot say that I am disappointed, because I rather expected that sort of reply. I think that if I had been in the noble Lord's place it might have been the sort of answer given to me by one of my Departments. But we must be thankful, anyhow, for what we have got.

Nevertheless I should like to be a little more precise at the point at which we leave this discussion. I will not disguise from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, the fact that I was rather worried about his insistence upon the difference between "an interval" and "delay." I do not quite follow the distinction, when it applies to proposals that were made a year and a half ago and about which little or nothing has since been done. But, apart from the definition of words, it seemed to me that the Horne Office were making very heavy weather about the next step. These questions did not start even in the days of the Advisory Committee of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. People who have been interested in birds have known of these anomalies for years. That is shown by the number of abortive efforts that have been made during the last generation to get things put right.

I am convinced from what I remember that the Home Office has a mass of material upon which it could take action with little delay. There is a very attractive little department in the Home Office that I remember well, where one could divert one's attention from less pleasant subjects to the more agreeable details of birds. I hope that after this debate, with the clear expressions of opinion that have been made from all sides of the House, the Home Secretary will instruct the department of Government draftsmen to prepare a Bill in the immediate future—and by that I mean before Easter. I would deprecate starting the whole of this business again, sending these proposals to this, that and the other body. It is quite clear from what has been said this afternoon that there is general agreement on what is to be done. If I were Home Secretary I should cut away the details. I should say that I must have a draft Bill, anyhow by next Easter. I think that if that course is taken and this House continues to take an urgent interest in that question and to press the Government, as we shall press them, this complicated problem which Lord Lloyd has described will become a great deal simpler. I do not blame him for having said what he has said; I did not expect he would say anything more. I hope, however, that he will go back and tell his right honourable friend that this House is determined to have action. I put the time limit at a year and a half; I think that is a very generous limit and that within that time we ought to have a Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, with drawn.