Lords Sitting of 1 December 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD REITH
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD REITH: My Lords, I ask leave to make a personal statement. At 7 p.m. last Wednesday the Lord Chancellor's assistant secretary telephoned to my home, where I had just arrived, to inquire where a letter should be sent. I asked that it be read then. In it, the Lord Chancellor informed me that he would probably refer to me next day. I asked that a note might be made that the letter had been read to me, and that I had replied that I could not be in the House because of a board meeting. On Friday, the 27th, two noble Lords were kind enough to tell me that the Lord Chancellor had the day before, referred to an article written by me in June, 1952; they suggested that I should read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I did so yesterday. It made me regret my absence last Thursday; but there is only one point in the Lord Chancellor's remarks about me to which I wish now to refer. I learned that words used by me seventeen months ago were taken by him to impugn his integrity. They were certainly not intended to impugn the integrity of the Lord Chancellor; it never occurred to me that they could be so interpreted, and I am very sorry that what I wrote should have given that impression.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will say no more than this: that I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord has said. I understand it to be an apology and, as such, I accept it gratefully; and I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, bygones shall be bygones.

  THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA
  2.38 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government two Questions of which I have given private notice. The first Question is: Whether Her Majesty's Government have any further statement to make about the withdrawal of recognition from the Kabaka of Buganda, and his deportation to this country.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary in another place yesterday afternoon.
  EARL JOWITT: I am sure the noble Earl will realise that it is very desirable that we should have the White Paper at the earliest possible time. It is probable that when we get the White Paper the desirability of having a debate will be obvious. Can he give me any idea as to when we shall get the White Paper, which was not mentioned in his original Answer?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to have the White Paper issued as soon as possible. I should not like to tie myself down to a definite date, but so far as we are concerned there will be no undue delay.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Lord whether this Ruler will have an opportunity of making a direct approach to this House, or to both Houses, in order to state his own case, and not have it stated for him by a Government Department?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I should imagine that there is nothing to stop the Kabaka having informal discussions with Members of both Houses of Parliament, if he so wishes.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was not thinking about that. I was thinking of some means by which this Ruler could present his case to the House officially.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  2.40 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the second Question is as follows: Will Her Majesty's Government make a statement in this House as soon as possible in regard to matters arising out of the court-martial of Captain Griffiths?
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I rise to reply to the noble and learned Earl. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has also given me a list of questions which he wishes to ask me on this same subject. I am afraid that my answer to both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount must be that I have no further information to give than was contained in the statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War in another place yesterday, and in his answers to supplementary questions on that statement. I have no doubt that both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of yesterday, as have noble Lords generally. I must ask noble Lords to await the arrival of the records of the trial in this country. Obviously, my right honourable friend will not be in a position to make a detailed statement on the subject until he has had an opportunity of examining them.
  EARL JOWITT: While realisingthe difficulty of the noble Earl, may I call his attention to the fact that this is a very serious matter. There seems to be some ground for supposing that the instructions of General Erskine in command have been disregarded, and that things have been done which are not in any way in accordance with the high standard of honour of the Army. That being so, will the noble Earl realise that we should have a statement in this House at the earliest possible moment, and will he do his utmost to see that such a statement is made?
  EARL FORTESCUE: In reply to the noble and learned Earl, I will transmit his remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary for War.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this matter of the court-martial and the reports of the trial have gone out through
  764
  the whole Commonwealth, which in population is mainly non-European; and that might have a most dangerous effect on the stability of the British Commonwealth? May we have an answer on four particular points, which have nothing whatever to do with the trial and the acquittal, which is finished. First of all, is it clear that the order against "blood money" was understood by the troops and the officers? From reading the account of the court-martial, it appears not to have been understood; in fact, both the acquitted officer and others, and the defending officer, referred to it quite openly. The second point is, what is the rule about what is somewhat strangely called "mercy killing"? That also was referred to, and was reported by the acquitted officer to his superior officer, who said in the trial that he had no comment to make; it was no special feature of the report. The third point is this: what about "trying to escape"? Is it "trying to escape," if you tell a man to walk on and then shoot him in the back? The fourth question is: Is it an offence punishable by death to be found in a prohibited area? If so, when you have bombed the hide-outs, is it a capital offence for other natives to go to succour the wounded? Those are four questions to which I should like answers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that the information which he has, and the information which we have, must be fully supplemented. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to wait until we have had transmitted here the report of the court-martial proceedings, we shall be able to form an opinion on the matter. I beg him to wait until that arrives before making any more observations in this House about that matter.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Viscount at least state from that Bench what has already been stated by the Judge-Advocate in the case—namely, that so-called "mercy killing" is an offence? Will the noble Viscount also state what has not been stated in anything to date, that the payment of "blood money" is an offence? Can he make those two statements, and make them here?
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have no further observations to make.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then it is to go out that the acting Leader of the House is not prepared to substantiate the fact that "mercy killing" of the wounded is an offence, and that he does not think it proper to reinforce what we have understood to be the case: that the payment of "blood money" is an offence under military law.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: That is an entirely unwarrantable remark.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  2.44 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to validate under the law of England and Wales, and restrict to charitable objects, certain instruments taking effect before the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and providing for property to be held or applied for objects partly but not exclusively charitable, and to enable corresponding provision to be made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  FUTURE OF THE PORT OF TRIESTE
  2.45 p.m.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is among their aims, in whatever decision is arrived at in respect of the future of the Port of Trieste, to make provision against the imposition in peace-time of tariff barriers or other special restrictions on goods passing through that port to or from Danubian and other countries for which the port is a natural access to the sea.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the economic importance of the Port of Trieste as an outlet for a large hinterland. It is certainly their hope that in any solution of the Trieste problem provision will be made to ensure the widest possible use of the port's facilities, both in the best interests of the population of Trieste and in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the countries which the port is well situated to serve.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: I thank the noble Marquess for his courteous reply.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, in view of the vital importance to the people of Austria of the Port of Trieste, on which the noble Marquess remarked, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will seek to secure the presence of a representative of the Austrian Government, either as an observer or in some other capacity, at any conference that may be called with regard to the future of Trieste?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are endeavouring, as the House knows, to arrange a conference between the five immediately interested Powers, and I think that, in the first place at least, we had probably better devote our efforts to that end.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Marquess say that steps will be taken to see that the existing Treaty with Czechoslovakia in regard to their trade with Trieste will be preserved?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I fail for the moment, to realise how that arises out of Lord Grantchester's Question. If the noble Viscount likes to put down a Question on the somewhat extraneous subject which he has now touched upon, I shall do my best to answer.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Inasmuch as the Question asked that the existing facilities of other countries for trade through Trieste will be considered, it appeared to me to be relevant, and I should be glad if the noble Marquess would answer it.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  2.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the text of the proceedings of the recent court-martial trial at Nairobi can be made available to Members of this House.]
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the noble Viscount that the text of the proceedings of this court-martial has not yet arrived in this country. It is hoped and anticipated that it will arrive by December 7, and that a copy of it will be put in the Library of your Lordships' House on December 8. Of course, that must depend on circumstances.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am obliged to the noble Earl, but I am rather concerned to know that the text should be freely available. Putting a copy of it in the Library does not mean that it is to be available, for instance, to the Press; and it will not be available to many Members of this House who may desire to see it. Would it not be possible to make available this transcript in. some form, if it is to be published, so that everyone could have access to it?
  EARL FORTESCUE: We will consider that.
  EARL JOWITT: I hope that the noble Earl will indeed consider it. I must say that I am rather surprised that it will take as long as until December 7 to get this text from Nairobi. I should have thought it could have been flown here in twenty-four hours. If it is typed, it is just as quick to make half-a-dozen copies as one, and it might even be reproduced in some other way. I hope that there will be enough copies, as the noble Viscount has suggested, for the Press and for Members of this House.

  INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS (CROWN USE) BILL [H.L.]
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Bill is another step in the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's undertaking to review, and where possible abolish, emergency powers. Its purpose is to get rid of some of the powers exercisable by the Crown under emergency legislation in relation to inventions and designs. In order to do so, however, without serious embarrassment to some Government Departments, it is necessary to make permanent a limited number of the powers they may now exercise under the emergency legislation. It is, I think, fair to say that the exercise of these emergency powers in the past has caused little trouble and even less injustice. None the less, the Government are anxious to retain only powers which are necessary for the efficient functioning of the Departments which have to use them.
  The Bill does three things. First, it slightly increases the permanent powers of the Crown in relation to the use of inventions, designs and industrial information. Secondly, it preserves the powers of the two Government Departments mainly responsible for supplying the Armed Services, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty, to demand information for defence purposes. Thirdly, and most important, it brings to an end the much wider emergency powers now exercisable by the Crown to use inventions, designs and industrial information, and to demand information.
  So far as patents are concerned, the Crown has always been able by law to use private patents as of right. I would emphasise this point, because I think it is something which a few people do not always remember. This power enables any Government Department to "make, use and exercise" inventions as of right "for the services of the Crown." In addition to this permanent power which the Crown possesses, Government Departments were given, during the recent war, considerably wider temporary powers to utilisepatented inventions. They are now exercisable under Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949. That was the Act

  769
  which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, steered so skilfully through your Lordships' House when noble Lords opposite were in power. That Act contains the expression "during any period of emergency," which must be declared by Order in Council.
  These emergency powers are wider than the Crown's permanent powers in two ways. First, Section 49 widens the meaning of the expression "for the services of the Crown" by listing a number of widely framed purposes—for example
  "the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community"
  and
  "generally ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
  Secondly, to the permanent power to make, use and exercise inventions, there is added by Section 49 the power to "vend" or, in plain English, sell them. Under these powers, during the war, vitamins were imported and manufactured to fortify foodstuffs for supply to the public. And, if by mentioning this fact I am not seriously endangering the prospects of the Bill, let me remind your Lordships that under these powers, similarly, dehydrated potatoes were manufactured and supplied to the long-suffering public. There were a variety of ways in which these powers were exercised. Concrete sleepers have been supplied for railways, coal cutters for collieries, and even refrigerators for council houses. Since 1949, the emergency period has been continued by yearly Orders in Council, as your Lordships know. On Thursday, in the calm and cool after the Division had been taken on the subject of television, your Lordships heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor ask the House to agree to certain extensions of these Orders in Council, and he added that this Bill, which I now have the honour to out before your Lordships this afternoon, would be shortly introduced. Thus, at the moment the Crown has power to use and sell patented inventions, as of right, for almost any purpose connected with the functions of government.
  The Government feel, however, that it is quite unnecessary for the Crown to retain such wide powers during a period under which the country is returning to normal economy, and therefore they have
  770
  decided to terminate the period of emergency during which the Crown retains them. Why then, your Lordships may ask, is this not done by allowing the period of emergency to expire by the normal passage of time? The reason is that there are certain functions of government in respect of which it is necessary that the Crown should have these powers in normal periods, and it is doubtful whether the permanent powers which would still remain under Section 46 of the Patents Act provide for them. The powers retained are only those which are really required. First, there are the functions of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to hospital patients and pensioners—such things as the provision of deaf aids and artificial limbs. Secondly, there are the Civil Defence functions of the Departments responsible for the supply of Civil Defence equipment (mainly the Home Office and the Post Office)—for example, gas masks and equipment for operating air raid sirens. Finally, there are the functions of supplying communications equipment for the country's fire services—also required by the Home Office aid the Post Office. These three functions are listed in Clause 1 of the Bill.
  Your Lordships may ask why it is necessary to list these functions at all in the Bill since the Crown already has power to use inventions "for the services of the Crown." But the meaning of this phrase is far from clear. The provision of warships, tanks and aircraft for the Armed Forces is clearly within it. But it is much less certain, when the Home Secretary wishes to supply a gas mask to a member of the public, or the Minister of Health a deaf-aid to a hospital patient, that the Ministers concerned have the powers to use inventions as of right in relation to the patents which cover the manufacture of these articles, even though they may be supplying them in pursuance of a statutory duty. The gas mask or deaf-aid might be said to be produced and supplied not "for the services of the Crown" but for the recipient's own use and purposes.
  I have already pointed out that Section 46 of the Patents Act, the section which gives permanent powers of Crown user, does not give power to vend inventions. It does, however, give a limited power

  771
  of sale. It permits a Government Department to sell or authorise the sale of goods under treaty arrangements to the Government of a foreign country for the defence of that country. Under that power, Her Majesty's Government sold "Meteor" trainers to the Government of France; and Ministry of Supply contractors have sold "Vampires" to Norway, and "Meteor" night-fighters to Denmark. The existing permanent powers also permit the sale of articles made for the services of the Crown but no longer required. Much obsolete military equipment has been sold since it became surplus to requirements. But it may be the case that the Ministry of Supply may wish to sell or authorise the sale of defence goods to a foreign country in respect of which we have no treaty arrangement. For example, under the temporary powers, "Canberra" bombers have been sold by the English Electric Company to the Venezuelan Government; three S51 helicopters were sold by Westland Aircraft Ltd., to the Japanese Government for their national security forces, and five "Vampire" trainer aircraft were sold to the Chilean Government by de Havilland Aircraft Co. Ltd.
  Or it may be that one country may wish to buy defence goods for supply to another country. Under N.A.T.O. arrangements, the United States Government makes what in that country are known as "off-shore" purchases—for example, purchases in this country of "Centurion" tanks, with spares, for delivery to the Governments of Belgium and Holland. Provision is therefore made by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 for cases of this type.
  Again, it may be that half-completed articles become surplus to requirements. Since they are unsaleable in that form, they would have to be scrapped unless there were power to complete them for sale. Paragraph (e) of the same subsection gives the necessary power.
  There is one important point to be borne in mind regarding the Crown's power to use inventions as of right under Section 46. The section does not permit free Crown user. Compensation is payable after the use has taken place. But the importance of this power is that it saves delay. Thus, for example, my right
  772
  honourable friend, the Minister of Supply, when a patent is granted, or indeed sought, for an invention in respect of an aircraft engine, may immediately order his contractor to commence manufacture for supply to the R.A.F. Without this power, he would have first to negotiate terms with the patentee and might be interminably delayed by extortionate royalty demands.
  I have so far been speaking only of the Crown's right to use patented inventions. But the same article may incorporate both a patented invention and a registered design. For instance, the hinges of my spectacles may be made in accordance with a patent, while the shape of the frame may be registered as a design. It may therefore be equally important for the Crown to be able to use a registered design without delay. The Crown has exactly equivalent powers in relation to registered designs as it has in respect of patents. The Registered Designs Act, 1949, which gives them, repeats in identical terms the provisions of the Patents Act which relate to Crown user of patents. For the reasons which I have given, therefore, the slightly extended permanent powers to Crown user of patented inventions, of which I have spoken, is applied to Crown user of registered designs.
  As I have pointed out, Clause 1 of this Bill extends the permanent powers of Crown user under the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act. But those Acts give rights only in respect of patented inventions and registered designs. The inventor of an un-patented invention does not possess the monopoly rights in his invention which are given to a patentee, but he can, by virtue of restrictive agreements, and to a lesser extent by the protection given by the Copyright Act, 1911, effectively prevent the use of his invention by outside parties. It is becoming increasingly the fashion in industry to keep industrial processes secret, and to rely on such agreements and the Copyright Act to protect new inventions and methods of production, rather than to take out patents in relation to them. Certain Government Departments—Secretaries of State, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply—at present have power under the Defence (Patents Trade Marks, Etc.)

  773
  Regulations, 1941, to authorise the use of any
  "drawing, model, plan or other document or information notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any licence or Agreement."
  Clause 2 of this Bill gives power to the Crown to authorise the use of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs, regardless of restrictive agreements. It is true that the Defence Regulation gives this power only to certain named Departments, but, since any Government Department has power to use patented inventions as of right, and the power given by this clause is complementary, it is thought right that the clause should give the power to "any Government Department." It should, however, be noted that the scope of this power is the same as that of the power to use patents—that is, it may be used only for the services of the Crown. And, unlike the Defence Regulation which it supersedes, it makes provision for the payment of compensation after the use has taken place.
  It is clearly both illogical and inequitable that there should be compensation for Crown use if an invention is patented, and none if it is not. The Bill, therefore, goes on to repeal the Defence Regulation which this clause supersedes. The powers which are sufficient to enable Government Departments and their contractors to use patents and registered designs will thus hereafter be found in the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act, as amended by Clause 1; their powers to use unpatented inventions and unregistered designs will be found in Clause 2.
  It is, however, possible that the Department may not have the technical information necessary to use the invention, and the persons in possession of the information may not be willing to divulge it. The only power which can overcome this difficulty—and it is recognised by the Government to be an extreme power to be used sparingly—is one to require a person in possession of the information to divulge it. This power is at present given in a wide form by the Defence Regulations which I have mentioned. These enable a Secretary of State, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, or the Minister of Supply, if it appears to them necessary, in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest, to give directions to any person requiring him to furnish to any specified
  774
  person or authority such information relating to any invention, design or process as may be specified in the directions or demanded of him by that authority or person. At the specific request of my right honourable friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply, this power is now made permanent, but in a very modified form.
  Although it is realised—and I emphasise this—that this is a wide power for a Government Department to possess, these two Departments feel that the existence of this power, and its use, or the possibility of its use, may be necessary for them in carrying out their function of supplying the Armed Services and they are positive that, without it, vital information might be withheld from them. Not only is it necessary where a person is unwilling, for his own purposes, to divulge information, but also where he is under a contractual obligation not to do so, and would, but for the existence of this power, feel himself bound not to break his contract by divulging it. It will be clear that the power is necessary during a war. But, since its main use must be in the development of a new piece of equipment, it must equally be necessary in peace time when it is our object, by providing the forces with the best equipment, to give them the strength to prevent war.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask the noble Lord, who is giving such a clear description of the Bill, where I shall find in the Bill any provision that this power will be used only in extreme cases?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the noble Lord answers that question, I should like to put another. Will he make it clear whether the wide powers which are being sought by this Bill will be enforced immediately the Bill has received the Royal Assent, or only when an emergency has been declared?
  LORD MANCROFT: The answer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is that the information which he seeks is not in the Bill, as he will see But he must surely realise that such an expression cannot be placed in the Bill, and when two Ministers come and ask for such a power as this, I think the House can take it for granted that they will not use such an extreme power except in extreme circumstances. The answer to

  775
  the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, is that I assume the power comes into force as soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. However, I should like to check up on that point.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord is telling us now that these powers are necessary, but that, in fact, we can rely upon good, sensible Ministers not to abuse them.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, that is so.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Is not that the very argument that he condemned when the last Government were introducing certain nationalisation measures and taking wide powers? He then said: "I know that the present Ministers are good fellows, but there might be bad ones in the future."
  LORD MANCROFT: If there are bad Ministers in the future, and if this Bill is not passed, then those bad Ministers can still do a great deal more under the existing regulations.
  LORD REA: My Lords, surely the existing regulations are only extended from year to year and could be revoked in the case of a couple of bad Ministers appearing on the horizon.
  LORD MANCROFT: In the opinion of some people, we have had a couple of bad Ministers appear on the horizon, but the powers have never been revoked. Therefore, if I may say so, the noble Lord's point is a hypothetical one.
  As I was saying the power retained by this Bill to demand information is, however, considerably restricted compared with that under the Defence Regulation. Perhaps I can explain. The principal modifications in the Regulation, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, can be exercised by several Departments in the interests of the defence of the realm, and otherwise in the public interest. In the Bill, the power is limited to the two Departments I have just mentioned—that is, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty—which require it for defence purposes; and its use is confined to those purposes. It will not, therefore, be available to any other Government Department or for any other purpose than defence.
  776
  Again, there are no provisions in the Regulation for compensation. Compensation is, however, provided for by the Bill. Finally, barristers, solicitors, patent agents, Patent Office officials and other persons engaged in legal proceedings are, by the Bill, absolved from divulging information obtained by them when acting in that capacity. No such exemption was given by the Regulation. The Government feel that a Defence Regulation of this sort has no place in the law of a land at peace. This Bill, by retaining only what is necessary of the Regulation, makes its repeal possible. There has always been compensation for Crown use of patents and registered designs, but, as I have indicated, up to now there has been no right to compensation in respect of the use of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs. Nor did the person forced to disclose industrial information have any right to demand compensation. This Bill, however, remedies that fault. The settlement of disputes as to the amount of compensation statutorily payable is entrusted to the same tribunal as would settle disputes as to compensation for patents—that is to say, a court of law.
  I have taken longer than I meant to take in explaining, or seeking to explain, this Bill to your Lordships. I offer no apology, because it is a Bill which has come to your Lordships' House first; it has not yet been through another place. I offer no apologies for going into some details of matters, which are concerned with the rights of the subject. I believe that your Lordships would think it wrong of me if I did not explain them as best I could. I am well aware of the fact—having read the newspapers in the last day or two—that some slight uneasiness concerning one or two of the smaller provisions of this Bill may prevail. Let me, if I can, straight away suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill will be taken as far off as is convenient to your Lordships, in order that any difficulties which may still exist or any points from outside sources which need examination, can be examined fully. I give your Lordships the undertaking that they will be examined fully and in as helpful a spirit as I can engender. To sum up, this Bill takes one more step towards the abolition of the Crown's emergency powers. By giving a statutory right to compensation it remedies any

  777
  injustice attaching to the use of the limited powers retained. And it retains only those powers which are really necessary, even in peace time. I therefore commend it cordially to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  3.13 p.m.
  LORDWILMOT of SELMESTON: My Lords, your Lordships have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, an elegant speech to which we listen with great interest. But to-day it seems to me that he has excelled himself in a masterly understatement. This is a revolutionary Bill. It takes some sweeping powers and embodies them in the permanent law of the land. Until now, these wide powers of exhortation, and extortion of industrial secrets and processes from their private owners for the use of the Crown, have been embodied only in Defence Regulations specifically made for a period of war and then extended, with the consent of Parliament, from year to year to cover what was deemed to be an extended emergency period. It is a different thing, I submit, to widen these powers—and they are greatly widened in all material respects—and then to embody them in an Act which will become permanent law of the land, because they are so wide as to strike at the very roots of private property in industrial patents and processes.
  Not only does the Bill widen the powers of the Departments to require disclosure of pieces of information, but it widens the use which the Department may make of that information and extends the number of Departments which can make use of it. It also extends widely the purposes. Defence is now held to include maintenance in peace time of any services which the Government of the day decide are essential services. That can cover an unlimited field of activity, and I think it is true to say that if the powers of this Bill are fully used, any kind of industrial process or any kind of patent or secret can be extorted from the owners and used by the Department; disclosed to other people who may be competitors, and the product sold abroad without the consent of the persons who own the property in the patent or the process. That, surely, is going a long way, and I think your
  778
  Lordships are entitled to a little more time than we have had to consider this Bill before we can be asked to consent to it. This Bill was printed only a few days ago.
  LORD MANCROFT: Three weeks ago.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Three weeks. There has been little time to examine and scrutinise it carefully, let alone to think out the necessary Amendments. Clause 3 gives the most astonishingly wide powers. One has only to read the first subsection. It says:
  "… a competent authority may, if it appears to that authority to be necessary…give directions to any person requiring him…"
  to disclose any information in his possession. This information can be used for a wide range of purposes.
  Your Lordships' time is too valuable for me to take it up to-day in repeating sentences from the Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill is a necessary one, but if your Lordships consent to give this Bill a Second Reading to-day it should be only on the clearest understanding that the promise which the Minister made is interpreted in the widest sense: that a long period of time must elapse between now and the Committee stage, and the Government must show a willingness, which they are not always eager to do, to study any comments made by those in industry and by people interested in patents and processes. There has been no consultation with industry up to now. It seems to me remarkable to introduce a Bill of this kind and of this magnitude without any prior consultation with the interests and persons affected. The Government must show a ready disposition to listen to advice tendered to them, both from this side of the House and from outside, and must be prepared to embody in the Bill safeguards which will remove some of the grave apprehensions which we have about the Bill in its present form.
  3.19 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a technical Bill and it is difficult for one who has not an expert legal training to understand it and speak to your Lordships upon it. Nevertheless, it is a most important Bill, and I should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft if, in my analysis of it and its possible effects, he will pick me up at any

  779
  time, in the course of the short time I shall detain your Lordships, if he considers I am wrong.
  First, I think we all regret—and perhaps in his heart the noble Lord himself regrets—that this Bill has been introduced without the usual consultations with important industrial bodies. The Federation of British Industries knew nothing of this Bill until they saw a printed copy. I do not think it would be discourteous, or asking too much of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to ask him whether, when he replies, he can give us some reason why the custom followed by successive Governments, that of consulting industry, was not carried out on this occasion. The noble Lord said that the Government's policy is to remove from regulations, so far as possible, the emergency powers needed in war time and to incorporate in permanent legislation such powers as they consider necessary for continuance in peace time. It is true that this Inventions and Designs Bill does this. But Lord Mancroft admitted it does more: it actually provides an extension of powers under the present Defence Regulations. War-time Defence Regulations conferred upon the Government powers used—and I quote:
  "in the interests of the defence of the Realm or efficient prosecution of the war."
  In 1946 that limitation was amended to powers used—and again I quote:
  "in the interests of the defence of the Realm or otherwise in the public interest."
  The first extension of the powers in this Bill was mentioned by Lord Mancroft. It eliminates the need for a treaty to exist between this country and another country before the Government can exercise their powers to authorise the supply to that other country of patented goods. That is true. But the second extension, which I do not think was touched upon by Lord Mancroft, is a widening of the definition of "defence purposes." The definition of "defence purposes" is given in Clause 6 and now includes not only defence of Her Majesty's Dominions or territories over which Her Majesty has jurisdiction but also—and I ask your Lordships to note these words:
  "… the maintenance or restoration of peace and security in any part of the world, or of
  780
  any measures arising out of a breach or apprehended breach of peace in any part of the world."
  It may well be that Her Majesty's Government will defend this wide definition by saying that it is in line with Britain's international commitments under the United Nations Charter. It would be more acceptable, if that be their defence, if we had knowledge that other countries had either passed, or were ready to pledge themselves to endeavour to pass, similar and permanent reciprocal legislation. This, then, is my second question to the Minister: Can he tell us whether, if this definition is in line with our United Nations obligations, Her Majesty's Government are representing to other countries the need to introduce permanent and reciprocal legislation?
  I now come to the wide permanent powers. I have tried to deal briefly with the extensions. Under Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill, the Government can pass to any other Government, possibly contrary to the wishes of the patent owner, goods made by a Government-authorised contractor if our Government consider that such goods are necessary for the defence of the foreign Government. It seems to me that under this Bill we are to become judges of what is or is not necessary for the defence of a foreign country. That seems to me to be a very wide power. The next wide power is mentioned in Clause 3 (1), wherein the Government take powers over not goods but information. "Information" is defined in Clause 6 (1). "Invention" and "design" are then defined in the last paragraph of Clause 6 (1). These two definitions, coupled together, seem to me to cover anything and everything produced by normal drawing and manufacturing processes at any factory, and certainly include what is known as the "know-how"—the knowledge and experience possessed by technical brains. I ask the noble Lord to say who can define, in an era of total war, what is or is not required for the defence of Britain or any other country. Civilians, their social and commercial lives, and their possessions, are in the front line of battle to-day, as much as the lives and equipment used by the Armed Forces. Therefore, on certification by the Government, virtually anything can be said to be required for defence, even though its normal use is civilian in peace time.

  781
  I turn from goods and information required for defence and I come to goods required for "services of the Crown." The previous definitions of "services of the Crown" are now widened under Clause 1 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). As requirements for the National Health Act, 1946, are specifically mentioned, as I read it this proposal means that in future all drugs, medicines or appliances required—and presumably this would mean design and manufacturing processes—ranging from artificial limbs to penicillin, could be removed from the hands of inventors and producers and be taken over by the Government for handing over to any person nominated by the Government. This might mean a trade competitor within our own boundaries, or a foreign competitor overseas. This seems to me an extremely wide power. The only differences in these wide powers between goods required for defence purposes and goods required for services of the Crown are twofold. First, in the case of goods for defence there is a sanction of fine and imprisonment for refusal to supply information. This is stated in Clause 4 (1). In the case of defence, only the Admiralty or Ministry of Supply can now wield authority; whereas in regard to goods for the services of the Crown any Government Department can operate these particular powers.
  This is very complicated, my Lords, and I trust you will forgive me for trying to go into some little detail in regard to this important Bill. The exercise of the powers under this Bill would violate the sanctity of customary commercial contracts. May I give your Lordships one or two examples? In doing so I am afraid I shall be obliged to use our old school day friends, "A" and "B." First, let me give the example of goods or processes for defence purposes. Manufacturer "A" produces a new article which he had hoped the Government of the United States would adopt. Our Government, under this Bill, can take "A's" work and hand it over to the United States Government, ignoring completely "B," who is "A's" authorised agent in the United States and who has a contract with "A" covering the use of inventions by "A" in that territory, such contracts to be interpreted according to United States law. Now when "B," the agent, sees "A's" invention in full use in the United States, through the United States
  782
  Government's distribution of that invention, "B" can sue "A" in the United States courts for breach of contract; and, as far as I can see, "A" will not have any redress at all.
  The second example is this. Many firms have agreements with foreign co-operators, or even sometimes rivals, for the interchange of technical information. This is a practice which has been of great benefit in the past British industry. If firm "C" has been accustomed in the United States to pass information to "A," and "A" to pass information to "C," for strictly confidential use confined to the other party, that is probably in accord with a technical agreement for the interchange of information. Under the Bill, "C" would presumably continue to implement his part of the bargain, sending information to "A" in this country, but "A's" information would pass over the head of "C" direct to "C's" Government or to any individual rival in "C's" country whom our Government might select. I suppose "C" could sue "A" in the courts of "C's" country, the United States, and it seems to me that "A" would have no redress. If, as is most likely, "C" stopped supplying information to this country, it would probably be this country which would suffer severely.
  Let me give one more example—goods for "services of the Crown." The same examples as I have given to your Lordships in regard to goods for defence, would, I believe, apply, except that, if our Government, in connection with defence or for services of the Crown, handed over processes for making some of the supplies from "A" in this country to "X" in this country, "A," who has designed and manufactured the processes, is prevented from suing "X" even though those inventions have been passed over to a rival, because of the provision in Clause 2 (1) which says that the Bill overrides any contract between "A" and "X," both of them being in this country. It seems to me that those are amazingly wide powers. My main criticisms are that the provisions of this Bill contain no machinery whereby those who have developed and manufactured goods, either for defence or for services of the Crown, can question the Government's right to take over their work. I understand the noble Earl the Postmaster

  783
  General wishes to make a statement. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to detain you for a further five minutes, after that statement has been made.

  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CABLE
  3.33 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord and the House for interrupting the proceedings, but it is important that I should make this statement at the same time as it is made in America and Canada. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I have just signed an Agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company of Canada for the provision of the first Transatlantic telephone cable. The Agreement will be presented to Parliament and will be subject to approval in another place.
  This scheme has been talked of for years and has become possible only as a result of long and patient research, both in the famous Bell Telephone Laboratories of America and also here, at Dollis Hill, in London. Quite briefly, the new cable system is a marriage of modern radio and cable techniques, and the main problem has been to design repeaters (which boost the speech currents) of sufficient strength and reliability to work below two miles or so of ocean. After all, with a cable at that depth, once it is down at the bottom of the ocean, the longer we can leave it there the better. In America, development work on repeaters of this kind culminated in 1950 in the laying of two repeatered cables between Havana and Key West. In this country we have concentrated our energies on repeaters suitable for the medium depths round our coasts and between the United Kingdom and the Continent. Since 1943, we have installed nineteen such repeaters. As a result of all this work, we have between us succeeded in planning by far the longest submarine telephone cable there has ever been. So far, no cable has contained more than four repeaters, and no working repeater has been laid at a depth of more than one mile.
  784
  The new cable will completely transform telecommunications between this country and the North American Continent. In place of the existing twelve radio-telephone circuits to the United States and two to Canada, unreliable and dependent as they are on the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, we shall have high-grade and reliable circuits, about twenty-nine to the United States and six to Canada, as well as a number of telegraph circuits to Canada. Further technical development may well increase the number of circuits. I should perhaps explain here that a circuit means capacity for one conversation, so that twenty-nine circuits means capacity for twenty-nine conversations simultaneously. Of very great importance also, the new cable will help us to give much better telephone and telegraph services to Australia and New Zealand via Vancouver. This will mean far less interference than with our present radio connections.
  The total cost to all parties concerned will be about £12·5 million, and the job will take about three years to complete. The submarine cable will be laid by H.M.T.S. "Monarch," the largest cable ship in the world, which is being specially adapted for this purpose. I am sure your Lordships will wish me to pay a very special tribute to the engineers on both sides of the Atlantic. Thanks to their persistence and skill, something which has been a vision for a quarter of a century has become a reality and has made possible this tremendous advance in the history of communications. In saying this, may I also add a further tribute to their spirit of energy and co-operation. Never at any moment have we had the feeling that the Bell Laboratories were keeping anything back, and I hope and believe that they have felt the same about us. Lengthy negotiation with the Americans and Canadians on the details of what is necessarily a long and complicated Agreement has been to me and my representatives a very pleasant and happy experience.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, whilst, of course, I hope that the anticipations of the noble Earl will be fulfilled, is he not a little rash in assuming that all the difficulties which will be met with in practice have already been surmounted? When it comes to putting schemes into operation, one often finds "snags" arising. I

  785
  want merely to ask this question. The noble Earl says that
  "The total cost to all parties concerned will be about £12·5 million."
  I should like to ask: Who are the "parties concerned" and in what proportion will the cost be shared between them?
  EARL DE LA WARR: I referred in my statement to "all parties concerned." More accurately, the scheme is between the Americans, the Canadians and this country. Actually, the United States will carry 50 per cent. of the cost and the Commonwealth will carry the other 50 per cent. Forty-one per cent. of the cost will fall on this country and 9 per cent. on the Canadians. The whole of our contribution to the capital cost will, in fact, be in kind and will not, therefore, involve us in dollars. It will be divided between the cost of the cable and the contribution of the "Monarch" to the laying of the cable.
  EARL JOWITT: The percentages, then, are 50, 41 and 9?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Yes.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if the difficulties to which my noble and learned friend referred do not eventuate, this Agreement may well mark an epoch-making advance in communications between this country and the North American Continent. A cable of this kind was a dream when I was at the Post Office in 1945. We hope that the dream is flow coming true, and I am delighted that this should be happening during the time that the noble Earl Lord De La Warr, is in charge of the Post Office. As the noble Earl has pointed out, it has taken many years of hard work by devoted public servants at the Post Office to make this Agreement possible, and I hope that the noble Earl will convey the thanks and congratulations of noble Lords in all parts of this House to the research scientists at Dollis Hill, the Post Office engineers and others who have been concerned—
  EARL DE LA WARR: And the Bell Laboratories.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: And the Bell Laboratories. What I should like is to join in the congratulations which have been offered particularly to those who are responsible for our share of the work.
  786
  I know from experience that many scientists at Dollis Hill have been concerned and, of course, a very large number of Post Office engineers. I hope the noble Earl will convey our thanks to all on his staff who have contributed to the reaching of this Agreement.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Earl very much.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I know nothing about the technique of this matter, and therefore cannot say whether or not there will be difficulties. But, speaking as a Press man, it is clear that this marks an important stage in the increase of telephone communications across the Atlantic. Anyone who has been concerned with the Press knows how, whenever there is a radio disturbance, cable communications are utterly inadequate, and confusion results. I am quite sure that the Press will hear this news from the Postmaster General with great pleasure. I think it is also a very great thing that this improvement will affect what is to some extent another bottleneck—namely, the communications between this country and Australasia.
  I am quite sure that your Lordships did not fail to notice that the last paragraph of the Postmaster General's statement was not entirely irrelevant to the debate which follows. This important process has come about by the voluntary exchange of information across the Atlantic. I think it may also perhaps be true to say that what obtains between Governments obtains between private industry. Information will flow more freely into, as well as out of, the country if it is voluntarily rather than compulsorily disclosed. I make that comment because I do not propose to take any further part in the debate on the Inventions and Designs Bill. I rose really in order to congratulate the Postmaster General on what will certainly be a landmark in the development of communications.
  LORD GIFFORD: Can the noble Earl say whether this new cable is likely to lead to cheaper telephone charges across the Atlantic, and to Australia?
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that I cannot say anything about charges at the moment. At the moment our charges from Great Britain to America

  787
  are very much cheaper than the charges the other way. Those figures have to be negotiated between us. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for his reception of this scheme, and also the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—he has always remained a firm friend of the Post Office. As I believe most of us do when we leave the Post Office, he has left happy memories among the staff, who I am sure will receive his message of congratulation with very real pleasure.

  INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS (CROWN USE) BILL [H.L.]
  3.43 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading continued.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, when the Postmaster General intervened to make his important statement I was endeavouring to prove to your Lordships that the provisions of this Bill would violate the customary sanctity of commercial contracts, and I had just given an example where the Government had taken over from one manufacturer in this country his designs and his "know-how" and handed them over to his rival. I said that as I understood the Bill, the first manufacturer would be unable to sue because of the provisions in Clause 2 (1), which says that the Bill overrides any contract made between any two such manufacturers. My main criticisms of this Bill are that the Bill contains no machinery whereby those who have developed and manufactured goods, either for defence or for services of the Crown, can question the Government's absolute right to take over their work. All the Bill does is to provide machinery whereby the inventor or manufacturer can appeal against the financial proposals of compensation from the Government for the requisitioning by the Government. If the inventor or developer cannot arrive at an agreement with the Government—I presume the Treasury would be the Department with which he would negotiate—then there is provision for arbitration.
  I think that is manifestly unfair for three reasons: first, it puts the citizen (in using the word "citizen" I mean either an individual or a corporation) entirely into the hands of the Executive so far as concerns the removal and the
  788
  placing of his work elsewhere. Secondly, it puts him in the impossible position of having to prove not only financial loss to himself by the Government's action, but problematical future financial loss through the future use of his inventions by those to whom those inventions have been handed. I believe that to be an impossible thing to expect anybody to prove. Thirdly, in the case of defence goods or processes requisitioned (I use the word "requisitioned" broadly) by the Government and given to a foreign Government or contractor, there is the danger that what was given for defence will in fact be used in that foreign country for civil purposes, with no possibility of redress at all by the developer or the maker over here.
  The Government have given assurances that they will allow ample time for consultation with representatives of industry before proceeding with further stages of this Bill. That is a most satisfactory assurance for us to receive, but it does not entirely expunge our regret that the consultations which are now to take place did not take place before the Second Reading. I should like to ask the Government, if the Bill to-day obtains a Second Reading from your Lordships' House, whether they will please not proceed with the further stages until all responsible industrial bodies who wish to make representations—not a few, but all—have had time to make those representations. It is unfair to expect industry to consider, digest, and give opinions upon such an important measure, affecting our home and export trades, in the limited time which so far has been available.
  My own view is that somewhere in the Bill there should be inserted a provision whereby some form of tribunal would act as a checking point to the Government's proposed absolute and complete power to say what is or is not required for defence purposes, and what are or are not goods required for the services of the Crown. If some such checking point were instituted, it would give the corporation or the individual some appeal beyond merely questioning the financial compensation offered as redress, and it would also afford opportunity for representations to be made as to whether or not the Government should in fact take his invention or process. This checking point could have a further use, namely, to restrict in some form the indiscriminate distribution by

  789
  the Government of what has been requisitioned. I do not wish to rake up old troubles, but it was under similar powers to those in this Bill that the Nene jet engine went to Russia and gave a large step forward to Russian jet engine development, as we all acknowledge now. Responsible industry should have some checking point to which they could go and make representations, before the Executive are allowed to use these absolute powers. I thank your Lordships for your consideration and kindness in allowing me to develop these points in a very complicated and technical Bill which it is not easy for a layman to speak upon, but I believe this Bill to be of such importance that it justifies consideration from every quarter of this House.
  3.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I know that the House is anxious to get on to the next item, in which I myself am interested, so I propose to say only a few words on this Bill. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his interesting and eloquent speech, it seemed to be a very simple Bill. But, having listened to the speeches subsequently made in this debate, it does not now appear to me to be so simple as it sounded when it was explained by Lord Mancroft. The noble Lord referred, in his closing remarks, to the liberties of the subject. In that he was quite right. This Bill, in my view, represents a substantial invasion of the liberties of the subject, and that has been brought out in the debate.
  One of the matters which interested me as much as any that have been touched on was a point brought out and developed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Lord Mancroft, your Lordships will remember, spoke of exports to China and of licences issued by the Board of Trade to British industry for exports to China. I am interested in a body called "C.O.C.O.M."—I forget its full title: we all know these bodies by initials. Now C.O.C.O.M. is a body which sits in Paris, and about it I have already expressed some apprehensions. Apprehensions undoubtedly exist in British industry that in the consultations which take place inside C.O.C.O.M., as between representatives of this Government and of other Governments, information in relation to British commerce and the activities of
  790
  British traders is passed across to some of our competitors. It is suggested that these competitors may use it—I do not say that they do—to their own advantage. As I understood Lord Balfour of Inchrye, it was that point which he stressed in relation to this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will consider this point—though of course I shall not expect him to deal with it in detail in his reply to-day. I hope that he will consider it, and will try to make certain that it will not be possible, under any of the clauses of this Bill, for information to be passed across to our competitors and used by them to their advantage and to the disadvantage of their British rivals.
  That is all I have to say, except this. I would add my plea to those already made to the Government that ample time should be given for consideration of this Bill before the Committee stage. This was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and, like him, I trust that time will be given for British industry to consider this Bill in all its aspects. I hope that Lord Mancroft will at least be able to satisfy us in that connection when he replies to-day.
  3.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am reluctant to interpose in this debate, in view of the importance of the discussion which is about to take place on the Committee stage of my noble friend Lord Templewood's Bill, for which many people here are waiting; but I must ask leave to make an observation. I remember very well the discussion which took place on the Patents Act, 1949. I took a leading part from the Opposition side in shaping that Bill and in getting it changed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Section 46 is the section which applies during any emergency period, and all that I quite understand. But I also have a recollection of another and a later debate which we had in this House on the subject of the continuance of emergency legislation. The present Lord Chancellor made a very important speech on that occasion, and, if I recall it aright, he referred to the Emergency Regulations in connection with patents and pointed out that some of these might require to be preserved in permanent legislation. Unless my memory deceivers me, however, he went on to indicate that

  791
  that would be done only after full consideration of what might be said by those who had the best reason to have a view as to what the permanent legislation should be.
  To me, this Bill has a very odd air. It has been attacked, or criticised, by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench on the ground that it strikes at the roots of private property—an excellent sentiment, coming from Socialist quarters. But the Bill itself appears to be a claim that the State and Ministers know better than anyone else, and that they have a complete right, within the provisions of this Bill, to demand from a private person not merely the use of processes but even information as to how to use them. That appears to be prima facie a Socialist doctrine. I remind myself of the explanation which Dean Swift gave long ago, in a highly satirical passage, as to why Irish bishops were so bad. He said that most excellent persons were selected in England to be bishops in Ireland, but that, unfortunately, on the way there, they were seized by highwaymen, who acquired their robes and status; and so really it was a lot of highwaymen who went to Ireland and occupied the bishoprics there. Something of the same sort has happened here.
  LORD BURDEN: I am glad we are bishops.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: It is almost impossible to understand how this Bill can have been approved in its present form by Her Majesty's Government. In the days when I knew the inner processes of legislation—there is no harm in my saying it now—we had a Legislative Committee before which every Departmental Bill came; and it had to run an examination, if it was a Departmental Bill, by Ministers not specially attached to that Department, in order to see whether it was a proper Bill. Here, I do not think even the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches has exposed the full character of this measure, though, as we know, he denounces it as striking at the roots of private property.
  I turn to this famous Clause 3 in which I see that
  "a competent authority"—
  792
  that, I think, means the Minister of Supply or the Admiralty—
  "may … give directions to any person requiring him, within such time as may be prescribed by or under the directions, to furnish to that authority, or to any other person nominated in the directions, such information in his possession … as may be demanded by the person so nominated …"
  That is an astonishing power to claim. I cannot understand how a Government, inspired, as I know this Government to be, with a proper respect for private property, and a dislike of the theory that the State knows better, since "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best," could possibly have sponsored such a provision. I suppose that we are now going to be asked to pass the Motion for the Second Reading, but I hope that, when we have done so, there will be a long interval, during which the promoters of the Bill will themselves consider whether, on reflection, they are going to stand by it. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, observed that the Government's object was to review and, if possible, abolish these Defence Regulations. It is quite plain that this Bill not only does not do that but in fact widens the powers contained in the Defence Regulations and invents new powers which the Government will claim to exercise.
  Lastly, I would make this observation. I am not an expert on this subject, although I took some interest in it when discussing the Patents Act, 1949, when I tried to help to make the Act a good one. I have noticed of late, in some newspapers, some comments on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Mancroft, who must have a very unpleasant task, observed at the end of his speech that "some uneasiness has been expressed in the newspapers." I read the leading article in The Times this morning and I should not be surprised if the Cabinet, or some of them, read it too. That leading article called attention to this Bill and its curious terms, and makes some very moderate comments. It ended by saying:
  "The Government have almost certainly gone too far, and quite certainly too fast."
  I think that is the reflection to which I am forced by an impartial study of the Bill and by listening to what my noble friend said. All I wish to ask the noble Lord is that he will give us a perfectly definite assurance, which he has already

  793
  indicated, that, if we give the Bill its Second Reading to-day, there will be abundant time, not only to hear the views of the people who know about this matter—as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has demanded—but for the Government to reconsider the whole proposal, because I should be very sorry if this Bill went on the Statute Book as an example of Conservative policy.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, having listened to this debate, my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be in no doubt whatsoever of the grave concern the industry feels about this measure. I would go further. Industryis not merely gravely concerned about the contents of the measure, but it feels that the arrangement whereby over the last few years an understanding has been built up for Government Departments to consult with organised industry before any important measure is laid before Parliament has been overlooked. On this occasion, none of the major industrial organisations, such as the Federation of British Industries, mentioned by my noble friend, and the National Union of Manufacturers of which I can speak personally, has been consulted beforehand.
  We all recognise that it is important that when possible emergency regulations should be done away with, and we recognise also that some minimum residue may have to be included as part of our permanent legislation. The question arises, what should that minimum be? When we consider a measure such as this, which affects the ability of industry to compete under conditions of intense competition in the world markets, we have to think seriously whether such a measure is right at all. I do not want to go over the whole Bill, but in the light of what has been said I should like to remind your Lordships again how very widely the definitions in Clause 6 have been drawn. I find it difficult to conceive of anything that any manufacturer can make, or any design or invention he may have in his possession, which is not subject to the provisions of this measure. Even more important, the definition, particularly on the question of information, is not subject to any territorial limitation. If I make something in this country, it may be arguable that I ought to be compelled at the right time to hand that knowledge
  794
  over to the Government; but is it right that if I, in this country, have knowledge that somebody in Canada is making something under licence from the Canadian Government, I should be compelled to provide that information to the Government of this country?
  As has been said, there are two main purposes—the disclosure of what I might call secret information and the disclosure of patented information. As regards the first, dealt with in Clause 3, I understand that the Minister of Supply or the Board of Admiralty, by giving directions, can compel any person to disclose information. He can be made to disclose information not only to a Government servant, but also to a third party, perhaps a private individual. That individual may be one of his competitors. Moreover, information having been disclosed to a third party, I can see nothing in this measure that would not allow that individual to publish it for all to see and know; and, therefore, it no longer remains secret information. I understand that there is only one limitation to this—that is, whether it appears to the competent authority to be necessary for defence purposes—whether "it appears," not whether "it is." When we recognise how very wide the definition of "defence purposes" is, we realise that this is a very serious measure.
  I understand there is only one set of circumstances in which an individual is legally entitled not to give information—that is, if he has received the information in his capacity as a counsel, solicitor or patent agent. The reasons one would more often expect him to be able to put up against giving any information are not allowed for in this measure at all, and I should like to give your Lordships an example of the kind of cases which seem to be serious. The question of being under contract of secrecy has been mentioned already and I shall not refer to it again. But a foreign citizen visiting this country can be compelled to give information. If that is so, a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission visiting this country could be questioned on those matters of which he may have special knowledge, and he could be prosecuted, and even imprisoned, if he were so unwise as not to agree to give the information asked for. I could go on giving other cases of a similar kind.

  795
  I would merely suggest that for a Government Department to be able to extract information in this way under threat of prison is a complete change in the law of this country and is without any precedent whatever.
  It has been mentioned that a considerable amount of confidential, technical and scientific information is passed between different people in different countries. We pass confidential and technical information to firms in the United States, and in return we get valuable information in this country. That is also not infrequently coupled with some allocation of markets. It may be that the American firm has the South American market and the market of the United States, and that we are given the market in this country, in the sterling area and in Canada. But if this measure goes through as it now stands, surely there will be a great effort on the part of foreign countries to stop giving us this information, which can only be to the disadvantage of our export trade.
  It is true, as has been mentioned, that there is provision for compensation, and that compensation may amount to a considerable amount where one firm is using the invention of another, or the Government are going to use the invention of some firm to a considerable extent. But where information is not going to be very much used, the secrecy will have been broken, and there is no compensation at all that I can see, unless it be by some form of ex gratia payment which is provided for in the Bill. Clause 1 deals with patented information, and I have in mind in particular the production of proprietary medicines, and so on. I should like to ask my noble friend whether there have been many abuses where this information has been withheld; and whether those cases of abuse that have been detected are not capable of being dealt with under the provisions of the existing Patents Act.
  I think it was only last week or the week before that two draft statutory instruments were laid before Parliament for the prolongation for a further year of emergency regulations dealing with patents, inventions and designs. Surely, with that extension of one year, there is no hurry. My noble friend has already promised to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill for a considerable time—that is obviously reasonable. But we
  796
  want to make sure in our minds whether the Bill is capable of being amended satisfactorily. That raises a matter of principle. Is it right that industry should be liable, in peace time, to have to disclose everything it knows? If the answer to that is, "Yes, it is right", then I am sure the measure can be amended. But if the answer is, "No, it is not right", then I would suggest that there is only one course which should be adopted, and that is for this measure to be withdrawn altogether. As I imagine the answer to that question will not be "Yes" or "No," but rather, "It is not peace time," then it should be clear in our minds what that answer means. We must all agree that it is not, in the ordinary sense of the word, peace time; but while in some respects it is not peace time, in so far as we are up against highly competitive conditions in world markets it is very much peace time. Therefore, we want to guard against caring for an eventual future crisis while we are at the same time jeopardising the immediate prospects of being able to pay our way. I welcome my noble friend's offer to postpone the Committee stage. I take it that that means that all organised industry will be allowed to express their views and discuss this matter; and I can only hope that when that is done, such a situation as the one in which we find ourselves today will not be allowed to arise again.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this Bill has received a chilly welcome in this House, and I am afraid that I am not going to offer any comfort to the noble Lord who introduced it. I do not remember an example of permanent legislation of such a drastic character. All kinds of things are done, and no doubt justifiably done, in time of war, in order to safeguard the public interest; but these are drastic provisions indeed to form part of the permanent legislation of this country. For example, Clause 1 appears to mean that a Government Department has the power to vend an invention. That, I presume, means that it can effect a compulsory sale of the patent rights to somebody other than the patentee. I do not know what the justification for that can possibly be. I understand that reasons can be advanced for giving compulsory powers to use an invention, subject to payment of a proper royalty, but to oblige the sale of it seems

  797
  to be a very strong measure, and an unnecessary one.
  I have had considerable occasion in recent times to deal with matters relating to patents for inventions, because a number of my clients are interested in them. I am not speaking this afternoon on behalf of any particular private interest, but, I hope, in the public interest. The path of the applicant for a patent in this country is already a difficult one. Even under the most favourable conditions it takes a long period before he is able to get his patent sealed, and if it should be the subject of opposition the time taken is quite inordinate. And during all that period he is in a state of uncertainly as to what his ultimate position will be. This Bill will add considerably to the uncertainties and the difficulties of patentees.
  It is a remarkable thing that it should also require the disclosure of secret processes. In many cases it is necessary, in order to protect the interests of an inventor, that, instead of patenting his process, he should develop it as a secret process. It may be that the process is of such a nature that, if he patented it and the method became known to the world, it would be impossible for him to detect infringement. Therefore the remedy which is theoretically open to him is, in practice, not available. Or it may be that, although the process is of considerable industrial value, it may not be of a nature which is patentable. Once this information becomes disclosed as it can be under the provisions which are contained in this Bill, to the operator's competitors, they are not under any obligation—and if they were, it is difficult to see how the obligation could be effectively enforced—to keep the process secret any longer; and once it becomes known to the world the inventor's position is entirely destroyed. As I understand them, the provisions contained in this Bill for compensating him do not take any regard whatever of that possibility.
  As industry becomes more and more complicated, industrial processes become of a very intricate nature. The development of new methods of manufacture involves long periods of research. It often involves an extremely large expenditure of money for the purposes of experiment, and I fear that the provision of this Bill may lead to a considerable loss to people who have expended their resources and energies in that way. If that happens,
  798
  it will be a detriment to the country as a whole, because it will discourage inventors from devising new inventions.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House whether, in view of the many responsible speeches which have been made on this Bill to-day, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has promised that the Committee stage will not be taken for a considerable time yet, it would not be wiser to postpone taking the Second Reading? After all, nothing would be lost, and it would not be any sign of weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to think again as a result of the weighty remarks which have been made from all sections of the House. If, after consideration, Her Majesty's Government still insist upon getting their Second Reading, they can have it at any time they wish; and, of course, if they insist they can have it this afternoon. Nobody is going to vote against it. But would it not be wiser for the Government to think again and make up their minds whether, in the light of the debate which has taken place, they really want the Second Reading, and whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said—and I think quite rightly—this Bill is capable of amendment in such a way as to satisfy the criticisms which have been made?
  4.24 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I have not been able to listen to the whole debate, and my apologies are due to the House for that fact. I was not aware that my noble friend Lord Salisbury was going to be away this afternoon, and I had another appointment to keep in the House. That was the reason for my absence, which I regret. I have, however, noticed the general feeling of the House, and there is another factor in my mind, which is that the consultations with industry, which have in fact begun, undoubtedly had not been finished when the Bill was drafted—indeed, I do not think they have been finished now. If it will suit the convenience of the House I beg to move that this debate stand adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
  4.25 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs
  1.—(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section and to the other provisions of this Act, if any person wilfully—

  (a) kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any wild bird; or

  (b) takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use; or

  (c) takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird included in the First Schedule to this Act,

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if that offence is committed in respect of a bird included in the said First Schedule or in respect of the nest or egg of such a bird, shall be liable to a special penalty.
  (2) Without prejudice to paragraph (c) of the foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit the taking or destruction in the whole or any specified part of Great Britain of the eggs of any wild bird specified in the order, other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, any person who wilfully takes or destroys any egg in contravention of such an order shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
  Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection with respect to part only of any administrative area.
  (3) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply—
  Provided that—
  (i) this subsection shall not have effect in Scotland on Sundays;
  (4) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act.
  (5) In this section, the expression "close season" means, subject to the provisions of section eight of this Act—

  (a) in the case of capercaillie and woodcock, the period in any year commencing with the first day of February and ending with the thirtieth day of September;

  800

  (b) in the case of snipe in Scotland, the period in any year commencing with the first day of February and ending with the eleventh day of August;

  (c) in the case of wild duck and wild geese in or over any area below high water mark of ordinary spring tides, the period in any year commencing with the twenty-first day of February and ending with the thirty-first day of August;

  Provided that the Secretary of State may by order made with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain extend any of the periods aforesaid in the case of any wild bird specified in the order.
  LORD BURDEN: On behalf of my noble and learned Leader, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. The Committee will see that this Amendment extends the subsection considerably, but, I venture to suggest, in a desirable manner. We are anxious that nothing should be put into this Bill to prevent the scientific study of bird life. It was felt by some who have given consideration to the matter, however, that the subsection as it stands is not wide enough to prevent the damage which might be anticipated in some quarters. I see that my noble and learned friend has now arrived, and having moved the Amendment formally in that way, I will leave it to him to continue the argument. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, after ("use") insert ("or endangers the contents of such nest by disturbing the nesting-site without due care:").—(Lord Burden.)
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to my noble friend for helping me. The discussion on the previous Bill ended rather suddenly and your Lordships will forgive me for not being here. I am not thinking of pressing this Amendment to a Division; I raise it merely in order that it may be considered. There is a class of person to-day who no longer collects eggs but thinks to himself that he will get photographs of birds' eggs and of birds nesting, and that sort of thing—as, in the old days, Cherry Kearton used to do. We probably all saw his pictures. That is an admirable thing to do. But if it is done by an unskilful person, who puts up an ill-concealed camera, the result is far more disastrous than the taking of an egg, because, as often as not, the bird will desert the nest, and that is a great misfortune. I do not know whether it is possible in any way to stop the action of

  801
  such persons, but in the hope that it may be possible I propose the insertion of this phrase:
  "or endangers the contents of such nest by disturbing the nesting-site without due care."
  I am sure I shall have the good wishes of everybody in my endeavour, but I am not at all sure that my Amendment is practical, and I move it really in order that it may be considered.
  I should like to know from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill what his view is about the meaning of Clause 1 (1) (b). The phrase is as follows:
  "subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section … if any person wilfully"—
  now come the critical words—
  "… takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use …"
  Does that mean literally destroys the nest and the structure in which the eggs are laid, or does it mean—as it does colloquially—takes all the eggs in the nest? If you find a thrush's nest with four eggs in it and you leave the nest intact but take all four eggs, have you or have you not "destroyed the nest"? I am not sure. Of course, in the case of certain other birds, for instance the guillemot and many sea birds, there is no nest and the eggs are laid just on the bare rock. In the case of a partridge you find practically no nest at all, and in the case of a puffin you find the nest down a rabbit hole. I thought I would mention this point now, because it is a little hard to leave this obvious ambiguity to a magistrate, who would have to propound to himself this question: "This small boy took every single egg in the nest: has he or has he not destroyed the nest?" I do not know what the answer is, but I raise the matter now so that between now and the Report stage the noble Viscount may have it looked at and consider whether or not it would be desirable to clear up this problem. At present I feel it is hardly fair to leave the magistrate who might have to decide this case to solve a problem which we ought to decide for ourselves. I say that in connection with the clause. Perhaps the other question—endangering the site by photography—might also be considered.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: With reference to the last point raised by the noble and learned Earl, I am informed that "destruction of the nest" would mean destruction of the nest as apart from
  802
  the taking of the eggs. But if the noble and learned Earl has any comment to make upon that point, perhaps he will let me know between now and the Report stage. That, however, is the position at present. Secondly, as to the actual Amendment, I entirely agree with its object. My difficulty in accepting it is that, as I think the noble and learned Earl himself will see, his words might well be difficult to interpret in a court of law. What I will say to-day is that I will look into the matter again in view of what he has said, and see whether we can get some more precise words before the Report stage. It may be that we shall not be able to do so, but I will try.
  EARL JOWITT: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.32 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "bird" to insert "other than a moorhen or coot." The noble Lord said: I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to discuss Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. Indeed, Clause 3 also should be considered at the same time, since the object of these Amendments is to include all the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule, except the moorhen and the coot, among those birds whose eggs are protected. I do not, however, feel it would be right that the taking of the eggs of the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule should be liable to such severe penalties as the taking of the eggs of the rare birds named in the First Schedule. I know it was the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to get these heavy penalties especially for those who take the eggs of very rare birds. If my Amendment is agreed to, it will mean that the eggs of all the birds in the Third Schedule, mostly duck and marsh birds, will be protected in the close season as regards the taking of their eggs. That is with the exception of the moorhen and the coot whose eggs, I think, should not be protected. I know that Lord Templewood has an Amendment which would probably have the same effect; but the object of this Bill is to simplify as much as possible the law with regard to birds. My Amendment, I think, makes it absolutely clear what eggs are protected and what are not, whereas the noble Viscount's

  803
  Amendment means referring to a large number of local ordinances to find out exactly what the state of affairs is. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 11, after ("bird") insert ("other than a moorhen or coot").—(Lord Gifford.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think the Amendment which I have on the Paper achieves what the noble Lord has in mind, but in a better way. I feel that the better way is to keep all the existing regulations, for these will cover the kind of bird that the noble Lord has in mind, and to leave it to the Secretary of State to revise them if the Bill passes. I think that that is more in accordance with the structure of the Bill. With regard to the two birds which the noble Lord would exclude, the moorhen and the coot, I believe that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is to move later that the moorhen be included in the list of what were previously called "noxious" birds. That would meet, anyhow in part, the noble Lord's purpose. As to the coot, I do not think I should identify the coot altogether with the moorhen. The coot is often a nuisance, but nothing like the nuisance the moorhen is. In any case, the coot is not in great numbers and is a migrant: it is not here in any great extent all the year round. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment and will feel that my Amendment will achieve nine-tenths of what he has in mind.
  LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for his lucid and helpful explanation. I do not wish in any way to embarrass him by pressing this Amendment. I entirely accept his assurance that what he proposes to do amounts to the same thing and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.36 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the said" and insert "Part I of the." The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I should like to explain this Amendment, though I shall not proceed with it, I think, if I can get the assurance I want. The position, as I follow it, is this. If "nest" means what the noble Viscount thinks, and what I think—that is to say, "nest" as opposed
  804
  to "egg"—there will be, as this Bill is drafted, no protection against the eggs of a bird being taken, except those of the birds named in the First Schedule. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that we must not be too hard on the small boy, or make criminals of people who take eggs, it seems to me that the small boy has a right to take every other egg except those of birds mentioned in the First Schedule. You give him too much latitude altogether. Therefore, I have put down Amendments to put it right, and Lord Burden has tried to prepare a larger list of birds which should be protected. But I say frankly that, as I understand the matter, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has now evolved a scheme which makes it unnecessary for me to press this Amendment further.
  If I understand it aright, what he proposes to do is to say that every bird which at present has protection shall continue to have the protection which it now has. The Home Secretary, as we all know, is going to make his list; and, as I understand the matter from the noble Viscount, the Home Secretary may make a list, if he is so minded, giving the birds named protection—the protection in respect of their eggs, which at present is confined to the list of birds in the First Schedule. If that is so, and if of course the Home Secretary takes good advice, as I am sure he will, I shall be satisfied to leave it to the Home Secretary. He has at his disposal far better advice and knowledge than I can command or claim. It seems to me that that is a satisfactory way out of the difficulty.
  There is one other point. If the noble Viscount also moves the Amendment which he has down making it possible for the Home Secretary to differentiate between area and area, it will be of advantage. I can give your Lordships a simple illustration of that. I live in a little flat in Ashley Gardens, quite near to Westminster Cathedral. It was last spring that a song thrush was there, obviously nesting somewhere and singing most beautifully. Although it may be too much to expect that you protect the egg of a song thrush in the country, yet I sincerely hope that you protect the egg of the song thrush in London. It would have been a disaster if the egg of the song thrush had been taken away in a built-up area. If the noble Viscount tells

  805
  me that he intends to move his Amendment so that a number of other birds may have protection in respect of their eggs, it seems to me that will be a solution of the difficulty and I shall not trouble the Committee with this Amendment or with the Amendments which I have down later on altering the Schedule. I beg to move. Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 14, leave out ("the said") and insert "Part I of the").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said. First of all, he has exactly described my intention. Under the Amendment that I propose to move at the bottom of this page, I propose to leave it to the two Secretaries of State to make out a new list of birds which, though they are not included in the First Schedule, will still have protection. I think, on the whole, that is better than attempting a list. I have attempted a list of these birds and I see that the two noble Lords opposite have also attempted lists. It is most difficult to get a good list without a good deal of expert advice. I suggest that the best way to get a list of these additionally protected birds will be to leave it to the two Secretaries of State, to rely upon them to take the best possible advice and to rely upon Parliament to attack them if they do not. So much for the first point. As for the second point, I can give the noble and learned Earl an assurance that I intend to move the Amendment at the bottom of the page, which would make it possible for the two Secretaries of State to deal with particular areas, rather than only with county areas. I am glad to give the noble and learned Earl those two assurances, and I hope that he will be kind enough to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD BURDEN: I should like to say one word arising out of that reply. The object of the Amendments to which the noble Viscount referred was to see that under this Bill the protection of birds that are protected in different areas was not withdrawn, even for a limited period. The list to which reference has been made represents birds which are at present protected in one county or another. It has been a terrific job to get out those details, but we felt that it was necessary to do it in order to bring that point before the Committee. As I understand the noble Viscount, by Amendment No. 6 and the one, if I may refer to it, on Clause 2, it
  806
  is proposed to continue the measure of protection at present enjoyed by all birds—
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Yes.
  LORD BURDEN: —leaving the two Secretaries at some future date, if necessary, either to alter any protection which may at present be afforded, if it be necessary, or to extend the list by including other birds.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Yes, that is so.
  LORD BURDEN: As I understand it, that would meet the desire of my noble and learned Leader admirably, without the trouble of the list to which we have gone to such pains to prepare.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would that not give the Secretary of State very wide powers indeed? Surely it passes out of the control of Parliament? I have had a little experience in this matter because, as the noble Viscount and, perhaps, the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition may remember, I was responsible for the Plumage Bill which passed through Parliament after the First World War. I had some considerable experience of drawing up these Schedules of birds to be in or out of the protected lists. What measure of control is left to Parliament? None at all, so far as I can see. The Secretary of State might alter these Schedules, in or out, just as he saw fit. Would the noble Viscount kindly let us know how far that discretion goes, if the noble and learned Earl's Amendment is to be withdrawn?
  LORD MATHERS: Before the noble Viscount replies to the discussion that has taken place, may I take the opportunity, in dealing with this Amendment, to voice a general apprehension about the whole idea of making great lists of birds that are to be protected. In an earlier debate on the protection of birds I expressed myself somewhat in this way: that what we want to do is to protect our wild birds, a great wealth, a great amenity of this country. It seems to me that the way to do that is to protect all birds except those that are game birds, or quasi-game birds, which can be used for food—not to make a list of the birds that are protected, but to protect all birds and put the others that may be destroyed in the different localities on what

  807
  may be described as a "black list" of noxious birds, birds that are doing harm in one way or another. I should hardly be inclined to place the responsibility for making the choice in the different areas upon the relative Secretaries of State. I should seek to put that power in the hands of the local authorities who can judge as to the position in their own areas. As I say, that is a general criticism of the whole atmosphere of this Bill, and I invite word from the noble Viscount as to the validity of that criticism, because I am not speaking entirely "without the book." For a number of years in another place I promoted a Bill exactly on the lines that I have indicated, protecting all birds except the game birds, the quasi-game birds and those that were doing harm; and that, as I understood it—indeed, I had an assurance about it—was the method desired by the Scottish Society for the Protection of Wild Birds. If their attitude has changed, I certainly have not been apprised of it, and yet this Bill legislates for Scotland as well as for Southern Britain. I voice these apprehensions hoping to have some indication of the reasons that have caused the change, so far as Scotland particularly is concerned.
  LORD HURCOMB: May I say that, while I am in agreement with the general principles which the noble Lord who has just spoken has in mind, it would be deplored by all those bodies interested in the protection of birds if we went back to a system of separate county ordinance. I should like to express my appreciation of the extent to which the Amendment next on the Order Paper meets the point which I and others urged strongly on the Second Reading: that existing protection should not be withdrawn. The eggs of any birds not specified in the Second Schedule and thereby outlawed will, if they are now protected, have that protection continued by the Bill. That is something. Nevertheless, I hope that before Parliament finally deals with this matter, something further will be done, and that, in addition to the new provisions relating to the rarer species specified in the First Schedule, a real step forward will be taken. I agree that our object should be not merely to protect those birds which are exceptionally beautiful, or are occasional migrants from other countries, or are not yet excessively
  808
  rare: we want an abundant and varied bird life of all sorts to adorn our countryside.
  When it is suggested that we cannot, or ought not to try to, alter long-established practice, I feel that we ought to bear in mind that circumstances have changed during the last half century. There are many more human beings in this country, and far more built-up areas than there then were, and bird life is exposed to many new risks—such as the fast-moving motor vehicle, changes in agriculture, the chemical warfare waged in one form or another upon nature, and other changes of that kind. The need for protection is correspondingly greater, and as we cannot easily alter the habits of the birds, surely the thing to do is to adjust our own. I feel that we have reached the stage when human beings, whatever their age or motive, ought not to molest those birds which are not definitely prescribed, or I might venture to say proscribed, in some order by a Secretary of State. But meanwhile I think the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill go a long way to ensure that we do not slip back; and on other stages, the Bill is capable of yet further adjustments which may enable us to move forward and say that only the eggs of those birds which are outlawed in the Second Schedule, or may be for this particular purpose specified by a Secretary of State, shall be liable to be taken.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am obliged to Lord Hurcomb for his intervention. It seems to me that his great knowledge carries much weight. As to Lord Mathers'point, I would remind him that this Bill is the result of a very careful inquiry by two expert Advisory Committees, one of which was a Scottish Committee upon which was represented a great body of Scottish expert opinion. I think we should all have liked a simpler Bill than this one—most of all myself, in charge of it. But when we have gone into the question we have found that there is a danger of over-simplifying the Bill. One must draw distinctions between various categories of birds: that is really the basis of the Bill.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank raised the point about giving so much power to the two Secretaries of State. It

  809
  is a choice between giving powers to someone or attempting to put a very complicated list of birds into an Act of Parliament. I have tried to make these lists and I admit that I have failed. I believe the only way is to leave it to the two Secretaries of State, with their Advisory Committees. I do not think it is a thing that one can do here and now. The birds in the list will vary from time to time—
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We did it in the Plumage Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I know, but the question of plumage was a single issue. Here we are dealing with about 250 different species of British birds, and I think there must be elasticity in dealing with them. It may be that at one time it is necessary to put a bird into a particular Schedule, whereas at another time or in another place it is necessary to take it out. That being so, I do not believe it can be dealt with in statutory form, and I think the better plan is to leave it to the two Secretaries of State.
  EARL JOWITT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (2) to omit the proviso. The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to leave out the two lines at the bottom of the first page—namely,
  "Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection with respect to part only of any administrative area."
  This is the point upon which Lord Jowitt has already spoken; it is to make it possible to deal with smaller areas. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 25, leave out lines 25 and 26.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is an Amendment that we have already discussed up to a point—namely, the Amendment under which I safeguard all the existing protection. As we have already dealt with it I do not think I need elaborate it. I therefore beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 26, at end insert—
  "(3) So much of any order made by the Secretary of Stale under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as prohibits the taking or destruction in any specified area of the eggs of any specified kind of wild birds shall be deemed to be an order made under the last foregoing subsection:
  Provided that a person shall not by virtue of any such order be guilty of an offence by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act."—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: All I will say is this: it has been brought to my notice that in another place a Bill is being introduced which puts the matter the other way round—all birds will have, and are to continue to have, protection, but it will be open to the Secretary of State to remove the protection from them. I should like the noble Viscount to bear that in mind. We do not want to seal our minds absolutely between now and the next stage, and we should consider whether the clause in that Bill, which is easily referred to, affords perhaps even a better way than this of achieving our object. If he will look at it I shall be much obliged.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I shall certainly look at it. I think one of the advantages of having a Bill on parallel lines in another place is that eventually we can pick out the best in each of them and embody it in the final measure.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.58 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "the person is an authorised person and." The noble and learned Earl said: We are getting on very well and quite amicably, but this is a rather more controversial Amendment and I am afraid I must take a few moments to put it before the Committee. In discussing this Amendment the Committee may also like to bear in mind Amendment No. 10 on the Marshalled list, which deals with the taking of the nest, because the arguments in the two cases are very much the same. May I start off with a statement which I believe to be correct—many of your Lordships will know it—about the law of trespass? I believe I am right in saying that trespass as such is not a criminal offence at all, subject to certain exceptions which I will

  811
  mention presently—I am, of course, talking about trespassing on another person's property, land and so on. That trespass is a civil wrong. The trespasser is responsible for the damage he does, which is generally very slight; and if he threatens to repeat his trespass an injunction can, of course, be obtained.
  As an illustration, may I tell the Committee of this case? There was a well known case where some small boys played a game of football on a field of grass. The owner of the field came and ordered them off, but they did not go. Thereupon, he proceeded to take them before the magistrates, but he failed in his prosecution. He had the right, no doubt, to use such force as was necessary to throw them out. The mere fact, however, that the boys were on the field and not doing any real damage—a certain amount of damage, I suppose, was done, but not real or substantial damage—did not create a criminal offence. That has always been the broad general principle. Sir Walter Scott always used to refer to the type of notice which bears the words "Trespassers will be prosecuted" as "a wooden lie." Trespassers cannot be prosecuted, prosecution meaning the taking of criminal proceedings against them. Trespassers, as a broad general rule, commit only a civil wrong. The law has dealt with this matter. It was the subject of great Parliamentary discussion and no little Parliamentary heat in the old days.
  The first and most important exception, however, is "trespass in pursuit of game." Trespass in pursuit of game has, for a long time, been a criminal offence—I remember Statutes going back to 1830, and probably there are Statutes going back even further. If you satisfy a court that a man has been in pursuit of game, that is sufficient. Whether he has got game or not does not matter; the fact that he was trespassing in pursuit of game made it a criminal offence. Another exception which is enshrined in an Act of 1914 is where a trespasser does serious and malicious damage. In these circumstances trespass comes within the purview of the criminal law, and where a person does serious and malicious damage he can be prosecuted for trespass. Then there are various other Statutes making trespass an offence. Trespassing on the railway, for instance, is,
  812
  by the Railway Acts, a criminal offence. That is the broad picture which I want to present and I think I have done it sufficiently to remind your Lordships of the fact that trespass, as such, is not a criminal offence. And I think we should be very slow indeed to make trespass a criminal offence.
  What we are, in effect, doing here, though in rather a roundabout way, is to make trespass in pursuit of magpies a criminal offence. About that, I think we should hesitate. The way the clause works is this. I am considering the killing of birds for the moment; we will look at the question of the nests presently. We start off with a broad, general, sweeping prohibition and we make it an offence under Clause 1 (1) (a) to kill, injure or take any wild bird. To that broad general proposition we then begin to engraft certain exceptions. The exception which I am now considering is that contained in paragraph (a) at line 3 on page 2 of the Bill. It is stated that this clause shall not apply
  "(a) where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act; …"
  The second Schedule to the Act is a Rogues' Gallery of Birds. For the sake of argument, the magpie is as good an illustration as I want. The broad general proposition does not apply where a person is an authorised person and the bird a magpie.
  What is an authorised person? That is defined in the definition clause. It includes—I do not wish to read the whole clause—any person
  "shown to have been authorised by the owner or occupier, of any land …"
  For the moment let us examine the structure of this thing. Subsection (4) states that:
  "Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  I will take one arbitrary case, the redshank, which is included in the Third Schedule; I could take as an example a bird mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule, but the redshank will do. See, if you will, what is the distinction. If a man armed with a gun comes on to my ground, his intention being to shoot a magpie,he—I am assuming, of course, that he is a trespasser and not authorised—commits a criminal offence in so

  813
  doing or in attempting so to do. But if he comes on my land armed with a gun intending to shoot a redshank, he commits no criminal offence, because the qualification about being an authorised person applies only to (a) and does not apply to (b). If I may say so, with the greatest respect, that seems to me a most astounding result. I could have understood it had it been the other way round, but I cannot see what sense there is in saying that if you are going to escape the broad general proposition in the case of magpies you must show that you were authorised (for the moment, I am talking of persons authorised by the owner or occupier of the land) but if it is a redshank or any of the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule, other than teal or duck—there are special Statutes dealing with those—the question of authority is nothing to the point.
  Before I leave this matter, by way of illustration may I consider the same point in regard to the taking of a nest. That arises in connection with the passage beginning at line 16 on page 2 which I have quoted. Clause 1 (1) (b) relates to taking a nest. This paragraph may or not be amended—I hope it will be. It is stated at line 16, page 2, that
  "… this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  There you get the same sort of complication, the authority being linked up with the inclusion of the bird in the Second Schedule. Frankly, I do not understand that at all. Behind this there is an important point. I want your Lordships to understand that there is nothing in the Bill which extends by one iota the right of people to go on to other people's land. This is not a Bill to confer on any one the right to go and kill magpies or anything of that sort. But when you are going to bring these matters within the reach of the criminal law, I beg you to stop and consider what you are doing. May I take the case of two boys? One, we will say, is the squire's son, who presumably has the authority of his father to go out and do what he likes on his father's land. He sees a magpie's nest in a tree and pulls it down, or shoots the magpie. That is all right; he is an authorised person. But a village boy whose father has not got any land and who wanders into a wood and does these
  814
  things, having no right to do so, any more than he has to-day, will find himself guilty of a criminal offence. This seems to me a most dangerous extension of the law of trespass. When I think of the battle in the past about making a criminal offence of trespass in pursuit of game, when I think that in effect what you are doing is to make it a criminal offence to go in pursuit of magpies, I wonder whether it is wise.
  I am one of those most anxious to get the Bill through: I am not trying to be obstructive at all. But I am perfectly certain that insistence on having this clause in the Bill will mean that the Bill will not get that easy passage which it otherwise would have when it goes to another place. I am not going to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment now. I am moving it to see whether the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill cannot do something to get out of this difficulty, which I believe is a serious one. I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way in favour of allowing people to go on to someone else's land to shoot magpies, or for any other purpose. I do not want the impression to get about that by passing this we are extending that right. It is not so. Nothing in the Bill extends the right. But I would ask your Lordships to say that if it be right to kill a magpie, then let the village boy or the squire's son kill it, subject, of course, to the right of damages for trespass. If it be wrong, prohibit them both from doing so; but I beg you not to make the test of a breach of the criminal law whether the boy who does the deed is the one or the other. If we do that, then I am afraid we shall incur for this wholly admirable Bill a great deal of opposition which I think we can avoid by a little wisdom. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 17, leave out ("person is an authorised person and").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD GIFFORD: May I ask the noble and learned Earl whether, if this Amendment is inserted, it will not provide a perfect alibi for the poacher? If a poacher is found with a gun and a dead pheasant, he could say he was shooting at a magpie or a pigeon or other noxious bird and happened to bring down the pheasant.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not think that is a very good alibi. Of course, it is for the magistrates to decide. That is the sort of defence which is always put up to-day and I need hardly say that the magistrate generally decides it is not the truth.
  5.13 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is really the most difficult question in the whole Bill. It is a question upon which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. What we want to do is to avoid indiscriminate shooting and the disturbance of the country, and it has been thought that, in drawing attention to the birds in the Second Schedule that may be killed, there was a real risk that that would be an incitement to Tom, Dick and Harry to wander about the country killing these birds, and would be a pretext for nefarious egg collectors to say they were out shooting magpies when they were trying to get marsh harrier's eggs. That risk very much impressed the advisory committees and they attach considerable importance to this provision. It is not the result of a plot between landowners who wish to keep people off their land; it is the result of bodies like the Nature Conservancy and the various bird societies who are nervous of their sanctuaries being disturbed. There is a certain comparison to be made, though not a very exact one, between what is proposed and what is already in force for rabbits and hares under the Ground Game Act. That is the case for the provision.
  On the other hand, there are the objections that have been so clearly raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. There is the anomaly that it would not be a criminal offence to shoot a redshank, whereas it would be to shoot a magpie. One possible way to deal with that would be to make it compulsory for everybody to have the licence of an authorised person to shoot anything, but difficulty would arise with shore shooting: people who are quite legitimately shooting birds on the shore, and in places like that, would have to have permits, and I do not think that is practical politics. The second main objection, which in my view is much the stronger one, is that here we are dealing with inflammable material that has become more inflammable over a long course of time. As a layman, I am
  816
  nervous of becoming involved in controversies over the laws of trespass and in turning civil offences into criminal offences. On that account, though I admit that I do not see the right solution to the problem of preventing the unnecessary disturbance of sanctuaries and at the same time of avoiding changing what is a civil offence into a criminal offence, I am prepared to look at this matter again.
  I am most anxious not only that we should get the Bill through without undue trouble, but that when we do get it through we shall have raised no Party issue in our discussions, and, if possible, we shall have an agreed measure. It may be that in looking at it again, we may find it possible to put in a strong declaratory clause stating clearly that nothing in the Bill alters the present law of trespass. I am aware of the objection that is always made to declamatory clauses—namely, the difficulty of applying them in courts of law; but, none the less, I think a clause of that kind would give a lead to magistrates' courts in dealing with these questions. At any rate, I am prepared to say to-day that I will look into this question again with the desire to find a way out. I do not see one at the moment but I shall do my best to find one.
  LORD MATHERS: I am sure your Lordships will be pleased with the kindly way in which the noble Viscount has received this Amendment. I rise only to say that in the further consideration he gives the matter, I hope the noble Viscount will keep in mind that there is no trespass law as such in Scotland. Damage must be done and trespass per se is not an offence.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am very conscious of the difference between English and Scottish law and also of the great risk in an Englishman's legislating for Scotland. But I can assure the noble Lord that I will see that the Scottish side of the question is not ignored.
  EARL JOWITT: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has received this matter. I should like to add this, which I thought of afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me a question. He will realise that if the man says that he was going out for a redshank, then he will be all right; and it is only if he is going out for a magpie that he commits a criminal offence. I should also

  817
  like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that on the Second Reading he was anxious that the police should not be concerned by making these offences committed by young boys criminal. Does he realise that if a boy, not being authorised, strays into a wood to take a magpie's nest, or the nest of a jackdaw if he sees the jackdaw coming out of a hole in the tree, he will be committing a criminal offence, just because he is not an authorised person? It seems to me that when the noble Viscount gives the matter further consideration he should have that aspect of it in mind also. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3), to add to proviso (i): "Christmas Day." The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks simply to extend the prohibition in Scotland for one more day. It is not a controversial Amendment. It has the blessing of the Scottish Wild Birds' Protection Society, and will, I think, be accepted throughout Scotland, both by the shooters and the non-shooters. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am quite willing to accept this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (5), the first being in paragraph (a) to leave out "and woodcock." The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss this and the next Amendment together. As the Bill is drafted, the open season for a woodcock begins on October 1, the open season for snipe in Scotland on August 12, and the open season for snipe in England on September 1. Occasionally, when one is shooting grouse on moors in Angusta snipe or woodcock will get up, although it is a rare event. It is felt that little harm would be done if it were made possible for the snipe, both in England and in Scotland, to be shot from August 11, and for the same thing to apply to the woodcock. My desire is to make the
  818
  open season, both for the woodcock and the snipe, begin on August 12. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 21, leave out ("and woodcock").—(Lord Gifford.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I think the real point of this Amendment is that snipe and woodcock reach Scotland rather earlier in the year. Therefore, I do not think there is any great harm in allowing a different date. When we were discussing this matter in the Advisory Committee the idea was that there should be a different date for Scotland from that in England, which we have had in several cases. Personally, I do not see any objection to it. Whether that would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I do not know.
  LORD GIFFORD: The noble Earl is talking about woodcock now?
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: Yes, and snipe. They leave Scotland fairly early, and a good many of them have gone if the date is September 30.
  LORD GIFFORD: As I understand it, what the noble Earl has in mind is to put the woodcock with the snipe in Clause 1 (5) (b), and to make the woodcock date the same as that for same in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not suggest that I feel strongly upon this point, but I should prefer to leave the Bill as it is. What is happening is that there are certainly more woodcock breeding in the country every year, and that is a good thing. I should do everything I could to encourage them. I feel that making the close time for the woodcock longer is a good thing. Whilst I do not think this change would have any disastrous consequences on the Bill. I should prefer to leave it as it is.
  LORD GIFFORD: Would the noble Viscount consider the compromise of allowing the woodcock to be shot in Scotland from August 12, the same as the snipe?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I promise to look into it, but I am afraid it will be rather unsympathetically.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, on this matter.
  LORD TERRINGTON: I should like strongly to associate myself with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I feel that this change would be a most retrograde step.
  LORD GIFFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (5) to omit paragraph (c). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the important question of the date for shooting ducks and geese in February, and it is put down largely as a result of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on the Second Reading, when he pointed out that, as the Bill is drafted, we should leave the state of affairs in some districts worse than it is at present. The object of this Amendment is to keep the dates as they are, and in no cases to allow the dates to be worse, from the point of view of protection, but to leave it to the two Secretaries of State to go through these dates and eventually decide upon the final date. The Amendment affects only the coastal districts, where it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the early days of February are very much needed for wildfowlers. Be that as it may, I think the wise course is to take the line that I venture to suggest in this Amendment, to safeguard all the existing protection, and leave it to the two Secretaries of State to make the final decision as to what the date should be. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).—(Viscount Templewood.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): I might point out that if this Amendment is passed, Amendment number 14 cannot arise, because the paragraph will have gone. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, would consider speaking on this Amendment also.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I did not intend to speak on this Amendment, but was going to ask the noble Viscount whether he would consider afresh the position of the wild-fowlers. They have given up eighteen days at one end of the season, without protest, and it is now being suggested that they should give up eighteen days
  820
  at the other end. Before agreeing to this Amendment, I wonder whether we could have some assurance from the noble Viscount that, at the next stage of the Bill, their case will be considered afresh.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not think I could possibly give that undertaking. These dates were agreed to by the representative of the Wildfowlers' Association upon the Advisory Committee. They were the result, I understand, of a compromise, and I should be reluctant to give the impression that I wished to see these dates made worse, rather than better, in the future. Therefore, I could not give that undertaking.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course, I must accept the noble Viscount's argument.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I think I should support the noble Lord, because this was a definite compromise with the wildfowlers in our Advisory Committee. We had a good deal of talk about this, and, as my noble friend probably knows, at the present time any county can apply to shoot below high-water mark, I think it is (I am not sure whether it is high or low-water mark) but only up to February 21. The wildfowlers came to us and said, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has mentioned, that they had given up a lot the other way, and we thought it was a compromise. The compromise was that, under the Bill which we suggested (and it was in the present Bill, though it has been so changed now that I do not quite know where it is) all maritime counties should have that privilege below low-water mark. That has now been cut out, and I do not quite know where we are.
  LORD HURCOMB: My name is added to this Amendment, so may I say one or two words in explanation. I should like to acknowledge the extent to which the Amendment later on the Order Paper meets the point which arose earlier: that no existing protections should be withdrawn. As regards the dates in paragraph (c), it will no doubt be an advantage to many birds, and particularly wading birds, that the close season should be extended to August 31, although, as the noble Lord knows, the migration of waders through this country tends to be at its height not in August but in the first

  821
  fortnight of September. But as regards most wild ducks, and all wild geese, an extension in August means nothing at all, whereas any curtailment of the close season in February means a great deal. The breeding stock is then already largely paired, and though the casualties inflicted may not be very numerous in those concluding days, they have a disproportionate effect on the maintenance of the breeding population. It is the maintenance of the breeding population in this matter which is really the point of importance.
  I do not think that, on scientific grounds or on grounds of conservation, there could be any doubt that to extend the open season through the first three weeks of February would be a retrograde step. At present, the onus is on the county council which wants an extension to apply for it. My point in putting down the Amendment was to draw attention to the fact that this automatic extension by three weeks was a step in the wrong direction. I am speaking only from the point of view of conservation. That is the view of the Nature Conservancy of the Severn Wildfowl Trust and of other bodies with exceptional knowledge, and is based on the fact that many species of wildfowl have greatly declined in numbers during the last fifty years.
  That statement is based not on a mere apprehension of what may happen, but on the knowledge of what, in fact, is happening, and has happened in other parts of the world. In America, during the last fifty years, species after species has become extinct, or has diminished to the point of danger. In the United States in recent years nearly all shore birds have been removed from the list of game birds and have been given protection, and their numbers have shown a gratifying increase. Nevertheless, some have become rare and some stand in danger of extinction. For example, the upland plover is now protected both in the United States and Canada, but it winters in South America and is shot in its winter quarters far down into the Argentine. As an American authority who was writing on this subject said:
  "The birds have to run an endless gauntlet of gunners."
  It is no wonder that even in that vast Continent the species which existed in almost countless numbers not very long ago now stand in danger of extinction.
  822
  I submit that the interests of wildfowling and of conservation in this matter are identical, and I think that the great majority of wildfowlers themselves would wish to take an enlightened view.
  Any proposals for extending the close season, and maintaining the close season where it exists, is not in any sense hostile to wildfowlers but is, in fact, in their ultimate interest. I feel, therefore, that the matter merits close consideration, and I think it unfortunate that within the last year or so the Home Secretary has made an order prolonging the open season in the county of Gloucestershire, while the negotiations between the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and his Committee were still going on. It was made on the assumption that any extension contemplated would go only to February 15. I believe it was suggested to the county authorities that they might come into line, having hitherto been quite content with February 1, and prolong the open season to the 15th. That that should have happened in a county like Gloucestershire, where the efforts to maintain the wildfowl have received financial support and created universal interest throughout the world, seems to me rather unfortunate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will see that during the interval before this Bill takes effect no further extensions of time are granted, on any grounds of application whatever. I have put down my name to this Amendment to draw attention to it, and not to press it to a Division. I am quite content to be guided by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill; but it would seem to me in the best interests of the wildfowlers, as well as in the interests of conservation, that this date should be switched back to where it was—February 1—the date which Parliament itself not long ago declared an appropriate one. That date should stand, and there should be very special reasons for it to be advanced in any county where it is not already in force.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): The noble Lord asked me to give him an undertaking, but he will realise that that is not possible at the moment. The noble Lord will not expect an explicit undertaking to-day that there should be no extensions, but we will consider it and

  823
  see whether or not that will be possible. Further than that I cannot go to-day.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I express my surprise at Lord Hurcomb's remarks about Gloucestershire? Personally, I have never heard a single word of the matter. I suppose it came on after it was handed over to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. It never came up to our Advisory Committee. I think it ought to have come to us. However, that is a matter for the Home Secretary.
  LORD HURCOMB: I did not raise this matter as a complaint, but the order was made on January 21 of this year. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, I was, of course, not expecting an undertaking; but he has shown himself to he so understanding and sympathetic to the points which have been raised by me during the course of this debate that I am quite content with his assurance that he will look into it.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should also like to say that our Advisory Committee were all strongly opposed to any date later than February 1. But I thought it was only fair to the Wildfowl Committee that I should mention the exact position.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: May I say that I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said? But since, by accepting what he has said, I lose my next Amendment, may I press the noble Viscount, between now and the Report stage, to give the most favourable reflection he can to the case of the human wildfowlers and the ornithological waders?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I certainly will, but I am afraid that I could not on any account agree to including waders, which is a very vague expression.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment follows the explanation I gave just now which safeguards the protection in the areas where it is better than February 21. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 35, after ("that") insert ("(i)").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The same remarks apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to second ("any") and insert ("the close season for").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The same remarks again apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(ii) so much of any order made by the Secretary of State under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as provides that the time during which the killing and taking of wild duck and wild geese is prohibited in any specified area contiguous to the low-water mark of ordinary tides shall begin with some date later than the first day of February but not later than the twenty-first day of February shall, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of the said Acts of 1880 to 1939, continue in force with respect to that area so far as it relates to any bird included in Part II of the First Schedule or in the Third Schedule to this Act, but may be revoked by an order made by the Secretary of State under paragraph (i) of this proviso.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Power to establish bird sanctuaries
  2.—(1) With a view to the creation of bird sanctuaries, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to any area specified in the order providing, subject to the provisions of this Act, for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—

  (a) that any person who, within that area, at any time wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill injure or take, any wild bird whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;

  (b) that any person who, within that area, wilfully takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;

  (c) that where any offence against this Act, or any such offence against this Act as may be specified in the order, is committed within that area, the offender shall be liable to a special penalty.

  (2) Before making an order under this section with respect to any area, the Secretary of State shall consult with any person who owns or occupies any land included in that area and with the council of any administrative area within which that area or any part thereof is situated.
  5.46p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1) to insert as a new paragraph (a):
  "(a) for prohibiting the entry of any person during the nesting season into the sanctuary save under such conditions as may be specified in the order;"
  The noble and learned Earl said: This is a matter of some little importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, threw out a hint on the Second Reading of his Bill that the point was already covered in the National Parks Act. Now, if it is covered in the National Parks Act I do not want to have it twice. I am talking, therefore, on the assumption that it is not entirely covered by the National Parks Act. I attach a great deal of practical importance to this Amendment. After all, what have we done? We have done a very useful bit of work but I am afraid it often happens that a boy will take the eggs without knowing what eggs they are: he will just see them and take them. In the same way a sportsman may be about with a gun and shoot a bird without knowing what it is.
  Here is a practical and effective step to encourage the breeding of some of these birds. Why not have small sanctuaries—with the consent of the owner and everyone concerned, and only with that consent—where these birds could breed? If you cannot get the consent of the owner, you cannot do it. The Home Secretary ought to have power to say, "This is a sanctuary," and if he says it is a sanctuary then no one save some person with his authority should go into it in the nesting season. I believe that to be a matter of great importance. I have known odd little woods, quite small, no more than half an acre in extent, where warblers, and so on, have nested. The most effective way to get these birds to bring up their young and breed is to prevent people from going into those sanctuaries. I do not believe there is any other way in which you could prevent people from going in.
  Further, I should like to confer upon the Home Secretary a power in this matter. I make it quite plain in a later Amendment that it is a power which should be exercised only with the consent of all the people concerned. This power would be to prevent anybody from going into these places. Of course, in fact you would have to have someone authorised to go in and look after the place, and
  826
  people would be allowed to go in only with him. If small boys and collectors were allowed to go about in these places except in the company of this person they might do a great deal of harm. Therefore for the nesting season, and only for that time, nobody should be allowed in under the terms of this licence.
  That is the subject of the first Amendment. If I am told that the power already exists, then there is no point in having it re-enacted; but I am not sure that the power exists. I know it has been said that in some areas the owners are not known. Well that is just too bad, and in that event you cannot do what I am suggesting. In the vast majority of cases, however, the owner is known, and, provided you get his consent the Home Secretary ought to be able to say "I am not going to have you in here in the nesting season." I also believe that the nesting season should be defined by order of the Home Secretary. Here I am myself wanting to make trespassing a criminal offence: if anyone goes into these places without the order of the Home Secretary it should be a criminal offence. This practical step would do much to protect some of our birds and I think the noble Viscount will be very sympathetic to me, in this matter. He will tell me whether everything he wants is already in the National Parks Act, and, if it is not, I hope that he will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, after line 43,insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have looked up the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and I am inclined to think that all the necessary powers are included in it. I am told that the powers under the National Parks Act are the powers that are suitable for keeping people out of an area. It is said wardens and a staff to keep people out would be needed, and it would be rather a big affair. That being so, it is better that it should be dealt with under the National Parks Act, in which there are the necessary provisions, rather than under this clause, which contemplates nothing more than small, voluntary sanctuaries. At the same time, I attach a great deal of importance to what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says upon a subject of this kind, and I am prepared to accept

  827
  the Amendment; but I am sure he will agree with me that if, upon further inquiry. I find that it really is superfluous, we can then cut it out at the Report stage.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think this is a particularly important point, having regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, just now, that the laws of trespass in England and in Scotland are different, and therefore what might apply to a prohibition in the case of England might not apply in Scotland. Therefore I hope that, when the noble Viscount looks into this point, he will bear that in mind. I am wholly with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in considering it as being one of the most important features of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like strongly to support the noble and learned Earl in this Amendment. This is a point I have been urging throughout our work on the Bill: that there should be power to stop a man from entering and disturbing the nesting in a ternery, for instance: it creates the most appalling chaos, when anybody comes in, and you have no right to get him out unless he has eggs on him. Naturally, before you catch him he has thrown them away. I am wondering whether the point is covered by the National Parks Act, and I shall be interested to know what my noble friend finds out about this. My view is that a national park, a big park, naturally is covered; and equally so is anything arranged by the Nature Conservancy; but does a small county council sanctuary, where there is no park and no nature reserve, come under it? I am doubtful. That is a point I should like carefully looked into.
  LORD SILKIN: Since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act has been referred to, may I, and as one who played some part in getting it on the Statute Book, say that in my opinion that Act does not cover this particular case, and that the provision which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is seeking to introduce into this Bill is rather wider, for the reasons given, I think, by the noble Earl, who has just spoken. In the National Parks Act certain specific areas are dealt with, but I take it that this provision is intended to be rather wider. There is one point that
  828
  the noble Viscount may look at when he is examining the matter, and that is the question of machinery. The National Parks Act concerns some Minister other than the Secretary of State, and it may be that there would be two similar sanctuaries, one governed by one Minister and one governed by another. That may need a little straightening out. But I am quite sure that the area covered by the National Parks Act is not identical with the area covered by the proposed Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: This Amendment is to make it plain that this can be done only with the consent of the owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 44, after ("who") insert ("without authority enters that area in the nesting season or who").—Earl Jowitt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD had given notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), the first of which was, in paragraph (a) to omit "whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Viscount said: This is a somewhat new proposal with reference to sanctuaries. When I spoke on the Second Reading, I had been informed that there was no need to have in the Bill a clause about sanctuaries, because that matter was covered by the National Parks Act. Since then, I have made further inquiry and I find that that information is not entirely accurate. The effect of having no clause in this Bill would be to remove the protection from a number of existing sanctuaries that are protected under Wild Bird Protection Acts which are to be repealed under this Bill. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the matter here. I deal with it with the fullest possible desire, not only to save existing sanctuaries but to increase their numbers.
  As the Bill was originally drafted, the criticism was made that we might be taking property and interfering with various interests without the power to give any compensation. I was anxious to avoid questions of compensation in this Bill, because I know how often they lead to complications. We have therefore been considering how best to deal with

  829
  the problem. I have been in consultation particularly with the Chairman of the Nature Conservancy, and you will see from this Amendment how we propose to deal with the matter. We protect the existing sanctuaries; we encourage new sanctuaries provided they are made voluntarily; and there is a provision that no interest—where there is ownership or rights of various kinds, shooting rights, for instance—should be interfered with at all. I think that, with that proviso, the proposal is watertight. As I say, it encourages the small sanctuaries, it is based upon voluntary agreements, and it gives the undertaking that no existing interests will be interfered with. I venture to suggest that that is a better way of dealing with it than the way proposed by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in Amendment No. 23, which would make it necessary to have the prior consent of everybody concerned. I am told, particularly with regard to some of these sanctuaries, that, even if they are not foreshore or something rather like it, if is very difficult to find out who are the owners and who have rights. That being so, it is better to state clearly that no interest should be compromised rather than to have to search areas, perhaps for several years, before we can find exactly who is the particular owner in a stretch of vague, uncertain country. Unless there is this provision, it may be impossible to start some of these voluntary sanctuaries. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept my new proposals.
  LORD TERRINGTON: Which Amendment is the noble Viscount speaking to?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am speaking to all three Amendments.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("bird") to ("shall") in line 2.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to reply, of course, by a Roland for an Oliver—if the noble Viscount is good enough to accept my Amendment, I will accept his. I should like to look at it again. I am doubtful in regard to "an authorised person" coming in here.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: What I said earlier will cover the point here.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not mind his being a person mentioned in the order of
  830
  the Home Secretary, but I do not want "authorised person" to mean anybody who is authorised by the owner of the land; because if the land-owner consents and the Home Secretary gives his approval to the making of this ground a sanctuary, then a sanctuary it must be, and the persons who are authorised must be only such persons as are authorised by the Home Secretary. That seems to be an important point; otherwise the reality of the sanctuary will not be observed. I should like to look again at the other point between now and the Report stage and inform your Lordships how the difficulty about lack of knowledge concerning ownership in some of these areas appears to me. I think it would be much simpler to adopt my scheme, but it may be that there would be difficulties in that scheme because we cannot tell who is the owner of the area. Perhaps we may look at it together and see whether we can work out some convenient and simple method of dealing with the problem.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will certainly look at the point. What I say is based very much upon the experience of the Nature Conservancy. They tell me that they have had great difficulty, causing long delays, in regard to finding out particular ownerships. However, I will certainly look into the point.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect, I think the scheme of the noble and learned Earl is rather too watertight; it is not elastic enough. I think the scheme of the noble Viscount is better from that point of view; it is more likely to lead to the creation of bird sanctuaries, without holding them up.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 5, leave out from "bird" to ("shall'') in line 6.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3,leave out lines 12 to 16 and insert—
  ("Provided that—

  (i) an authorised person shall not by virtue of any such order be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing, injuring or taking of or an attempt to kill or take, a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act or by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird so included;

  (ii) the making of an order under this section with respect to any area shall not

  831
  affect the exercise by any person of any right vested in him, whether as owner, lessee or occupier, or, in Scotland, as limited owner, of any land in that area, or by virtue of a licence or agreement.

  (2) So much of any order made by the Secretary of State under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as prohibits the taking or killing in any particular area of all wild birds or the taking or destruction in any particular area of the eggs of all wild birds shall be deemed to be an order made under this section, and subject to the provisions of this Act any person who contravenes that prohibition shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  General exceptions
  3.—(1) Nothing in subsection (1) of section one or in any order made under section two of this Act shall make unlawful—

  (a) the killing of any wild bird not included in the First Schedule to this Act—

  (i) in pursuance of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by or under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950; or

  (ii) in pursuance of a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act,1947, or by the Secretary of State under section thirty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948;

  (b) the taking of any wild bird if the bird is taken solely for the purpose of ringing or marking it and is then released;

  (c) the killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird for the purposes of any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

  (2) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of, or of any order made under, section one or section two of this Act a person shall not be found guilty of an offence against this Act—
  (a) by reason of the killing or injuring of a wild bird other than a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that the bird was killed or injured while doing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries;
  6.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The point of the first Amendment to Clause 3 is that orders under Clause 1 (2) may create an offence in taking eggs, in addition to the offences created by Clause 1 (1), and therefore the exceptions in Clause 3 (1) should apply to offences in subsection
  832
  (2) of Clause 1. I think that is an obvious Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 17, leave out from first ("in") to ("section") in line 18 and insert ("or in any order made under, section one or").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Clause makes an exception of the killing of birds in pursuance of powers under the Agriculture Acts. These Acts, however, also refer to the taking or destruction of the eggs of birds which are pests, and consequently the exception should be wider. Accordingly, the Amendment substitutes for paragraph (a) in subsection (1) the new paragraphs (a) and (b), in more general terms; it also substitutes a new paragraph (c) for paragraph (b) in the Bill. This has the effect of making merely a small verbal Amendment—namely, the insertion of a reference to "an attempt to take" birds. I think that explanation covers this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 19, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
  ("(a) anything done in pursuance of a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or by the Secretary of State under section thirty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948;
  (b) except in relation to a wild bird included in the First Schedule to this Act, anything done by virtue of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by or under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950;
  (c) the taking of, or an attempt to take, any wild bird if the bird is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of ringing or marking and then releasing it;").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: As regards the next three Amendments, the offences created by Clause 1 (1) include attempting to kill or take birds, and the exceptions, therefore, should also refer to attempts, as well as to killing. These Amendments make the necessary verbal changes. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 32, after ("of") insert ("or an attempt to kill or take").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 38, after second ("of") insert ("or an attempt to kill").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, leave out ("while") and insert ("or that the attempt was made, while the bird was").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "serious." The noble Lord said: This may seem a very small matter. I think it was referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, either today or in his Second Reading speech, but I am informed that it should be sufficiently an offence under subsection (2) (a) that the bird in question was doing damage, since it would be difficult for any magistrate to differentiate between "damage" and "serious damage." It is really a question for the magistrate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, leave out ("serious").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I suggest that it is not necessary to leave out the word "serious"; in fact, I think it is better to keep it in, otherwise somebody might start shooting a bird that we wished to see generally protected merely because it had done quite an insignificant amount of harm. My advice, therefore, would be to leave in the word "serious." It describes what we have in mind—namely, that it is serious damage that we contemplate, not simply picking a few buds off an individual tree.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree with the noble Viscount. Even if we leave the word in, it is left in the hands of tie magistrate to decide whether the damage is "serious," and I think it is an indication of what Parliament intends. I think it best to leave it in.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.9 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out all words from "crops" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
  "and that there was no other practicable means open to him of protecting such crops."
  The noble and learned Earl said: It is deplorable, but inevitable, that people should shoot a large number of birds because they are doing what birds naturally do with fruit trees and the like. Whether we call it serious damage or not, I agree that it is inevitable; but I should like to try, if I can, to protect some of these birds. I do not know that I have here the right form of words—indeed, it may not be possible to find the right form. But, quite frankly, the differentiation I want to make is this. I want to differentiate between my strawberry bed, for instance, and my cherry trees. I am not talking about acres of strawberries. It is impossible to net them. But I am speaking of the ordinary strawberry bed in one's garden, a patch, we will say, not as long as from here to the Throne—about half that distance. Now an ordinary person protects such a bed with a net. By protecting it with a net you prevent birds from getting into it. Another way of protecting it would be to stand beside it with a gun and to shoot all the birds that came along. In that way you would destroy a very large number of birds I fear, and that would be a lamentable thing. I realise that it is not practicable for people to use nets if they have acres of strawberries. I realise that it is not practicable to net cherry trees at all. But for the ordinary small garden, where you have a strawberry patch or a patch of raspberries, the normal thing is to net and not to kill the birds. If everyone is to start killing birds because they are taking raspberries or strawberries which the owners have not troubled to net, a large number of birds will be unnecessarily killed.
  I have tried to devise a form of words which will meet this situation. I have suggested:
  "and that there was no other practicable means open to him of protecting such crops."
  The point I wish to ask your Lordships to consider for the moment is this. Would it not be fair to say that where it is simple and not unduly expensive for a man to use a net to protect things, he

  835
  ought to use one, and, if he does not, he should not then complain that the birds do damage. I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to know where to draw the line and to say what is practicable. To protect a small strawberry patch with a net is certainly practicable, but is it practicable to protect a quarter of an acre in the same way? In the last resort, I suppose, that would have to be a question of fact for the magistrates. I am anxious, if I can, to prevent an unnecessary holocaust of birds. I think it could so easily be prevented by the use of nets. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("crops") to the end of line 43 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am doubtful whether we can get a form of words that will effect the noble and learned Earl's purpose. There are such widely differing conditions. If I may quote my own case, I have several acres of blackcurrants, and I do not know how they could be protected with nets. In fact, I think it would be impossible to do so. Obviously, I could not net them. I think that other noble Lords will have in their minds difficult cases of a similar kind. As I say, I am doubtful about this form of words. I see no objection in principle to the Amendment at all. We have here a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and I do not know what he would say on this question.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): I am certain that the Committee will have every sympathy with what the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. I think the difficulty here would arise in this way. The nearest sort of situation one can think of which exists at the present time is that of a farmer whose sheep are being worried by dogs. He shoots a dog, we will say, and I gather that in that case the farmer has two defences. He has the defence that there was no practical means other than shooting to stop the dog worrying his sheep—which is the same sort of thing as the noble and learned Earl has in mind. The
  836
  farmer has the additional defence that, having regard to all the circumstances in which he found himself, he acted reasonably in regarding shooting as necessary for the protection of his sheep against an attack or renewed attack. As I understand it, the noble and learned Earl's Amendment would do away with that additional defence which the grower of crops has got and would put him in a rather difficult position. He would have to look ahead to foresee all kinds of things that might happen if he is to be covered against this sort of thing. I wonder whether there is very much substance in what the noble and learned Earl is trying to do. He cited the example of his own strawberry patch. He and I grow strawberries for ourselves. None of us, I am sure, would dream of shooting the birds which attacked our strawberry patches. If we were going to do that we should have to stand on guard from dawn to dusk, or else hire someone else to do it, and that would be very expensive. I think that, in the ordinary course, we who grow strawberries in our gardens would naturally net. It is only if it became unduly expensive that you could not net, and then you would get the sort of situation arising of which the noble and learned Earl has spoken, and it would be necessary to shoot birds. I hope that, from that point of view, the noble and learned Earl will not press this Amendment.
  LORD MATHERS: I wish to support my noble and learned Leader in the humane attitude which he is taking up. The noble Viscount's blackcurrants and Lord Carrington's analogy of sheep being worried by dogs do not seem to me to apply, because sheep worrying is something that can easily be proved, whereas I think it might be—and very likely would be—that the birds were protecting the noble Viscount's blackcurrants from green-fly or something of that kind, and by shooting them he would be destroying a protection instead of a menace.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I stand corrected.
  EARL JOWITT: In view of what has been said—though I am rather sorry about this—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.17 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is really a drafting Amendment, and I may say that the next one is the same. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 44, after second ("of") insert ("or an attempt to take").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 1, at end insert ("or to be taken").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds
  4.—(1) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section nine of this Act, any person—

  (c) for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird uses as a decoy any live bird whatsoever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is blind, maimed or injured; or

  (d) uses for the purpose of killing any wild bird a shot-gun which is constructed or adapted to hold more than two cartridges at a time, whether in a barrel or in a magazine, or of which the barrel measures more than one and three-quarter inches in diameter at the muzzle; or

  (e) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird any form of artificial light,

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:
  Provided that in any proceedings under paragraph (a) of this subsection it shall be a defence that the article was set in position by the accused for the purpose of killing or taking animals in the interest of public health, agriculture or the preservation of other creatures and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to wild birds.
  (2) If any person uses any mechanically propelled vehicle or boat or any aircraft in immediate pursuit of a wild bird for the purpose of driving, killing or taking that bird, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty.
  (3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall make unlawful—

  (a) the use of a cage-trap or not by an authorised person for the purpose of taking a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act;

  838

  (b) the use of nets for the purpose of taking wild duck in a duck decoy which is shown to have been in use immediately before the passing of this Act;

  (c) the use of a cage-trap or net for the purpose of taking a wild bird if it is shown that the taking of the bird is solely for the purpose of ringing or marking and then releasing it or for the purpose of an experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

  6.18 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "injured" to insert "otherwise than by being pinioned". The noble and learned Earl said: I wish there was no Clause 4 to this Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will accept this Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: Still, on the basis that there is a Clause 4 (I am shortly going to move that it should be deleted) I have to move this Amendment. I had duck in mind; I am told that we must make it plain that this Amendment does not apply to geese. I never meant it to apply to geese, but I think I had better move the Amendment in this form at the moment. I know that Lord Hurcomb has a view about the matter. I should be prepared to have this confined to duck. Perhaps it would content your Lordships if we passed the Amendment in this form without prejudice to devising appropriate words between now and the next stage to ensure that it does not apply to geese. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 29, after ("injured") insert ("otherwise than by being pinioned").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Earl that it ought to refer solely to duck and not to geese. If necessary we will make that clear later.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1) (d), to omit all words after the second "barrel," and to insert:
  "has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches or"
  The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to define more exactly than was done in the original draft the size of a punt gun. I do not like any of these punt guns, but if we are going to have them we want the size of them

  839
  restricted. I understand, from the inquiries that have been made, that this is about the average size of the punt guns that are being used. There may be bigger ones, but this was the recommendation of the two Advisory Committees and if we are going on with the clause I think this is the right kind of provision to have.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("barrel") to end of line 34 and insert ("has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches or").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: If we are going to deal with this matter, why have the punt gun at all? I think it would be better to deal with this matter by proposing that there should be no punt gun in future. It seems to be so extraneous to the Bill that it is a pity we do not drop this clause.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Again this is the result of compromise. This is what the Advisory Committee accepted, after discussion with the wildfowlers, and I hesitate to upset the compromise. Left to myself, supposing there had been no compromise and no long discussions of the subject, I should be very willing to see the end of the punt gun. I have regretted that while it kills a considerable number of ducks, the punt gun wounds a great many more. But there are few punt gunners in the world to-day—far fewer than there used to be. The race is becoming extinct. It was on that account that I accepted this compromise, with the hope at the back of my mind that in the not very distant future the use of this gun would come to an end altogether.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: This was a compromise with the wildfowlers, who particularly asked that it should be left in. I believe there are no shooting punts used in Scotland, but in England a certain number are used and I feel bound to support this Amendment, though personally I should be very happy to see shooting punts done away with.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "bird" to insert:
  ", other than a bird included in the Second Schedule,"
  The noble Earl said: Two days ago I was asked by the County Councils Association to put down this Amendment. It refers to the killing or taking of wild birds by any form of artificial light. So long as it refers only to Second Schedule birds, I see no objection to it. The way this is done might interest your Lordships. They propose to have a very strong torch and shoot birds with air guns. The idea seems to me a little far-fetched. Perhaps some better way of doing it might have been found. The only way I have found of doing anything with starlings on a large scale is to have very smoky fires on a still day like this. But, of course, we cannot use that in London. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 35, at end insert (", other than a bird included in the Second Schedule,").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am ready to accept this Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: Does this prohibition in the Bill include the use of a torch? I suppose that in our young days many of us have gone duck flighting, and then, when the light failed and when we have been asked how many birds we brought down, we have said more birds than we actually had. We would then go round with torches to collect the birds and count them, and it would become darker and darker. Are we not to be allowed to use a torch to pick up the birds?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I should have thought the answer was that picking up does not come into this clause, which deals with killing. I certainly agree with the noble Earl that a torch is required for picking up ducks at the end of a late flight. I will look into it, because I am sure that to prohibit that is not what Lord Ilchester intended. Subject to that, I think we may accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert:
  "or
  (f) uses for the purposes of killing or taking any wild goose any decoy in the form of a stuffed specimen or model of a wild goose."
  The noble Earl said: Anyone living in the north-east corner of Lincolnshire, as I do, must have noticed the great decline in the number of pink-footed geese. I am informed that one of the chief causes has been the practice of shooting over decoys. I should like to quote from a letter from no less an authority than Mr. Peter Scott, himself a keen wildfowler, who has kindly given me permission to do so. He says:
  "They"—
  the pink-footed geese—
  "have not found such a sanctuary there,"—
  in Lincolnshire—
  "and their numbers there are, I understand, much lower than they were twenty years ago. There is no doubt that persecution by a few keen wildfowlers with decoys, who account for far more than their fair share of geese, is chiefly responsible for this desertion of their former winter feeding-grounds."
  From this point of view, Mr. Davies's campaign is important. I feel that it should be supported by all moderate and reasonable sportsmen. Shooting geese over decoys is extraordinarily easy and provides very dull shooting, since the birds are hovering to settle; and in my view it is a thoroughly bad way of making a big bag. I do not think anyone, least of all myself, would wish to interfere with the activities of the genuine wildfowlers, than whom there are no finer people, not do I wish to discuss the ethics of sport, but I should like to say that Mr. Davies's campaign, which has already been referred to, resulted in 530 landowners and farmers in North Lincolnshire refusing to have shooting of geese ever decoys, I beg to move this Amendment, purely to prevent a few greedy persons from driving our geese away. If this Amendment is accepted, my second one follows as a matter of course. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have every sympathy with the noble Earl in his Amendment and I am grateful to him for raising this question in Committee this afternoon. I have had a good deal of correspondence about the slaughter of geese in North Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire, and I should like to see it, if not stopped, at any rate very much restricted. It is significant that the 530
  842
  land owners and farmers whom the noble Earl has mentioned have banded together to stop decoy shooting on their land. I am told that the trouble is that there are certain tracts of land over which their writ does not run, to which gunners come, often from great distances, and shoot large numbers of pink-footed geese. The difficulty is to know how best to deal with them. I do not think anybody wants to stop the legitimate shooting of geese. What we do want to stop is the kind of case that the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, cited to me before this Committee stage, of a man who had a gun with a silencer on it and who had killed seventy-three geese in the space of about an hour.
  A further difficulty is that I am not sure whether the Amendment of the noble Earl would really be effective. He proposes that decoys should not be allowed. If decoys are not allowed for geese, I suppose it would follow that they ought not to be allowed for duck. I do not believe that a provision of that kind is really necessary. We have only just agreed to allow pinioned ducks to he used for duck fighting. As at present advised, I do not think we could entirely prohibit the use of decoys for geese. However, I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage—this Amendment has only recently been put upon the Marshalled List—to see whether we cannot deal with the kind of scandal that is at present going on in this area. If we can, so much the better. It may be that it would be a case for the declaration by the Home Secretary of a small sanctuary in the area—but I do not wish to prejudge the way in which we might be able to deal with it. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, that we will look into this matter sympathetically to see whether anything can be done.
  EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, replies, I should like to say that I hope the result of the noble Viscount's inquiry into this matter will be that he will chance his arm and insert the Amendment. The story we have just heard of the killing of seventy-three geese in an hour is one of sheer, wanton slaughter. We must do our best to stop that sort of thing. I believe the noble Viscount will find that there is no reason in law why we should not prohibit the use of decoys or stuffed specimens in the case of geese, without doing it in the case

  843
  of duck. This Amendment certainly has my blessing, and I hope that, as a result of the further consideration which is given to it, the Amendment will be accepted.
  LORD TERRINGTON: I should like to suggest that if there is no reason in law why we should not prohibit the use of decoys in the case of geese, without doing it in the case of duck, there is also no reason in practice, any more than there is any reason why some birds should be put into the "prohibited" Schedule and others left out. I feel that, both in law and in practice, it is a reasonable proposition.
  THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for saying he will look into the matter. I meant the decoys to refer only to geese, and not to ducks or pigeons. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.34 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided also that nothing in paragraph (d) of this subsection shall prohibit the use for the purpose of killing wildfowl of a shot-gun of which the barrel exceeds the measurement prescribed in the said paragraph and which was manufactured and in the possession of the person using, the same before the third day of November, 1953."
  The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment we come back to the punt gunner. I confess that I agree with what has already been said about the punt gun and the punt gunner. I have no personal experience of, or liking for, the punt gun, and I am glad to hear that it is not employed at all in Scotland. On the other hand, the spirit of compromise in this Bill must, I think, be upheld on behalf of the few existing punt gunners who might be affected by this clause of the Bill, and it is in fairness to them that I move this Amendment. I understand that there are only six or seven existing punt gunners to whom this clause would apply, and I therefore move the Amendment on their account. The purpose is to preclude hardship to any punt gunner whose existing gun exceeds the prescribed measurement. While it is not considered that new guns larger than those should be licensed, it is felt equitable to permit the use of those now in use. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: We must remember that this is a Bill for the better protection of birds, both ducks and geese. On that account, I do not feel able to accept this Amendment. If there are any guns exceeding one and three-quarter inches in diameter, I feel they ought not to be used any longer. That being so, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit Clause 4. The noble and learned Earl said: I should like to tell your Lordships exactly why I move this Amendment. As we know, this proposed legislation started by being a Government Bill, but it has now become a Private Member's Bill. I have had a great deal of experience, and so has the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and between us we can think over a good many years of legislation both in this House and in the other place. Now that this is a Private Member's Bill, I would beg the noble Viscount to go in for a course of slimming and to throw out a great many of the matters which do not closely relate to the protection of birds. He said just now that we must always remember that this is a Bill for the protection of birds. We have here Clause 4 (1) (d) about which nobody has said anything. By that paragraph we prohibit the use of
  "a shotgun which is constructed or adapted to hold more than two cartridges at a time, whether in a barrel or in a magazine. …"
  What is the point of that? The Americans use guns of this sort, and they are much cheaper to buy than the ordinary gun. If I were a bird and I had to be shot, I do not think I should mind very much whether I was shot by an ordinary 12-bore shotgun or by one of these other guns. So far as getting in your shot is concerned, I should have thought that an experienced shot, with a good loader and two guns, would get in just as many shots as somebody using this type of gun. Absolutely nothing has been said about this gun. Only once in

  845
  my life have I seen one of these guns in use. I do not know whether they are more cruel than any other sort of gun, but by this paragraph we prohibit the use of this gun. Why should that be?
  It may well be that somebody in another place will dislike this provision, and some agitation will be raised about it. I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary, in a Private Member's Bill for the protection of birds, which has my most cordial good wishes and support, to put in a provision of this kind. The more provisions such as this that we have in the Bill, the more we offer up hostages to fortune, and the more difficult it becomes to get the Bill through. I should feel much happier about the chances of this Bill if some of these provisions were thrown out. I have no objection to any of the items contained in this clause—I know nothing about them. I have never heard of anybody taking a wild bird in any form of artificial light, except that I have known a torch to be used after the evening flight to pick up, not only—mark you, my Lords—dead birds, but a bird which is not necessarily dead and which it is right should be picked up. I have never known people shoot from mechanically-propelled vehicles, or boats, except when the boat was stationary—although it may be done. But what is the point of it all? Is it really necessary, in a Private Member's Bill for the protection of birds, to have all these provisions? I humbly express my opinion that the chances of getting the Bill through would be far better if you left out some of these clauses and concentrated on what matters—the protection of birds. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 4.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD LLOYD: I feel that I have served the Committee well by saying very little, but I must say a word on this Amendment in view of what the noble and learned Earl has just said. If I understood him aright, he concentrated his argument on one particular aspect of this clause, but I gathered that he objected to the clause in general. Perhaps we could dispose of the particular argument about what I believe is known as a pump gun, which is a magazine gun. I do not attach any sanctity to that particular subsection in this clause, and I will say this to the noble Earl: he said that
  846
  he shot during the war with various people who were not very accurate, and he said that he did not think that a bird would mind being shot at with one of those guns. If some people had one of these guns I think he would mind being a bird, because they bring them clown one after another. Therefore, from the bird's point of view, there is something in prohibiting these magazine guns.
  On the general question, the noble and learned Earl is quite right when he says that this was originally intended to be a Government Bill. Everybody has said in the past—and it is true—that the law about all wild birds, and the protection of wild birds, is in a hopeless state of confusion, and we must all admit this. The demand has therefore been made that we should have one Act of Parliament to which any sensible man could go to find out the law about wild birds. May I take this particular clause, Very little of it is pure consolidation. This clause is in most respects re-enactment and extension of the existing law. For example, the only parts of this Bill which could have been left out, on the ground that they do not materially alter the existing law, are Clause 4 (1) (c), Clause 7 and Clause 5 (1) (a), with the Fourth Schedule. To take the last clause as an example, it is an advantage to include it in the Bill if only because the Secretary of State will have, under Clause 8, a power to vary the Fourth Schedule, and this is a power which he does not now possess. I do not think Clause 7 is contentious, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by leaving it out. Far the rest, we take the existing law and amend it.
  How are we going to do that? There are only two things we can do. One is to introduce a Bill of this kind, and if your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that we have repealed no fewer than fifteen complete Acts of Parliament and parts of several more. The only other way is to amend existing Acts of Parliament, which inevitably means legislation by reference; and this, I think, in view of what has been said about wild bird legislation, is the last thing we want. Here, if I may, I should like to quote something which the noble and learned Earl once said to me on some Regulations which I brought before this House. The noble

  847
  and learned Earl said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 179, col. 1066):
  "… it is not a matter of the substance of the regulations; it is a matter of the form. The principle at issue, as noble Lords on all sides of the House maintain, is that when this House is asked to pass a regulation, an ordinary intelligent reader, on reading the regulation, ought to be able to know what it is all about."
  I do not blame him for saying that—I think he was absolutely right. I do not think anybody could have understood that particular regulation, for it was a complicated one. But does that not apply equally to this Bill about wild birds, and do we not want an Act to which the ordinary intelligent man can go and find what is the law about wild birds?
  If we are to do that, then we have to re-enact these various measures which are in other wild bird protection Acts of the past. We cannot avoid that. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that this is the only way in which we can tackle this problem. The noble Earl may say to me: "You could legislate by reference, by amendment, and then it could be consolidated." I concede that that is perfectly possible, but in the meantime what happens? There is, as the noble Earl knows as well as anybody, a long list of legislation to be consolidated. This will have to take its place, and nobody can say how long it will be before those who are consolidating can get round to this particular set of laws. In the meantime, not only should we have the existing fifteen Acts of Parliament which are being repealed, but one more which, I suggest, would be just as obscure, complicated and difficult to understand as any of its predecessors. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will resist this Amendment, because I think that, from the point of view of the general public, no good object would be served by trying to mutilate the Bill in this way.
  6.48 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: I certainly shall not press this Amendment to a Division. There is an important point here, and I want the noble Lord to bear it in mind. I believe that this is the worst way of introducing legislation. Take Clause 4 (1) (a). Is there any noble Lord sitting on these Benches who knows to what extent that is existing law—what is new
  848
  in it and what is old? I say, quite frankly, that I certainly do not. I think that the Committee, when they are asked to pass a thing of this sort, ought to be told to what extent we are making new law. Is this all old law? Take, for instance, the business of a poisoned or stupefying bait. I believe that the only effective way of getting rid of magpies is to use a poisoned egg. There are hundreds of people who are using a poisoned egg, because a magpie, a jay or a carrion crow is the sort of bird that will take the eggs: the other birds will not. That is done up and down the country. Is that illegal or not? I am sure I do not know. Have you to get the consent of somebody or not? We are asked to pass this clause making it an offence in future to use poisoned or stupefying bait. It is true that you can get a licence from the Home Secretary, but that is a cumbrous sort of way of getting rid of your magpies, and we do not know where we are.
  It is a point of great importance that in future we should not be asked to pass legislation of this sort in a Private Member's Bill. We do not know what we are doing—whether we are altering or extending the law. No one can tell us, and I suggest that this is a great mistake. I suggest, further, that if only you would give up this clause, and some of the other clauses we are coming to in a moment, it would simplify the passage of this Bill enormously, because, although we are anxious to get it through here, all these clauses make it difficult to get it through another place. Although I do not press my Amendment now, I hope that what I have said will be considered, to see whether there is a chance of improving the prospects of this Bill. If you can avoid difficulty, by jettisoning some parts which do not very closely bear on the birds, I hope that it will be done. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Restrictions on sale of live and dead wild birds, eggs, etc.
  5.—(l) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section nine of this Act, any person sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale—

  (a) any live wild bird, being a bird included in the Fourth Schedule to this Act of a species which is resident in or visits

  849
  the British Isles in a wild state, other than a close-ringed specimen shown to have been bred in captivity;

  (b) an egg (including a blown egg) of a wild bird of any species which has nested in the British Isles in a wild state;

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if the offence was committed in respect of a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act or in respect of the egg, skin or plumage of such a bird, shall be liable to a special penalty.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1) (a), to omit "shown to have been." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I do not think has any great significance. What we have done with regard to cage birds is to put into the Bill the existing provisions of the 1933 Act. In the existing provisions these words: "shown to have been" do not appear. The fact that we had put in a new adjective made all the cage bird people very nervous. They wondered if there was some ulterior motive in the words—but there was not. The safeguard is that all cage birds have to be ringed; they are ringed when they are very young—that is the only way to ring them. That is the test. Therefore, in my view, these words are unnecessary; and as they have worried the cage bird industry I think it is better to take there out.
  I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 24, leave out ("shown to have been").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: I take it the cage bird people thought that in some way it shifted the onus.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: That is so.
  EARL JOWITT: If they want the words left out I have no objection to this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.54 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given Notice of his intention to move in subsection 1 (b), after "egg," where that words occurs a first time, to insert "other than a gull's egg." The noble and learned Earl said: This is an Amendment upon which I was going to spend some time, but in view of the next Amendment on the List I
  850
  think it is unnecessary for me to say anything. For a long time past now, since the war, we have enjoyed in the proper season the use of gulls' eggs, and I was amazed to see that, for some reason I did not appreciate, that was going to be made a criminal offence. That seems to be "misery for the sake of misery." I personally do not like gulls' eggs, but some people do. I should have thought that if there was any question of gulls decreasing in numbers it would be a different matter; but simply to prohibit the use of gulls' eggs for no apparent reason seems to me to be quite wrong. The fact is that some of the enthusiasts on this subject, people from whom we get much help, rather allow their enthusiasm sometimes to run away with them. I am far from suggesting that that applies to any of your Lordships—obviously it does not. There is a danger, however, that some people may get too enthusiastic and come to regard it as a terrible offence to eat an egg at all. But now that the noble Viscount has put down his Amendment, which exactly meets the case—I wanted only to preserve the right to eat gulls'eggs—I am perfectly prepared to accept his Amendment and not move mine.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move this Amendment. I think it carries out what is in the noble and learned Earl's mind.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  "Provided that, in the case of an egg of a black-headed gull, greater black-backed gull, lesser black-backed gull herring gull or common gull, a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection if the purpose for which the egg is sold, offered for sale or in his possession for sale is the purpose of human consumption."—(Viscount Templewood.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like to say a word on this Amendment. Surely this is a Bill to preserve the birds and not to eat their eggs. It seems to me that the gastronomic ideas of some people have overcome what we are really trying to accomplish. The noble and learned Earl said that he had not heard that gulls had gone down in numbers; but the number of gulls killed by oil in the last twenty years is something appalling. If people want to eat gulls' eggs, there is no more to be said: but I do not like it I shall not vote against the

  851
  Amendment, but I would draw attention to my noble friend's wording. I know of a sanctuary, a very big one, in which there is a black-headed gull's nesting place. What is going to happen there? That point surely needs looking into. On the other hand, the black-backed and the lesser black-backed gull are carrion of the worst type. Is any one going to eat their eggs? I should be sorry to do so. There are, in fact, very few of them and I do not think they should be included.
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to make my position quite clear. If anyone told me that the gull was decreasing in numbers I should certainly not eat the eggs. Presumably nobody eats gulls' eggs merely for the fun of doing it. If the noble Earl tells me that there is a danger of the serious diminution of any species, I am with him heart and soul; but unless he case is made out on that basis, then I am in favour of making hay while the sun is shining.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I quite appreciate the noble and learned Earl's point. There is another matter which I want to mention, and that concerns the terns. We must be careful that the terns are not forgotten. This Amendment refers only to gulls, but there is in the public mind very little difference between gulls' eggs and terns' eggs. Surely we must safeguard that matter: it would be serious if we did not do so. I ask the noble Viscount whether he will look into that question.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will certainly look into anything into which the noble Earl asks me to look. I cannot believe, however, that there is any danger of these quite common species of gulls decreasing. My experience is that they have increased out of all measure in my lifetime. It may well be that in certain places black-headed gulls, for instance, are breeding and mating under protection, and in that event I think it would be a case for a sanctuary. My own experience, even of the black-headed gull in Norfolk, is that it is increasing very much and that there is no risk of danger to it. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with this very careful Amendment.
  LORD GIFFORD: I take it that this Bill does not overrule the idea of sanctuary.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Not at all.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  6.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think it would be for the general convenience if we adjourned the Committee stage now, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
  7.0 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, who unfortunately has been called away, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of the Bill is to enable money to be provided for the development of Post Office services, the actual rate of expenditure in any one year being, of course, subject to Treasury approval. The previous Money Act, which provided for the issue of up to £75 million, received the Royal Assent in July, 1952. As your Lordships will see, the present Bill provides for £125 million, the increase being needed partly because the Post Office programme in the next two years will be higher than in recent years, partly because the capital provision in the Bill is intended to last for a longer period and partly also because of the general increase in price levels.
  Of the total amount provided for by the Bill, my noble friend expects to spend £116 million on the development of the telephone service. At present, there are 383,000 people waiting for telephones, as compared with 485,000 people when this Government assumed office, and I hope that the number will be down to 350,000 or 360,000 by the end of the present financial year. If it had not been for the storms in Scotland and the East Coast floods, we should, of course, have been able to do much better. That waiting list has got to come down a

  853
  great deal further. On the other hand, I must tell you that the size of the waiting list is not the real criterion by which the success of telephone development should be judged. It is not always realised that new applications for telephones come along all the time. In the past quarter alone, over 100,000 fresh applications were received. A year's new demand is, in fact, as large as the present waiting list. Like the Red Queen, we have to run very fast to stay where we are. That is the real measure of our problem and the number of exchange connections provided each year is, in many ways, the real measure of our achievement. This year, we hope to provide 50,000 more exchange connections than we did last year, and the total number supplied this year will be as many as 365,000. The rate of installation is 50 per cent. greater than it was before the war.
  We are catching up, though we still have a long way to go. Excluding what we are spending on defence (a little over one-quarter of the total), the figure this year will be about £4 million more than last year. Next year, it will be up by another £5 million, and my noble friend looks forward to a steady improvement—but he emphasises the word "steady". When new exchanges are needed they take a considerable time to provide. Where new cables are needed they also take time, though less than do exchanges. Above all, we must get back to orderly development, instead of the piecemeal development to which we have been driven by the war and the shortages after the war. But, taking all factors into account, with larger financial resources at his disposal, he is looking forward to a progressive stepping up in the number of telephones put in, although the actual waiting list must depend very largely on the rate at which new applications continue to come in.
  There is one further point that my noble friend asked me to emphasise. It is, of course, no use putting people on the telephone and then not being able to handle their calls. The number of telephones is now nearly double what it was before the war, and two and a half times as many trunk calls are made. We have therefore, in the first place, to devote some of our additional resources to developing our
  854
  basic equipment for carrying the constant and ever-increasing traffic. The quality of the trunk service, I think noble Lords will agree, is at present high, and it is my noble friend's earnest intention to keep it so, in view of how much efficient and quick trunk communications mean to the business and industrial community. There are also considerable arrears of building work to be overtaken, not only for telephone exchanges but also for the postal service.
  The present Money Bill is required to provide the additional capital needed to finance these important developments in the next two years. That is the broad outline of the intention of this Bill. I do not think it is in any way contentious and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a suitable and convenient time to pay tribute to the very good work that has been done, and is being done, by the staff' of the Post Office in difficult conditions. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, We should be grateful to noble Earl for his remarks in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Our first reaction is to congratulate the Minister, the Postmaster General, on having secured a larger allocation of capital for the development of his service. We hope that that will be devoted, as he says, to overcoming the arrears of capital works which will enable the telephone service to continue the steady expansion that has marked it ever since the war. This is not the time, your Lordships will agree, for anything like a general review of the work of the Department, but I suggest—and I think many of your Lordships will agree—that there should be a day, in the year which we can devote to a full debate on the subject of the Post Office and a fuller review than is possible at the moment or than that which the noble Earl has given us of the work of the Department. Many things came out in the speech of the Assistant Postmaster General in another place dealing not only with the details of the working of the Post Office but with matters of general policy. So I hope that the Postmaster General will agree that we should have a full debate, with fuller information than we have at the moment. I should like

  855
  to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the congratulations to the staff of the Post Office on the way in which they have carried out their duties. Subject to what I have said, we agree to, and shall not oppose, the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl far the way in which he has received this Bill. As he says, the speech with which the Bill was introduced was a short résuméof the Bill itself, and not a discussion of the general workings of the Post Office for the last year. That is what my noble friend intended it to be on this occasion, but he has authorised me to say that he will be only too pleased to have a full debate on the Post Office at a time convenient to your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  7.9 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. To your Lordships, the Second Reading of this Bill is obviously not an event of great consequence. To me, however, this is something of an occasion, for it is the first time that any of my family has spoken from this Dispatch Box. Moreover, it is 182 years since one of my family last spoke for the Government in another place, when my great-great-great-grandfather, Sir Edward Hawke, defended in his last speech the naval policy of Lord North's Administration. That is a long interval and I hope your Lordships will not think that I am making up for lost time in presenting a Bill calling for the expenditure of £500 million.
  A Bill of this nature is produced more or less every year to enable the National Debt Commissioners to put the Public Works Loan Commissioners in funds, to enable them to make loans to local authorities and other bodies for housing, education and so on. In addition, this Bill enables the Board to make commitments to lend in advance of the actual lending. We are asking that there shall be
  856
  power to advance up to £500 million in cash, with the proviso that advances plus commitments shall not exceed £1,200 million at any one time. The existing authority, the Public Works Loans Act, 1952, was passed nearly a year ago, giving authority for advances of £500 million, with a total limit on advances plus commitments of £1,050 million. Of this authority there is still a margin of advances, as only some £364 million has been paid out against the limit of £500 million. But commitments of another £608 million bring the total of advances plus commitments to £972 million, which is getting rather near the total authority of £1,050 million, which at the present rate would expire probably early in January. For this reason it is necessary to present this Bill now. Any balance of last year's authority to make loans lapses on the passing of the new Act, and new loans start to be made both as the result of the commitments which carry forward or from fresh commitments entered into.
  When this Bill becomes law we may well be carrying forward over £600 million of commitments, and therefore we decided to ask for a rather larger total limit this year—£1,200 million instead of £1,050 million—although we propose to keep the figure of £500 million for advances. Whether, in the outcome, this figure will last exactly a year, we cannot tell; it is our best guess, having regard to all the circumstances. If we prove to be wrong, no great harm results, because the next Bill can be presented either earlier or later than a year ahead. I should like to emphasise that this Bill in no way whatever controls the capital programme of the local authorities; it merely enables them to have a source of cash to borrow. I therefore hope that it will be a non-contentious Bill. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Box. I do not know whether he regards this as a sort of rehabilitation of the family fortune; if he does, he has certainly succeeded. He spoke with complete assurance and in an entirely uncontroversial manner, and on personal grounds I

  857
  wish him every possible success in the future. As the noble Lord rightly said, this is a Bill in more or less common form. It is introduced from time to time, roughly at intervals of about a year, and it in no wise controls the capital expenditure of the local authorities.
  There are just three points I should like to make. In the first place, this is, I think, the first Bill since local authorities were given freedom to borrow elsewhere. I should have thought that that freedom would have been hardly necessary if there had been rather more flexibility in the conditions under which the Public Works Loan Board were allowed to lend money to local authorities. As noble Lords are aware, before they can borrow money at all, local authorities have to get loan sanction from the appropriate Minister, and it is the custom, at the same time as they apply for loan sanction, to apply for a loan to the Public Works Loan Board. The loan sanction is accompanied by a statement of the period over which the loan has to be repaid. It is a maximum period—in the case of housing it is normally sixty years; in the case of other services it may depend upon the estimated life of the work which is required to be done. But the Public Works Loan Board were apparently instructed in 1946 that they must never lend money for a shorter period than the period of the loan sanction, so that if a local authority wants to repay a loan, say a housing loan, in a shorter period than sixty years, the Public Works Loan Board are not allowed to agree to such an arrangement; and in that case the local authority is compelled to go outside to raise its money.
  There may be a variety of reasons why the local authority may want to repay the loan earlier than the period of the loan sanction, but they cannot do it—and for a curious reason. The reason given is that in a number of cases there is a subsidy attached to the particular service, and this subsidy may be on a percentage basis—that is, on a percentage of the loan charges; and if the repayment is over a shorter period, it automatically increases the actual loan charge, and would thereby increase the Government subsidy. This is a very small point, however, and it applies to not more than 10 per cent. of the expenditure of the local authorities. Most of the expenditure is
  858
  by way of a fixed subsidy, as in the case of housing. This is really a sore point among local authorities, and although I know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are aware of this point, and are discussing it, it has been a matter for complaint over a number of years. I trust that the noble Lord will convey to those who instruct him the hope that this will be settled in the very near future, and that more flexibility will be permitted to the Public Works Loan Board in that respect.
  My second point is that, for a reason which I do not understand, the Board charge a fee of 4s. for every £100 advanced. On the £500 million which is sought to be secured under this Bill, the fees will amount to £1 million. If it could be stated that that is to reimburse the Public Works Loan Board for their expenses, there world he no comment, but the expenses of the Public Works Loan Board amount to about £70,000 a year. There seems to be no reason why they should charge £l million in fees to the local authorities, in respect of these advances. In addition, the Government charge 5s. per £100 as stamp duty in respect of these loans. That again, altogether, amounts to 9s. per £100, to be paid away for no apparent reason, and is another sore point among the local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to go to his masters on that point as well.
  Lastly, there is the question of commitments. The commitments on this occasion, together with the amount available for advances, are to be £1,200 million. As I said earlier, every time that a local authority gets a loan sanction, or applies for a loan sanction, it applies automatically for a loan from the Public Works Loan Board, whether, in fact, it needs to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board or not. In a number of cases, the local authorities have no intention of borrowing from the Board. Nevertheless, that is put down as a commitment, so the Public Works Loan Board has am enormous number of commitments which it is never likely to be called upon to fulfil. In fact, this figure of £1,200 million is entirely unrealistic. Nevertheless, it governs the duration of this Bill As soon as the £1,200 million of commitments has been exceeded, whether it is

  859
  likely to be spent or not, another Bill has to be introduced. It is not a very serious point, but in dealing with these astronomical figures it is just as well to be realistic, and the figure of £1,200 million is not a realistic figure of the commitments of the Public Works Loan Board. My Lords, those are three points—not major points but points of comment on this Bill. On the need for the Bill, and on the merits, there can be no possible argument, and we shall put no difficulty in the way of its passage through this House.
  7.22 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the kind words which he said about me personally. I should also like to thank him for giving me notice, more or less, of the points which he was going to raise. I hope to be able to satisfy him on them. First, let us take the question of repayment of these loans before the fixed time upon which they were granted. As he says, there are two sorts of works generally involved. One sort of work attracts a percentage grant from the Government; the other sort of work attracts a fixed grant from the Government. As Lord Silkin says, when a loan in respect of work carrying a percentage grant from the Government is paid off earlier than expected, the instalments are larger than expected, the percentage is larger than expected, and a larger sum falls on the Exchequer than was to be expected.
  I think the noble Lord must admit that from the point of view of accurate estimating, accurate budgeting and general tidy financing, it is rather important to know what the amount of these grants is going to be from year to year. If local authorities are going to pay back unexpectedly in shorter periods, it does make the position very difficult for the Chancellor. But, of course, as the noble Lord says, those particular types of works are not the majority. The majority are types of works which carry a specific subsidy—housing in particular. There the same argument could not apply. My right honourable friend has been in consultation with local authorities for some little time to see whether the local and administrative difficulties which undoubtedly exist can be cleared up, and though it is too early yet to say
  860
  whether the outcome will be entirely favourable, I think I can say that some of the difficulties seem to be dissolving. I think that answers the point with regard to works which carry a fixed subsidy. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the arguments which the noble Lord has advanced in respect of those works which carry a percentage subsidy.
  As to commitments, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that the figure of commitments is entirely unrealistic. Well, it is difficult to prove or disprove that statement, because no one really knows. Local authorities do not know from time to time which of these commitments they really intend to take up as loans in the end. In some cases a commitment can disappear because the work is not proceeded with. In other cases, it can disappear because the money has been raised locally or through a bank. In other cases, the local authorities can go to the Stock Market, and that commitment then becomes a dead one. We have no compulsory powers to compel local authorities to notify the Board when they regard a commitment as dead. From time to time, however, Treasury circulars go out to the local authorities, if there is any reason to believe that the list has become rather swollen. One went out fairly recently; I understand that, as a result, some £50 million of commitments was knocked off. But up to date we have not been embarrassed, because this year, for instance, we still have authority which will carry us over the normal year which is the lifetime of this Bill. So one cannot say that we have really been embarrassed. As regards the fees of the Board, in the last year they were of the order of £750,000—the noble Lord was talking of the future when he talked about £1 million—and the expenses were of the order of £80,000.
  LORD SILKIN: I was making merely a simple arithmetical calculation on the basis of 4s. per £100 on the £500 million.
  LORD HAWKE: Of course the £500 million last year has not been used up. The figures are of the order of that magnitude. I admit that that is a substantial sum to come in to the Board, but it is paid straight into the Exchequer. I think one can really regard that as a contribution towards the very expensive and heavy charges that are incurred in raising the

  861
  money and administering the loans. At any rate, I will bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the fact that he promised in another place to look into this question. But the money goes into the Exchequer and is not kept by the Public Works Loan Board. I think I have answered all the points the noble Lord raised. I am sorry I cannot answer them to please him better; that is the best I can do.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, at this excessively late hour, I do not think I need say a great deal about this Bill. It has been sufficiently discussed and all have agreed that fundamentally it is a good measure. Therefore, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Lloyd.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  7.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I want to say only two words. When the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, he made special reference to a whole chain of Acts called the Tithe Acts and asked me whether they could not be considered for the purpose of consolidation by the Com-
  862
  mittee over which I preside and of which he is a member. I promised to look into the matter. I had intended to write him about it, but thinking he might be here, I considered that it would be more convenient to mention it in the House, so that it might go on the record. The position is this. These numerous Acts relate to tithe rent charge, often referred to as tithe. Tithe rent-charge was abolished in 1936, as to something like 95 per cent. of that charge. The only remaining operation of the Acts is on a residuum of antique rights so peculiar that they were excepted from the abolition in 1936—rights with which some of your Lordships are familiar, particularly in the north, such as rents on "gated and stinted pasture," "corn rents" and so on. Consolidating the Tithe Acts would be a very big task and would certainly not be worth while, in view of the tiny extent of their remaining operation. It is hoped to abolish most of these oddities under a power to do so given by the Act of 1936. I hope that information will satisfy the noble and learned Earl. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  7.34 p.m.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage of the Protection of Birds Bill will be resumed at half past three on Thursday, December 10.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.