Lords Sitting of 10 December 1953

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

  CHRISTMAS RECESS
  3.37 p.m.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that we expect to be able to adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Friday next, December 18, and Parliament will reassemble for Public Business on Tuesday, January 19.

  TRADING IN SULPHUR AND PYRITES
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government two Questions of which I have given private notice. The first Question is: To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to end public trading in sulphur and pyrites.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I am glad to be able to announce to the House that private trading in sulphur and pyrites will be restored with effect from January 1 next. The arrangements for this, which have been fully discussed with the trade, enable me to remove the remaining statutory controls on sulphur, pyrites and sulphuric acid. I have therefore made the orders necessary to revoke these controls at the end of this year. The Board of Trade will shortly issue a notice about the licensing of private imports of sulphur and pyrites. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the co-operation of the trades concerned and, in particular, the National Sulphuric Acid Association Ltd., which throughout the thirteen years of public trading in sulphur and pyrites has acted for the Ministry as
  1172
  its trading agent. I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for having given me the opportuntiy of making, this statement.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the statement which he has made. I may assume, I take it, that the world position in these commodities is now sufficiently good that it is not anticipated that the removal of the present restrictions will lead to a heavy increase, or any increase at all, in prices.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The supply seems to be sufficient to make that unlikely.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the second private notice Question which I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government is this: Whether they have any further statement to make on the Griffiths court-martial.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I hope to be able to make a statement at about four o'clock this afternoon on the subject about which the noble and learned Earl has asked. The Secretary of State for War is to make a statement on this subject in another place, and I hope to make it to your Lordships at the same time.

  PESTS BILL [H.L.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the destruction or control of rabbits and other animals and birds and to the use of spring traps for killing or taking animals. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  3.40 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
  Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas, and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Swinton.)
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, if I am in order I should like to ask a question about Business. May I ask the noble Viscount how this Motion leaves the question of Egypt? There was a Motion down by my noble friend Lord Rennell concerning the Suez Canal Zone, but I understand that he has now taken the Motion off the Order Paper. Does that mean that there will be no discussion on the Suez Canal Zone until after the Recess? Many of your Lordships are much interested in this question and, I think, had hoped that as this was a large question of policy—changing a policy of very long date—time would have been specially allotted for the discussion of that question. I suppose that it could be raised on the foreign affairs debate, but really what I wanted to know was whether Lord Rennell's Motion has been expunged until after the Recess.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I find myself in a little difficulty. The object of the Motion now before the House is to enable Government Business to have precedence over other Business, subject to any arrangement that may be made—that safeguards the particular Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has down and which will be taken first. Private Members' Motions on the Paper are not within the control of the Government. What I understand happened was that the Motion standing in Lord Rennell's name for Wednesday could not have been reached for a considerable time, because it would have
  1174
  been reached only after what will in any case be a long debate on an earlier Motion. The noble Lord has therefore taken off his Motion and postponed it to some future date. However, there will be a debate on foreign affairs, beginning on Thursday, on a Motion initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. That debate will go on all through Thursday's Sitting and will be continued on Friday. Of course, it is open to any noble Lord who wishes to refer to any subject relating to foreign affairs to raise that point during the two days' debate.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I do not want to open the discussion wider, but the point is that it has been stated in the Press that the Ambassador is going back to Cairo and will immediately start discussions. I think some noble Lords are apprehensive that, if there has not been a full debate, important decisions may be taken at Cairo before the House has had any opportunity of discussing them fully.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: There cannot be a more ample opportunity for noble Lords to discuss a matter relating to foreign affairs than in a two days' debate on foreign affairs. There will be ample opportunity for the noble Lord to make a speech in the foreign affairs debate on any subject upon which he wishes to speak. There will be a Government speaker, I think, on the first day, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has intimated that he would like to reply to the debate on the Friday.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, for the convenience of those Members of this House who have Starred Questions on the Order Paper, may I ask whether Government Business will come before those Starred Questions, or will the Starred Questions be taken first?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Starred Questions always come first on the days on which they are permitted. After the Starred Questions, we proceed to the Orders of the Day.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
  3.46 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in 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 6:
  Restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs
  6.—(1) Save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section nine of this Act, the importation of any of the following is hereby prohibited, that is to say—

  (a) any live or dead quail;

  (b) during the period in any year commencing with the first day of February and ending with the thirty-first day of August, any dead wild bird, being a bird included in Part II of the First Schedule or in the Third Schedule to this Act or a wild duck or wild goose, whether so included or not;

  (c) the eggs of any lapwing.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) extend the period referred to in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection with respect to, or prohibit entirely, save as may be authorised by such a licence as aforesaid, the importation of, all or any of the birds to which that paragraph applies;

  (b) prohibit, save as may be authorised by such a licence as aforesaid, the importation of all or any other dead wild birds, or of all or any other live birds, or of the eggs (including the blow eggs) of any other wild bird, for the whole or any specified part of the year.

  (3) Where by virtue of this section or any order made hereunder any live bird has been seized as liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act. 1952, the Seventh Schedule to that Act (which relates to proceedings for forfeiture) shall not apply, but, if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the bird has been imported in contravention of this section or of any order made there under, the bird shall be deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeited and no claim for compensation shall lie against the said Commissioners or any officer of customs and excise in respect thereof.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is a small Amendment. It has been brought to my attention that there have been attempts to introduce various different species of quail into this country, and into some of the other countries on the Continent. This Amendment would make it
  1176
  possible to introduce, say, the Californian quail in order to try to acclimatise it within these shores. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 14, leave out ("live or dead quail") and insert ("common quail, whether live or dead").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: To this Amendment as such I have no objection, but it does give me an opportunity now—and I am glad that the Lord Chancellor is here at the present time—to raise a question on this matter which I regard as one of very considerable importance. I am discussing the clause in the Bill, Clause 6 (1) (a), which refers to
  "any live or dead quail."
  I want to state how I view this Bill all the way through. In the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, who has played a prominent part in introducing this Bill, and who served on the Committee which did such admirable work in connection with it, made some remarks which I want to quote. I had already raised the point that I felt it a great pity that there was a good deal of quasi-consolidation in this Bill. That is obvious enough if you look at the Schedule, but, as I shall show presently, it is not complete. The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 6), col. 331]:
  "I do not know that we have it in writing, but certainly my recollection is that the Home Secretary at the time, Mr. Chuter Ede, asked us particularly to consolidate these Acts. Therefore, naturally, we took that line. I confess that it has been a great disappointment to us that the Government have not been able to adopt this Bill as a Government Bill. It was drafted as a Government Bill…"
  If that had been done in my time as Lord Chancellor—and I think it applies to-day as it did then—it would have come before the Legislation Committee, and if the Home Secretary had told me that he was trying in this way to consolidate the law, I should have raised the most violent objection.
  I raise the objection on two grounds. First of all, I believe that, as a general principle, we ought to confine ourselves to alteration and amendment of the existing law, without at the same time attempting consolidation. If you do that you make plain what it is sought to do, how you are seeking to amend the law. And thereafter, when you have amended

  1177
  the law, you can adopt the well-recognised consolidation procedure, which is now working very happily, under which the matter is prepared by the special branch of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office concerned with consolidation. The Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Speaker, has the power to suggest minor Amendments; then the matter goes before the Consolidation Committee, and you got consolidation in that way. It is true that that means taking two bite sat the cherry, but I venture to think that, as so often happens, this short cut of trying to get consolidation in this way, by this sort of Bill, is a great mistake and will lead to all sorts of confusion.
  May I give an illustration of what I have in mind? If anybody read this Bill and knew that it was intended in part to be a Consolidation Bill (and, if you look at the Sixth Schedule headed "Repeals" it is obvious that it sets out to be a kind of Consolidation Bill) he might say: "This is an adequate and complete statement of the law." I take as an illustration an earlier clause. Clause 1, which deals with the offence of trespass. It makes quite plain that a person who kills a magpie (I am not going all over this matter again) has to show that he is both an authorised person and that the bird is included in the particular Schedule. In the case of the killing of a snipe, however, because the snipe comes within the Third Schedule of the Act, no question arises as to trespass. Therefore, if a man is guided by this Bill and takes a gun on to his neighbour's land with the intention of shooting a snipe, he will think to himself, "I am committing no criminal offence. I may be guilty of trespass and I may be proceeded against for trespass, and damages may be recovered against me if I have caused damage." If he took that view he would in fact be wrong, because under Section 30 of the Game Act, 1831, it is a criminal offence to trespass upon land in search or pursuit of woodcock or snipe.
  What you have done in this Bill is to remove from Section 31 of the Game Act, 1831, the words "quails and land rails" but not the word "snipe." I venture to think that that is a perfect illustration of the mischief that arises from attempting to consolidate in this way. I am in sympathy with this Bill, but I beg the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to
  1178
  see, between now and the next stage, whether it would not be wiser to eliminate from it all that which he thinks is merely consolidation. Look at Clause 4 of this Bill: what is consolidation and what is not? What is new and what is the existing law? I have not the least idea. The result is that we cannot really apply our minds to the alteration of the law, because what is being stated may be the existing law. It is only fair that Parliament should examine these Bills and apply a more critical eye towards new proposals than towards a provision which merely restates what is already the law. Therefore, I venture to think that this is bad.
  This same topic came up on a very different matter a week ago—on the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill. There were several reasons why this course should be taken in that case, but on that occasion I ventured to give this particular illustration. My remarks will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 184 (No. 14), col. 930. The Lord Chancellor was good enough then to say this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184 (No. 14), col. 953):
  "Generally, I would agree with the noble and learned Earl that the convenient course is an Amending Bill; then, when it has become an Act and its consolidation is desired, to incorporate it in the body of law dealing with that subject."
  I am sure that is right. At the present moment what we have here—I have given only one illustration—is, I do not like to say a "half-baked" consolidation, but an incomplete consolidation, which is worse than no consolidation at all because it is misleading. I beg the noble Viscount to consider whether there is not some substance in this point, and whether it would not be wise to reconsider the Bill from this point of view. This little clause gives an illustration. It prohibits, save under licence, the importation of any live or dead quail. There is an Act of Parliament which, no doubt for good reasons, was passed in the year 1937, and which already makes it an offence to import live quail. There may be some reason why that Act extended only to live quail. Therefore, when you-say that there shall be no importation of either live or dead quail you are making an alteration in the law in respect of dead quail but not in respect of live quail. I think that is entirely the wrong

  1179
  way to do it. Therefore I object to that matter on a point of form. I am not going to press this Amendment at the present time. I am saying these things only so that they may be considered when the Bill comes before the House again. I shall not be here then, but I hope somebody will bear in mind that there may be some substance in what I am saying and, if so, will look at it from that point of view.
  The other thing I should like to say is this. I should think it is forty years since I ate a quail. They used to be available in London hotels. Whether they are so available to-day I do not know. I do not frequent hotels very much, and, as I say, I should think I have not see a quail for some forty years. Therefore it is a matter of no importance to me whatever whether I ever again eat a quail. But I think the noble Viscount who is propounding this Bill should make some case for what we are asked to do. There may be a perfectly good case. I do not know what it is because, up to the present, we have not heard it. I merely ask this question: why should we not be allowed to import dead quail? This is a Bill for the protection of birds. Is it some kind of sumptuary law? It may be so, and therefore it may be perfectly sound. But if quail are not imported into this country I presume quail would go in larger quantities to France. As the noble Viscount the acting Leader of the House knows very well, I happen to be concerned with the tourist trade, and unless there is some good reason I object to our putting ourselves in the position that quail may be imported into France but may not be imported into England. We have had no sort of explanation as to why we should make a change in the law, to make it a criminal offence to import dead quail. That is the substance of the matter, and unless there is some compelling reason which makes it necessary to bring in a law to make it a criminal offence to import dead quail, then I am against such a change. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will tell us what in substance is the reason for this change. And I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will consider favourably (all the more so because I shall not be here) the point
  1180
  that I have made about the undesirability of having consolidation mixed up with the ordinary amendment of the law.
  3.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Having had some experience of this class of subject, may I say that on the main proposition which the noble and learned Earl has advanced I am confident that he is right. I shall not discuss the matters at the length at which he has discussed them, but the proper practice is perfectly well established. If you want to amend the law, you pass in the first place an Act of Parliament which will effect the amendments, and that is often followed by an Act of Parliament which consolidates the whole law, including the amendments which have just been made. I speak merely from recollection, but I give two instances straight away. There was good reason for thinking that the Companies Act needed amendment. We passed an amending Companies Act and, when we had done it, almost immediately there was produced a Consolidation Act which included those amendments and which repealed the Act which we had just passed as being no longer needed, thus giving us the whole law in a single code. Another instance which is in my mind arises in connection with India. My recollection is that there was first an amending Act, in the time of Montagu, which altered the Indian Constitution, and then, the existing law having been altered, there was the Consolidation Act which took up everything then in the Statute Book and wrote it over again in a single document, in order that people might have in their hands one single document which gave them the whole law. I am sure that that is the common practice, and I think it my duty briefly—much more briefly than I might otherwise do—to say that I believe the noble and learned Earl is right. I shall not discuss quails; I do not know about them.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: When the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter on the last occasion when we were discussing this Bill, I said that I wanted to get the best of both worlds. I thought that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was going to help me to get the best of both worlds. I am afraid, however, that after his speech I did not feel that I had reason to believe that I should get the best of both worlds. I now come

  1181
  back, and I wish to put in a plea to support what has fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Earl, and to suggest that serious consideration should be given to the point which he has made—namely, that we should have an Amending Bill to the law as it is and then a Consolidation Bill. At the present time we have two Bills under consideration, the Food and Drugs Bill and this Protection of Birds Bill, and we are going to set either a good precedent or a bad precedent. I hope that the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill will be able to give most earnest consideration to the point which the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, put forward, which was reinforced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and which has my heartiest support.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I find myself in some difficulty, faced as I am with these two great lawyers. I am merely a layman who has studied carefully the history, the very tangled history, of this matter over the last 73 years; that is, since the year 1880. Men and women who have been interested in birds have been saying, "Let us cut out all this old wood legislation, and let us get the whole thing under one cover, so that the Home Office, bird lovers all over the country, wild fowlers and the two Houses of Parliament can understand where we are." Lord Ilchester's Committee and the Scottish Committee, which worked upon parallel lines with Lord Ilchester's Committee, both considered this question and they came to the view that one of the first things necessary was to get all the legislation into one Act of Parliament. I raised the issue in a Resolution in this House about a year ago, and, so far as I can remember, everyone received with acclamation the suggestion that we should get all the legislation into one Bill. Now we have put it into one Bill. This is not just a bright idea of a private Member like myself; it is the considered view not only of the Government but of the expert bodies that have been considering this question for the last five years.
  The noble and learned Earl takes a view, in which he is supported by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, but I still suggest to your Lordships that it is better to get all this legislation into one Bill. The noble and
  1182
  learned Earl is afraid that that is going to waste time and lead to considerable difficulty in getting a Bill of this kind through. I doubt that. The particular clauses that deal with the previous legislation, although they are not all consolidating clauses, by any manner of means, are not clauses that I believe are going to raise any particular controversy. I know that the noble and learned Earl has his view about quails, cage birds and lapwings. I may be very optimistic but I do not believe that the discussions, however they end, upon those three subjects are going to take long, and I believe that at the end of them the bird world generally will be very glad to have a single, comprehensive Bill. The noble and learned Earl made two criticisms. They seem to me, if I may say so, to be somewhat contradictory. He objected to consolidation, and he seemed also to object to this alteration in the law. Now let me come to the specific Amendment——
  EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Viscount comes to the specific Amendment and tells us what the case for it is, may I say that I am entirely in favour of having all the law in one Bill? That is manifestly right. The only question is how you get it there. I suggest that the right thing to do is first to bring in a Bill which amends the law where it needs amendment, and then to go to the Lord Chancellor and ask him whether he cannot give a very early place in the queue to a Bill consolidating the whole law. In that way you would get one Bill and get rid of all these matters. That, I suggest, is the way to do it. It is not that I do not want one Bill; it is simply that I think this is the wrong way to do it.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will certainly give the fullest possible consideration to anything which the noble and learned Earl says. As at present advised, I much prefer to accomplish what I gather is the common objective in one bite rather than two. I cannot see what harm is being done by doing it in one bite. Let me come to the noble and learned Earl's specific objection to a change in the law about quails. I take a special interest in quails. I was Home Secretary when I had the task of guiding through the Bill about quails which

  1183
  was passed in 1937. What was the state of affairs then? Quails were decreasing in numbers every year to a devastating extent. Everyone will agree that the quail is one of the most delightful of all birds. As I say, it was decreasing in numbers, and it looked as though it was going the way of the passenger pigeon which, after having been a very common bird, became extinct in our own lifetime. I went into the question thoroughly. and I discovered that one of the principal causes of the diminution in the numbers of quails was the fact that the Egyptians caught them in nets in the migrating season in order to send them to restaurants in London, and that in the year 1934, when I first inquired into this question, no fewer than 265,300 quails were sent to London restaurants. That was the great market. That was the incentive that made the Egyptians catch the quails. We had a series of international discussions, and eventually we persuaded the Egyptians to stop netting altogether in the migrating season. Parallel with that, we stopped the import of quails into London.
  EARL JOWITT: How was that done—by Act of Parliament?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: By an Act of Parliament for which I was responsible as Home Secretary in 1937.
  EARL JOWITT: That applies only to live quails.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not mind; I am talking about live quails now; I will talk about dead quails in a minute or two. The live quails imported were fattened here and then people ate them in London restaurants. By stopping the markets, we stopped the gradual destruction of quails in Egypt. Better than that, our example was followed by France; France has now prohibited the importation of live quail. Italy has been a backslider, but I have reason to believe that she is coming into line and is going to stop importation of live quail. There could not be a better example of action in this country for bird protection. We took the first action and other countries followed. That is what I want to see. That is the principle of the whole of this Bill.
  1184
  The noble Earl says that that is all very well: these are live quail; why bother about dead quail? I do not say that it is an important issue, but there is a possibility that, with all the new methods of deep freeze, dead quail may come in here. I understand that the French Government are going to stop the importation of dead quail, and I should like to stop it, too, and once again give a lead to other countries. I hope I have explained the position with reference to quail. It seems to me to be just the kind of example we need to show how important it is to have protection.
  EARL JOWITT: As the noble Viscount said, the matter is not of great importance: there I agree with him. If it be the fact that France is contemplating similar legislation. I think the noble Viscount has made out a case for it, but I think it was right that he should make out a case for it. May I say a word on the previous point? The noble Viscount asks what is the harm of doing it in one move, instead of two, as I want. I ask for two because we cannot be sure that we have made the law complete. I have given one illustration already, and I think I have found others, where the law is not complete. I think it is a most mischievous thing to have a Bill which purports to consolidate but which does not take in everything that has to be taken in. The usual method of consolidation is to have the law considered by highly expert people, and then by the Consolidation Committee, so that all the loose ends are picked up; but in this Bill all the loose ends have not been picked up.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): As the noble and learned Lord has appealed to me, I should like to say a word. He has cited what I said recently upon another Bill as to the general principle, and I adhere absolutely to what I said, which is in agreement with all that the noble and learned Earl said. I would add that it would be vain to suppose that we can get the consolidation of all the Bird Protection Acts for some time. There is a long queue of Acts awaiting consolidation. Of course, it is a question of priority, but I doubt whether we could get a Consolidation Bill for the protection of birds for some very long time. Therefore, if we want to amend the law, we must bring in an amending

  1185
  Bill by itself. Like most things in life, it is rather difficult to generalise without any exception, and when we find, as we do in the case of the law relating to the protection of birds, an almost incomprehensible tangle (because that is what I understand it to be), a mere amendment is extremely difficult. We do not quite know what we are amending, and there is a great deal of legislation by reference. So I would not put it as an absolute role that it is never right to have a Bill which at once amends and consolidates. I venture this warning: that I know of other branches of the law where, upon consideration, it is likely to appear that the most convenient course is to have a Bill which at once amends and consolidates, and upon which all interests have been consulted and have been able give their views. Therefore, I do not rule out as an impossibility, in this case, a Bill which at once amends and consolidates. I agree, however, that it is a difficult task requiring expert consideration. I think the noble and learned Earl will agree with what I have said.
  EARL JOWITT: I agree with every word that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. We cannot lay down an absolute principle, but there may be a danger here, because consolidation is not complete. We do not make a job of it. I have given one illustration of where we have not made a job of this. All I am asking is that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill should consider this matter and take advice about it, to see whether, in this case, as in so many others, the longer way round is not the shorter way home, and whether the most satisfactory way is to have the two steps I suggested.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: As the noble and learned Earl referred to the Home Office Advisory Committee over which I presided, I think I ought to explain how the whole thing came about. So far as I know, the answer I gave on Second Reading is absolutely correct. I was appointed Chairman of this Committee five or six years ago and (though I am afraid my memory is not so good as it was in those days) my recollection plainly is that we were asked to simplify and consolidate. I do not pretend to know the legal status of consolidation, nor I think would any of my colleagues
  1186
  on the Advisory Committee. Naturally, we were not appointed for that, but on the technical side. We were asked to produce a Bill, which naturally would be altered by the Parliamentary draftsmen. On one occasion when I was not in the House the noble Lord referred to a report. We were never asked for a report—that I can tell your Lordships quite plainly. We were asked to produce a Bill, because that seemed the easiest and quickest way of doing it. That is my recollection of how the whole thing arose. Naturally, knowing nothing about the law, my Committee left that side of the matter to the Home Office. There were representatives of the Home Office on the Committee, though I confess they changed very often. We were not pulled up and went gaily on, drafting a Bill which we produced and handed over to Mr. Chuter Ede as he was leaving the Government two years ago.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  4.20 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask again the second Question of Her Majesty's Government of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make on the Captain Griffiths court-martial?
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am now able to reply to the noble and learned Earl. I would tell your Lordships that I propose to read this document, which is also being read in another place by my right honourable friend The Secretary of State for War. I should also like to inform your Lordships that four copies of the court-martial proceedings will be placed in our Library. This is the statement which my right honourable friend is making:
  "I can assure the House that nobody deplores an incident of this kind more than I do, especially since the good name of the British Army is at stake. I would at the start remind the House that the Army has been carrying out difficult operations of this type both in Kenya and Malaya in a way which has won them universal credit among

  1187
  all races. Nevertheless, I take a very grave view of this incident, and of the fact that the proceedings suggest that there may have been other incidents.
  "I have been in close touch with General Erskine since the case of Captain Griffiths first arose. He has already taken special steps to ensure that such a thing will not occur again by issuing a special directive to every officer and obtaining written assurances from all commanders that there are no such things as score boards, monetary rewards or similar practices within units.
  "He is determined to probe this matter deeply, and in a signal to me he stated that he conceived it to be his duty to uncover everything and to force into court even the most unpleasant crimes. It should in every way be his aim to clean up rather than to cover up. I have fully confirmed General Erskine's interpretation of his duty. In addition, he himself recommended a court of inquiry and this, in the circumstances, I think is the correct step. I am therefore sending Lieutenant-General Sir Kenneth McLean and a representative of the Army Legal Services by air to Kenya on Saturday next; the third member of the court will be found locally. Their terms of reference will be:
  'To inquire into and report upon the allegations which were made at the trial of Captain Griffiths in regard to—

  (i) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau "kills";

  (ii) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and unofficial "kills" and other activities in operations against Mau Mau;

  (iii) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to "kills" in anti-Mau Mau operations.'

  General Erskine will forward the proceedings of the court of inquiry, together with his recommendations, to me, and as soon as I have examined them I will, if the House so wishes, make a further report."
  4.24 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is a most important matter, and I should like to ask a few supplementary questions. First, I would say that I entirely agree with the attitude which the right
  1188
  honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for War is taking. That the Army should feel this matter deeply is plain enough. I should like to suggest, however, that you first have to consider the position of Captain Griffiths. It is a small matter, but it must be borne in mind that at the present time there is the possibility of another charge and court-martial in respect of the other man, because I believe I am right in saying that he was tried only in respect of one of the two. That is hanging over his head. Further, I think I am right in saying that the fact that there has been a court-martial does not prevent a civil court in this country from trying, a man for murder: in other words, it is not autrefois acquit, as the lawyers say. I am inclined to think that it might be necessary for the Government to make up their mind one way or the other as to what is to be the position with regard to Captain Griffiths before they go on with this inquiry. I should like to know whether they have considered that point. No one would want anybody to be put into an embarrassing position while this inquiry goes on. After all, Captain Griffiths is a comparatively small side of this matter.
  With regard to the inquiry which is going to be held, is it to be in public, or in private? Being a military inquiry, I assume that it will be in private, but I do not know. If it is to be in private, is that really good enough? Public opinion in this country, and Army opinion in particular, is profoundly disturbed by this matter; and you have to consider public opinion. Is not this a case where some distinguished judge should go out to carry out the investigation? We do not want anybody to be able to say—I am sure it would not be true—that this is a hushed-up affair, the Army inquiring into the conduct of the Army. I suggest that the Government might consider whether this is not a case of such importance, one which has so disturbed public opinion, that the court should be constituted differently and that the proceedings of the court should be public. I should be glad to hear whether those matters can be answered at the present time.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am able to answer all those questions, I hope, to the satisfaction of the noble and

  1189
  learned Earl. First, with regard to Captain Griffiths. As the question of whether any further charge should be brought against him is at present under consideration by the legal experts, I am unable to say anything further on that subject. As regards the court of inquiry, that will be held in private. A military court of inquiry is always held in private. It is considered that it is much better to hold a military court of inquiry rather than a public civil one, for the following reasons. A public civil inquiry cannot be set up so quickly, and it would make it extremely difficult to follow up and prosecute in cases where such treatment is deserved. Any soldier giving evidence in open court has to be warned that he may subsequently be prosecuted as a result of his evidence. Civilian evidence, which, as in a military court of inquiry, normally cannot be compelled, is less likely to be freely available. I hope that what I have said satisfies the noble and learned Earl.
  4.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, before I deal with the matter of the court of inquiry, there is one question I should like to ask. Why, in the matters to be considered by the court of inquiry, is there no mention of what is called "mercy killing"? In the proceedings as reported in The Times there were one or two cases mentioned where officers had wounded prisoners shot in order to put them out of their pain. That is not one of the matters which it would appear will be referred to the court. My second point is this. I would remind the noble Earl that this question of the type of inquiry was considered at some length by the Select Committee on the Army and Air Forces (Annual) Act which reported recently. On page 408 of their proceedings, they say:
  "We feel that in the rare cases of great public interest and importance, such as have arisen from time to time in the past, where a public inquiry is recognised by the Government to be desirable, an ordinary court of military officers, even if assisted by a legal adviser, will not be thought sufficient to satisfy Parliament and the public, and it will usually be necessary to appoint a High Court Judge or eminent Q.C. as president, with other legal members or civilians of standing and wide experience as members."
  That is the considered view of the departmental committee, made in a report to this Committee on the Army and Air
  1190
  Force (Annual) Act. They quoted precedents for this, the most notable of which we all remember; that is to say, the committee of inquiry into the detention barracks case in 1943. That was an inquiry ordered by the Prime Minister into allegations of brutality and Gestapo methods; at the detention barracks. The members of the committee were Mr. Justice Oliver, the Bishop of Reading and Dr. H. E. A. Boldero. I therefore ask the Minister of Defence, if he is going to reply, or the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, whether these matters have been considered. As regards witnesses incriminating themselves, I presume that that is an ordinary matter in court. What the public requires is a clear assurance from Army sources, either that these things did not occur, or that they will not occur again
  THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, perhaps I might intervene at this stage. Speaking as a military man, I may say that the very unpleasant case with which we are faced concerns the good name of Her Majesty's Forces, and it also concerns officers under military discipline. The object of a military court of inquiry is to inquire into those matters, and I am of the opinion that it is a duty for a military court of inquiry to carry out. I know that the Army are anxious to dig right into this matter, down to its very roots, and to get at the whole truth. I do not believe that any court—and this court is being convened by a first-class General who is determined, as I say, to get to the truth of the whole matter—could do better than this military court of inquiry which Her Majesty's Government propose to set up.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble and gallant Earl overlooked the question about what are called "mercy killings."
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the noble and gallant Earl say what is the position of Captain Griffiths to-day? Is he a free man, or is he under some form of military arrest in view of the fact that other charges are pending?
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I regret that I cannot answer that question off-hand, but I feel quite certain that he is under arrest, because there may be other proceedings.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I would point out that it is only fair to Captain Griffiths and fair to everybody that his case should be dealt with before this inquiry, because otherwise I believe it will be embarrassing. I do not doubt for a moment that the Army, of all people, want to get to the bottom of this matter. I accept that, and I accepted it in my original question, because it must be a terrible blow to them. The noble and gallant Earl must think, however, of the effect on public opinion here. Not only must justice be done; must be seen to be done. For that reason, I venture to suggest that he might well consider the desirability of having some distinguished judge, or somebody of that nature, go out with the Lieutenant-General.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this matter has, of course, been carefully considered. With regard to the first point, about not prejudicing the position of Captain Griffiths, I would say that although one wants this inquiry to take place as rapidly as possible, it would obviously be the duty of the court of inquiry to decide whether they should open this inquiry or deal with any particular point in it before the question of any future proceedings against Captain Griffiths had been settled. That was very much in the minds of those who had to decide this matter, and I can assure the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that that position will not be prejudiced. I am informed that Captain Griffiths is not actually under arrest at the present moment. With regard to the constitution of the court, we have had only one matter in all our minds, and that is, to make the most effective inquiry possible. For the reasons which have been given, the authorities concerned—and I do not mean merely the Army authorities—came to the conclusion that the most effective and most thorough way was to conduct the court of inquiry in this manner. The noble and learned Earl will observe that this is not a case of the local command setting up a local court. A very distinguished Lieutenant-General will be in charge of the inquiry. He will be
  1192
  assisted on the legal side by a military officer who is also a highly trained legal adviser. In all the circumstances, the noble and learned Earl will probably agree that that is the most effective way in which it can be done.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not doubt for a moment the intention of this distinguished soldier to get to the bottom of this matter. But this court is going to be in private, and my experience over a long time is that if you want to allay public concern, the right way to do it is to turn on the full searchlight of publicity and take it absolutely in public.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I have an answer to my question as to whether it is categorically forbidden—as was stated in this evidence—to shoot wounded prisoners?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps the noble Viscount would allow the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War to consider the terms of reference. Those terms are not absolutely final and watertight, and if it should be considered suitable to include another item in the terms of reference of this court of inquiry, that would not be excluded. That point can be taken into consideration.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I hope the noble Viscount will not think that I am pressing this matter too much, but he will remember that this point was made and the case largely depended upon the shooting of two wounded men. The Judge-Advocate of the court expressed the view that what was called "mercy killing" was illegal. I thought that was a satisfactory statement, but I have tried time and time again and I cannot get that statement confirmed by Ministers.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am advised, so far as the legal question is concerned, that there is no doubt at all as to the law regarding "mercy killing." It is not allowed.
  EARL JOWITT: And anybody who does it is guilty of murder. There is no doubt about it.

  PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
  4.36 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved in subsection (1) of Clause 6, to omit paragraph (c). The noble and learned Earl said: I am sorry to come back to this subject. This is a matter about which I have always felt rather strongly, and I wish to raise it again. I believe that this is an extension of a very bad principle, and I believe that although we all desire to increase the numbers of plovers in this country, this is going to have exactly the opposite effect. My interest in this matter dated from the time the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, introduced his Bill. He was an old friend of mine and was good enough to talk to me about this matter. I told him that I thought the effect of his Bill, making it illegal to sell plovers' eggs, would be harmful unless he confined it to a particular date. I am all in favour of taking the early plovers' eggs, and I am all against taking the later ones. The noble Viscount laughed at me, and said that it was because I liked eating them. I assured him that it was not. I was as determined as anybody to try to increase the number of plovers, for the plover is a most beneficial bird, from every point of view.
  When the Act was passed, I made up my mind, to see what would happen, that I would no longer collect any plovers' eggs—afterwards, it became illegal to do so. In those days, I had a farm down in Romney Marsh, and up to 1928 I used regularly to have as many as forty plovers' nests on the farm. I had always collected the first clutch, so that I might get the birds to lay again and have the second clutch when the corn was coming up and when the birds had some protection. I stopped doing it. I told Lord Buckmaster that I had stopped, and I told him what would happen. This is what did happen If you go down to that same farm to-day you will be lucky if you find four plovers' nests where there used to be forty. The reason, as I told Lord Buckmaster at the time, on a priori grounds was easy enough to work out. If you bring young plovers into the world at a time when they have no protection from their natural enemies—be it hawks, or, particularly, I believe,
  1194
  rats—they will "come to a sticky end" sooner or later. If they come to that end as young birds, then the parent birds will probably be broken-hearted, and will not lay another clutch.
  In the debate on his Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, mentioned that argument which I had given him—and I have no doubt that others had, too—and described it as a sort of variant of "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best." He said, "The plover knows best when to lay its eggs, and we make a great mistake if we interfere with nature." But we are interfering with nature all day long, and I think that that is really not an adequate argument. Lord Desborough answered for the Government in 1928, and he knew a great deal about plovers and their habits. He said what I am saying now and what I am afraid the noble Viscount will find: that if you encourage the birds to hatch the early eggs there is a bad effect. I am not alone in this point of view. Since this matter was last discussed, I have received a large number of letters of support; there is obviously a large body of opinion taking this point of view. Lord Desborough said on that earlier occasion that there had been two Committees considering this matter and that those Committees were completely divided. We therefore have no need to prophesy; we can look at what has actually happened, so far as this country is concerned.
  I cannot speak for the whole country—can speak only of the particular place I know—but I think it is true to say that there had been a tendency for the numbers to decrease before the passing of the Buckmaster Act, because the more a place becomes built up the less suitable a habitat it becomes for the plover. But if the numbers were decreasing, they were not decreasing so quickly as they did after the passage of that. Act of 1928—and I believe the increase is still going on. I believe that there has been no corresponding decrease in Holland. I have heard it said that in some counties to-day there is an improvement, but of that I am not sure. Anyway, no man can speak for the whole country. So far as I am aware, in my district, which I know well, I think it is right to say that the 1928 Act has had a thoroughly bad effect. I should like to see it

  1195
  repealed and see it made a criminal offence to take plovers' eggs after a certain date. But it is all to the good that the early eggs should be picked up. I do not myself care about eating plovers' eggs, but I do want to see the plovers increase. I believe that we are wrong; for we have let our sentiment betray our intellect.
  We have here a new proposal to make it a criminal offence to import plovers' eggs. Hitherto it has not been so. Why is this? Plovers' eggs come from Holland. It might be said, "Well, if the Dutch prohibit export let us prohibit the import: that is part of the comity of nations, to make effective what the Dutch passed." So far as I understand, the Dutch never have prohibited the export of plovers' eggs. I know that the bird people in Holland who are enthusiasts have tried to get them to do so, but I think I am right in saying that the Dutch Government have steadily refused to do so. I cannot see why we should make it a criminal offence to import plovers' eggs into this country from abroad when the Dutch do not at present prohibit the export. The plovers' eggs will remain in Holland; those admirable people can sell them—but there will be less demand. If this were some sumptuary law I could understand it; but I think it is a mistake to do this thing. I should not mind if the Home Secretary were given the powers to prohibit; he could look at the whole matter and consider it. I should not mind if the Home Secretary were given a power to prohibit if the Dutch prohibited the export. But here there is no question of a power; the Bill says that except with a special licence the import of plovers' eggs is to be prohibited. I do not see any sense at all in that. It was a great mistake that we had our law as it was. I do not see why we should say that anybody who imports plovers' eggs from Holland is committing a criminal offence.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 21, leave out ("(c) the eggs of any lapwing").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  4.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I start the few words which I am going to say by remarking that I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Earl,
  1196
  Lord Jowitt, has said about the question of date. I have always been against the 1928 Act. I do not think it is a good Act; though whether it has done all the damage which the noble Earl thinks it has is, in my view, very doubtful. But the first clutch is very often ploughed in, and with what the noble and learned Earl has said concerning that aspect of the subject I am in entire agreement. But we were not asked to alter this Act; we were trying to get something through simply and quickly. I should like to explain to the noble and learned Earl why we have put in this particular clause. The point is that we want to defeat the black market. If eggs are to be brought in any quantity from abroad, there will be a great many sales "under the counter," into which will certainly come birds' eggs. Our plovers' eggs will certainly come, and the black market will arise. Is it not safer and better—I know the noble and learned Earl is anxious to help the bird—to stop the eggs from coming in at all? Then there would be a clear way of dealing with the matter. Things would be very much as they are now: you could perhaps give a few eggs to friends from your own property, but there would be no black market. But if you get a lot of eggs from abroad the black market will certainly start.
  EARL JOWITT: Is there a black market to-day? It is a criminal offence to sell an egg. I have never heard of anybody breaking the law in that respect.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: It is exactly the same position as applies to rare birds, which we are trying to stop people taking; there is the danger of a black market. People will not be allowed, under Clause 5, to sell these eggs to collectors. We want to stop that, and it is for the same reason that we want to stop this.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is perfectly correct, if I may say so, in saying that Lord Buckmaster's measure has done far more harm than good. It would be easy for both parties to come together and agree upon the noble and learned Earl's very sensible suggestion, which is supported by everyone who knows the situation—namely, that eggs should be permitted to be taken and exposed for sale up to a certain date, say, April 15.

  1197
  Dutch eggs could come in to that date and birds could be legally exposed for sale. But if you have birds hatching out very early they lose many of their eggs through frost and vermin. If you can delay the hatching of young peewits until there is enough grass to conceal thorn and enough insect life to support them you can do a good deal in restoring the situation. In my own part of the world they have certainly recovered a little, though they are only a fraction of what they were in my boyhood. In motoring South this year, I was pleased to see considerable aggregations of peewits in the North of England some miles apart. The suggestion that the noble and learned Earl has made, that there should be a limited period during which eggs could be taken, is one which both the noble Viscount and the Government should adopt.
  LORD GIFFORD: There seems to be strong opinion about this matter, and in view of the great weight we should give to the knowledge of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, I would ask the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to think again about this matter.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I support the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. Would the noble Viscount, in view of what has been said, consider this again before the Report stage and not come down definitely on the side of the Bill to-day?
  4.51 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB: May I for a moment make one or two observations which go in rather a contrary direction to that taken by previous speakers. Whatever the powers of argument that may be used, it is difficult to convince a naturalist that in the course of evolution the plover has not discovered what is the optimum time for its nesting. It may be true that human interference has grown in such ways as to diminish the value of that discovery of nature. That, of course, is obvious enough, but there are a large number of birds which do nest at what they think is the right and favourable time and which do not suffer interference by ploughs, harrows or vermin to which they have always been subject. I feel bound to make the point that it is difficult for any naturalist not to agree with the plover on this particular matter. As regards the effect on other countries, the Dutch conservationists, of
  1198
  course, look at it from the other angle. They say: "So long as you provide a market, it is difficult for us to control or restrict the taking of plovers' eggs by our people in ways which we think are detrimental to their numbers. An immense destruction of eggs has undoubtedly gone on, partly because they have had a profitable and easy market." I think that argument is at least double-edged. The real strength of it lies with the people who say: "It is unreasonable to expect us to prohibit the export of something which you hold yourselves out as ready to import. If you do it the other way, we shall be constructive in our efforts to maintain the numbers of the plover." I ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill to consider those two points as perhaps counterpoints to what has been said.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is very ingenuous in imagining that all wild life has been able to adapt itself to the vagaries of our climate. Every year, upon a large number of the ponds and streams of this country, from the end of February to mid-March, there appear tens of thousands of young mallard which, unfortunately, promptly die of cold.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am fully aware that this is a question upon which people who are well instructed differ. I myself do not agree with the view of the noble and learned Earl, or with the view of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I do not believe that the Lapwings Act has had any had effect upon the number of lapwings. I have studied the case rather carefully—and what do I find? I find that the number of lapwings in Europe has been steadily decreasing since about the year 1840. It certainly looks as if the decrease has nothing to do with the date at which the eggs are taken or not taken; it has to do almost entirely with the changes upon the Continent and in this country, particularly the enclosure of open spaces. Therefore, I do not believe that the 1928 Act has had bad effects. On the other hand, I see the Dutch trying to give lapwings greater protection. The movement amongst the Dutch who are interested in birds is all in favour of the complete prohibition of the taking of lapwings' eggs. I have here a communication—I will not read it to the House—in which the Dutch ornithological

  1199
  societies show themselves most anxious that we should make this prohibition. They say that the English outlet is the only outlet that is still left for Dutch eggs. The noble Earl says that there is no black market here now. That may be technically correct but in actual practice (here again I have been given a number of illustrations) quite a large number of lapwings' eggs are sent over here from Holland to clubs, and because they go to clubs they do not come within the mischief of the 1928 Act. The noble and learned Earl, being a lawyer, will know the reason. For those reasons, I think there is more to be said for the provision in the Bill than there is to be said against it. At the same time, as I said the other day when we last discussed it, my anxiety is to make this a completely non-partisan Bill. That being so, in view of the observations that have been made by the noble Earl and by two other noble Lords, I am perfectly ready to look at the matter again between now and the Report stage. As I say, however, as at present advised I feel that there is considerable advantage in retaining the wording of the Bill as it now is.
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I do not want to press the Amendment now. This will come up at the Report stage, of course, and I very much hope (I shall not be here) that somebody will move an Amendment to this Bill on the lines of repealing—after all, we are repealing a number of Acts—Lord Buckmaster's Act and making it possible for plovers' eggs to be taken up to a certain date, but making it a criminal offence to take plovers' eggs in this country thereafter. Perhaps the date could be April 7, or some such date. I think it is the line on which we ought to do it. I very much hope that somebody will put forward this point of view, in my absence, because I believe, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that the argument he is advancing is an impossible one. It is an argument which the naturalists in Holland have. It is an argument which naturalists all over the world have. I venture to think that their enthusiasm has led them astray. It is a fact that the naturalists in Holland have for years been pressing the Dutch Government to prohibit the sale or collection of
  1200
  plovers' eggs. The Dutch Government have steadily refused to give way to it, and in Holland there is no sign of any diminution in the number of plovers. We should compare Holland with this country. If those facts are right, in one case the eggs are collected; and in the other they are not. In the country in which the eggs are collected the plovers are maintained in number. In the country in which the eggs are not collected the numbers are going down. I withdraw this Amendment now, but I hope that somebody in this House will take up this matter and deal with it at the next stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Protection of captive birds
  7.—(1) If any person keeps or confines any bird whatsoever in any cage or other receptacle which is not sufficient in height, length and breadth to permit the bird to stretch its wings freely, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:
  5.0 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
  "(1) If any person, save in accordance with a licence which may be issued by the Secretary of State or by the council of any administrative area, keeps or confines any bird belonging to a species which normally nests in Great Britain in a wild state in any cage or other receptacle, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:
  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to poultry."
  The noble and learned Earl said: I want to move this Amendment quite briefly. I say at once that I am not going to insist upon it or try to press it to a Division; but it is convenient, I think, to have a little discussion on it. I very much dislike the idea of keeping British birds in a cage. I think they ought to be free, and, if I could, I should like to let them all free. I realise, however, that other people take a different view, and I must not be concerned to deprive others of what is a pleasure to them. I should like to think that they were not captured wild birds. It does not matter so much if they are bred in captivity. The noble Viscount may be able to think of some Amendment which is more suitable and less crude than this one and which would

  1201
  bring about that result. I think it is dreadful that a chaffinch, or what you will, which has enjoyed freedom, should be captured and kept in a cage—I hate the idea. I move the Amendment only formally; I have no idea of pressing it at all. I shall withdraw it. But I should like to hear what the noble Viscount says, to see whether he goes any part of the way with me and whether there is something that might be done. What I really want to do is to prevent birds which are in a natural state in this country, and which have enjoyed liberty, from being kept for the rest of their lives in a cage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD LLOYD: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a word on this particular point. With the general proposition which the noble and learned Earl has advanced, I think few would quarrel. I do not think any of us likes the idea, certainly of wild birds being encaged. But, as the noble and learned Earl is aware, practically all the caged birds in this country are, in point of fact, close-ringed specimens which are bred in aviaries, and, as he has said, they do give a great deal of pleasure to a great many people who are bird lovers. Therefore, on this ground alone, his Amendment is not one that the Government welcome. I do not think it would be proper to approve something which is going to deny what I consider is a fairly innocent pleasure to a great many people. If the noble and learned Earl will look at Clause 5 of the Bill, he will see that no person may sell, or offer for sale, or have in his possession for sale, any live wild bird other than a close-ringed specimen, which is, of course, a bird bred in captivity. So I suggest that the opportunities that people will have for obtaining wild birds in cages are considerably restricted.
  There is one other point on this particular Amendment which my noble friend Lord Carrington has asked me to make on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. The noble and learned Earl said that he did not stand by the form of his Amendment; but, of course, in any Amendment that he wished to make he would have to consider the agricultural
  1202
  side. There is no doubt that this particular Amendment would prevent the use of caged jackdaws as decoys in catching other jackdaws. Those of us who live on the land are aware that that is the only possible way to catch a jackdaw. Therefore, on this ground alone we could not accept this particular Amendment. That is all I wish to say about it. I hope that my noble friend will not accept the Amendment in its present form because I do not think it would improve the Bill.
  EARL JOWITT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is purely a drafting Amendment. Its only effect is to make the adjective "domestic" cover ducks and geese as well as fowls. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 7, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Power to vary Schedules by order]:
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment is the same as that to which we agreed the other day—namely, an Amendment enabling the area covered by an order to be smaller than a county area. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 28, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Power to grant licences
  9.—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the appropriate advisory committee, grant a licence to any person, authorising that person, notwithstanding any thing in, or in any order made under, the foregoing provisions of this Act and notwithstanding anything in section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or section seven of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912 (which relate to the placing on land of poisonous matter), but subject to compliance with any conditions specified in the licence—
  5.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "authorising" and to insert:
  "(1) A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate authority specified in the next following subsection."
  The noble Viscount said: I must apologise to the Committee for the next two Amendments which look very complicated, but I think I can say they are quite uncontroversial. They are really nothing more than the redrafting of Clause 9 in view of certain representations that have been made to us since the first draft was printed. Those representations came from rather unexpected quarters. For instance, I found for the first time that the Office of Works had an interest in this Bill, and I rubbed my eyes and wondered what it was. When they explained the position to me I thought they had a strong case for what they wanted. They said, "We are responsible for the public parks; we are, for instance, responsible for the ducks in St. James's Park, and it is essential, if, say, we get too many mallard drakes coming into the reserve at breeding time, or if we get some other bird that is becoming a great nuisance, that we should have the power to eliminate the excessive number of drakes or the particular bird, in the interests of the other birds." Accordingly, I am proposing a proviso which makes that possible.
  Secondly, we have redrafted, to some extent, the provision about the authority to poison nuisance birds. Noble Lords will remember that I expressed the view that the licences ought to be granted not by the Secretary of State (that was much too cumbrous a procedure) but by the local agricultural committee acting on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, and dealing, presumably, through the local pest committees. That is the second piece of redrafting we propose in this clause. The third is to meet the views of the Nature Conservancy who, as we know, are responsible for a number of sanctuaries, and we hope that they will be responsible for a great many more in future. They say, "Being a Government Department, we ought to be able ourselves to issue the licences for dealing with nuisance birds." This seems to me to be a reasonable request, and it is to meet those three demands that I have
  1204
  proposed this redrafting of Clause 9. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 40, leave out from the beginning to end of line 41, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I formally move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 20 and insert—
  ("(c) for the purposes of the protection of, or of transfers between, collections of birds maintained at places to which the public has access, to kill or take at the site of any such collection specified in the licence by any means so specified wild birds of any description so specified;
  (d) for the purposes of killing or taking such wild birds included in the Second Schedule to this Act as may be specified in the licence, to use poisoned or stupefying bait of any description so specified.
  (2) The appropriate authority for the grant of a licence under the foregoing subsection shall be—

  (a) in the case of a licence under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection, the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate advisory committee;

  (b) in the case of a licence under the said paragraph (a) which is required for the purposes of scientific or educational work carried out by, or on behalf of, or with the aid of grants from, the Nature Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy;

  (c) in the case of a licence under paragraph (c) of that subsection, the Secretary of State;

  (d) in the case of a licence under paragraph (d) of that subsection, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State.

  (3) A licence granted under this section may be revoked at any time by the authority by whom it was granted;").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The next Amendment is simply a drafting Amendment which raises no new point at all. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 21, leave out ("that") and insert ("which").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: There is nothing new at all in this Amendment. It merely makes more explicit the position under various Agricultural Acts with reference to nuisances. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
  ("(4) The powers conferred by this section on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State to grant and revoke licences under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) thereof shall for the purposes of section seventy-two of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or, as the case may be, section sixty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948 (which relate to the delegation of functions to Agricultural Executive Committees) be deemed to be functions relating to agriculture.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment is moved to make clear the position as regards Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is responsible for the greater part of the regulations dealing with birds, and this provision deals merely with the question of importing, which is a United Kingdom responsibility and not a Northern Ireland responsibility. The Amendment puts the constitutional position as it should be. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 26, after ("Ireland") insert ("with respect to importation").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment follows the one which I have just moved with reference to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 27, leave out ("references in subsections (1) and") and insert ("reference in paragraph (a) of subsection").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 28, leave out ("references") and insert ("a reference").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:
  Advisory Committees on Birds
  10.—(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee on the Protection of
  1206
  Birds for England and Wales and art Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds for Scotland, consisting in each case of such members as the Secretary of State may from time to time appoint.
  5.16 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (1):
  "after consultation with the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations and such other representative organisations as the Secretary of State may recognise for the purpose."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. I appreciate that the reply to this Amendment will come from Her Majesty's Government rather than from the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. We are all aware that this Bill makes a considerable reduction in some of the powers of county councils and county borough councils, and probably it is true that a better case can be made for that reduction of powers than can be made with regard to other powers which local authorities have lost in the last decade or so. Nevertheless, local authorities are naturally very jealous of the powers which have been conferred upon them by Parliament, and they naturally examine with care any diminution in their powers. The Amendment which I am mowing has many precedents in previous Acts of Parliament, with which I will not trouble your Lordships now, for I assume that those precedents will be accepted. I think, too, that as county borough councils and county councils will be given certain powers in the next clause to take action concerning any infringements of the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, it is only right that representative associations like the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations should be consulted in regard to the membership of the Advisory Committees. I can quite understand that it would be necessary and desirable to keep the membership of those Advisory Committees within reasonable limits. Their meetings should not be, so to speak, mass meetings. Obviously, also, local authorities, as such, cannot be consulted. But their representative associations would be the most appropriate bodies to be consulted, seeing that these powers are being taken away from them, and that they have

  1207
  further powers conferred upon them by the next clause of this Bill. With those few words I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I just inform Lord Burden that the County Councils Association was represented on our Advisory Committee. We have had representation of that body on the Committee since the beginning.
  5.19 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: As the noble Lord says, although this is my noble friend Lord Templewood's Bill, this particular matter is one which affects Her Majesty's Government, and naturally he would expect me to say a few words about it. His Amendment gives me the opportunity of making a statement on this whole question of Advisory Committees similar to one which was made by my right honourable friend the Joint Under-Secretary in another place on the Second Reading of a similar Bill which is now proceeding there. Before I deal with his specific point, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make this statement.
  The House will see that the Bill gives the Secretary of State very extensive powers. This is absolutely necessary in order to achieve the degree of flexibility necessary to allow for changes that may take place in the bird population and for desirable local variations. It is important, however, that these powers should be exercised only on the basis of the best available advice. The Bill therefore provides for the appointment of Advisory Committees whom the Secretary of State must consult before making an order. Since the existing Advisory Committees were reconstituted after the war—incidentally they were first set up more than thirty years ago—there has been a new development of great importance in this field. The Nature Conservancy has been established. As the House knows, this is a national body under the ægis of the Lord President of the Council, with wide powers and duties under the National Parks Act, and having the duty laid on it by its Charter to provide scientific advice on the conservation and control of natural flora and fauna of Great Britain.
  1208
  Obviously, this important body must in future be brought prominently into the arrangements for providing advice about the protection of birds. Its position, indeed, is unique, and quite distinct from that of the numerous unofficial bodies which are interested in these matters from one point of view or another. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland take the view that it is vitally important that there should be consultation between the Ministers concerned in this matter; and they, for their part, will, and they think that their successors in office should, consult with the Lord President of the Council, as the Minister responsible for the Nature Conservancy, and agree with him on the membership of the Advisory Committees.
  In the field of bird protection, however, the scientific point of view is not the only point of view to be considered. Indeed, a great deal in this Bill is based on a careful balancing of the scientific point of view against the legitimate interests of agriculture and of sports. Accordingly, it is also the intention of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Advisory Committees should include adequate representation of other interests—in particular, of agriculture, of those interested in wild birds from the sporting point of view and, in addition, of the local authorities. It is in the Secretary of State's own interest that all the people mainly affected should have an effective opportunity of putting forward their point of view, and the Advisory Committees will be constituted with that consideration prominently in mind. In this way, we shall be able to ensure that on the scientific side the best and most representative advice is available. In particular, the Conservancy will be invited to appoint appropriate representation on the committees.
  It is also important that the matters to be considered by the Committees should be properly prepared and that the Committees should have at their disposal the services of scientific staff. The Nature Conservancy will therefore be invited to appoint joint secretaries of the Committees. This will provide a link with their scientific staff. Further, it is, of course, always open for one Government body which does not agree with another to take the matter to Ministers, and, accordingly, neither Secretary of State would act on the advice of his Advisory

  1209
  Committee without giving an opportunity to the Lord President of making representations in a contrary sense if the Conservancy disagreed with the advice.
  I have taken this opportunity of making this statement because I think it will be valuable to your Lordships to hear the Government's considered view on this clause before I deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of it, but we have been in correspondence with both the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations about the membership of the Advisory Committees. We have given both these bodies an assurance that they will be consulted, and they have told us that in the circumstances they would not mind if this Amendment were not pressed. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that they will be represented on the Committees. The noble Lord said that he did not want them to be a public meeting, and I hope we all agree about the importance of keeping each Committee small. I am not prepared to guarantee that both these bodies will be represented separately; they may have one joint representative.
  Dealing now with the merits of the Amendment, the difficulty which I think the noble Lord will see, is that if we want to give to any one body a statutory right to be consulted or represented, there are many other bodies of varying status and competence all interested in wild birds, which from one point of view or another may equally claim a similar right. From the practical point of view, that would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to balance one against the other and to get a really representative Committee. I hope that, with that assurance, and in the light of the statement I have made, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. If he does, I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will not be prepared to accept it.
  LORD BURDEN:I am grateful to the noble Lord for his statement. My Amendment asks for consultation only, and not for direct representation. I am glad to hear that it is proposed that a representative, or representatives, from one or other of these bodies, or from both jointly, will be on these Committees. While I appreciate the great interest which the County Councils Association has in this matter, the Association of Municipal Corporations
  1210
  also has a very wide interest, and if there can be some understanding between the two bodies, that would be a good thing. If not, I would ask for both cases to be considered on their merits. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Enforcement, penalties, etc.]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: One of the most satisfactory points about Clause, 11 is that for the first time adequate penalties are provided for offences against the provisions of the Bill. When I first saw the Bill I was inclined to wonder whether the penalties were not too severe, but upon consideration I came to the conclusion that they were well merited. After all, they are maximum penalties, and I think we can rely on the good sense of our magistrates throughout the country not to impose such maximum penalties unless they are deserved. Even if imprisonment can be given for a first offence against some of the specially protected birds, that in itself is a good thing—it will be a considerable deterrent to the person of substantial means who would not be influenced even by a large fine. On consideration, I think that the penalties are amply justified.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  Orders, notices, etc.
  (2) Before making any order under this Act, the Secretary of State—
  (a) shall consult the appropriate advisory committee;
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "committee" to insert:
  "and shall specify in the order the advice received;"
  The noble and learned Earl said: I hope I shall get an assurance about the point raised by this Amendment. I realise it cannot be put in the form of an Amendment. I was glad to bear what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about the nature of the Home Office Committees which the Home Office have in mind. We wart to get people who know a great deal about the subject and at the same time

  1211
  avoid the cranks—not always an easy thing to do. What the noble Lord said about the Committees was very consoling to me, but I want to make sure that when the Home Secretary has a useful committee in prospect he will really consult them. I have known cases in the past where consultation has been of the most cursory nature; the Minister made up his mind and was not in the least influenced by what his advisory committee told him. I am sure the noble Lord will be able to tell me that it is the intention of the Minister to take every step to see consultation is real and effective. He may be able to go even further, and tell what the results of the advice were. I put down the Amendment merely to give the noble Lord an opportunity, if he so willed, of making some statement on the matter. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 3, after ("committee") insert ("and shall specify in the order the advice received;").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD LLOYD: I am very willing to give the noble and learned Earl the assurance for which he asks. As he knows so much about the duties of Ministers, out of long experience, I am sure the noble and learned Earl will realise the difficulty of accepting this Amendment; indeed, he did not suggest that we should accept it. Any Minister charged with responsibility under this Bill must inevitably seek advice in this matter unless he himself is a great expert. Obviously I cannot bind future Ministers, but so far as my right honourable friend is concerned I can assure the noble and learned Earl that he has every intention of making the fullest use of these committees and he will take no steps without consulting them.
  EARL JOWITT: That is a very satisfactory assurance. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Interpretation
  "authorised person" means—
  (c) any person authorised in writing by any of the following bodies, that is to say, a river board constituted under the River Board's Act, 1948, a drainage board consti
  1212
  tuted or deemed to have been constituted under the Land Drainage Act,1930, a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888. the Conservators of the River Thames, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, the Commissioners appointed under the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, and the district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862,
  so however that the authorisation of any person for the purposes of this definition shall not confer any right of entry upon any land;
  5.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The object of this Amendment is that, assuming there are authorised persons—and the Committee will remember that that was a question I said I would look into again—the Nature Conservancy should be included as one of the bodies that may give authority. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 43, after ("say") insert ("the Nature Conservancy").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment omits the last line and a little of the last line but one on page 10. The Ministry of Agriculture have informed me that drainage boards really have no locus standi in this provision at all. Therefore, this Amendment cuts out the drainage boards. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 44, leave out from ("1948") to ("a") in page 11, line 1.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
  First Schedule:
  WILD BIRDS SPECIALLY PROTECTED

  PART I
  BIRDS SPECIALLY PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES

  PART II
  BIRDS SPECIALLY PROTECTED DURING THE CLOSE SEASON

  Godwit, black-tailed

  Greenshank

  Ruff and reeve

  Whimbrel

  Wild duck of the following species—

  Common scoter

  Goldeneye

  Scaup-duck

  Velvet scoter

  Wild geese of the following species—

  Grey lag goose

  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD:The object of this Amendment is really drafting. It is that "eggs protected by special penalties" seems to be a better phrase than "specially protected." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 3, leave out ("specially protected") and insert ("and their eggs protected by special penalties").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 5, leave out ("birds specially") and insert ("fully").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD HURCOMB LORD HURCOMB moved to include, in Part I of the First Schedule, "Brent goose." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and to put briefly before your Lordships the facts on which I propose this addition to the list of birds to be afforded special protection all the year round. As many of your Lordships know, there are, so faras this country is concerned, two races of Brent goose which winter here—there is the light-breasted race, which winters in the main in Ireland and on our west coast, and the dark-breasted race, which winters on our east coast. The status of this goose has long been a matter of concern. I have read some recent interesting articles by the chairman of the Wild Fowlers' Association discussing the status of the Brent goose as it was fifty, sixty or even seventy years ago. It is not, I think, disputed that a large number of birds which used to frequent our coasts have disappeared. But the material point is whether the stock of the Brent goose, and more particularly the dark-breasted race, is now such as to warrant its not having complete protection. I do not think anyone would allege that the principal cause of the diminution in its numbers is due to shooting. It is generally accepted that the great reduction in its numbers is due to the disappearance of the particular marine plant, the zoster a, on which it feeds. But the fact is (I think all naturalists are agreed on it, and in a matter of natural history, I submit that even naturalists may be right in their view sometimes) that there has been a great diminution,
  1214
  sufficient to cause alarm as to the preservation of the species.
  The bird is protected completely in Holland, Denmark and Germany, its other winter quarters; it is protected—though this affects mainly the light-breasted race—in Ireland; and under this Bill, it will be protected in Scotland. Therefore, it would seem unfortunate if, at a time when we ourselves are urging other countries to take all possible steps to protect the wild birds which are of common interest to us all, we should exclude from protection this particular species, and thus leave exposed to additional hazards the considerable proportion of the total population of the world which winters on our own east coast.
  The protection, I feel, is all the more necessary since, in the first place, punt gunning is still allowed; and also because in the Eastern Counties, under the provisions of the Bill, at any rate, the period for shooting will run on into the middle of February. If the breeding stock is still exposed at these critical dates to further diminution, it seems to me that there is good ground for apprehension as to the maintenance of the species. There is no objection to wild-fowling, as such, or to reasonable sporting rights, on the part of those who urge the view that the Brent goose should be completely protected; nor, I think, would they go to the length of saying that it should be protected in perpetuity. There have already been some signs of an increase in the population on the other side of the North Sea. The grass on which the goose feeds has also, to some extent, revived, though I am told (I am no botanist, and I cannot vouch for this) that it is a smaller variety of the plant and therefore the total weight of food is still not going to go back to what it was, quite apart from any question of oil pollution and other possible interference with the food supply. But, all things considered, it is the view of many experienced naturalists, and it is the considered view of the Nature Conservancy, that this particular goose needs complete protection, at any rate, for some period which, if all goes well, could perhaps be measured in a short term of years.
  I am bound to put those considerations before your Lordships, and though I do not wish to press this Amendment too far this evening, I would at least ask for an

  1215
  assurance from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that he will consider this carefully before the Report stage and give the House the benefit of his advice when that stage is reached. There are points that could be raised in regard to other species of geese, but this is the most important, and I am satisfied, from all that I have heard and know, that the position of this particular bird needs careful consideration, and that it would be best if it could be included in the first Part of the First Schedule. Many wild-fowlers themselves, I believe, looking to their own long-term interests, would not dissent from that view.
  It may be said: Why give special attention to this particular bird when there are other species of geese which are far less numerous and need protection? I do not suppose that more than 500 bean-geese winter in this country, but it is impossible for a wildfowler to distinguish between that goose and the ordinary pink-foot, and it would be unreasonable, therefore, to make it a subject of special protection. The same must be said of the lesser white-front which is excluded from the list given in the Third Schedule. When we reach that Schedule, if any noble Lord wishes to amend the provision relating to the lesser white-front, on the ground that it is indistinguishable in the field from the ordinary white-front, I, at any rate, could not resist him. That may not be worth while. I make those remarks to show that I am not asking your Lordships to take a dogmatic or pedantic view of this matter. There are substantial grounds for reconsidering the position of the Brent as it is left in the Bill, and I would therefore appeal to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill at least to agree to consider this matter closely before the Report stage is reached. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 8, first column, after ("Bittern (all species)") insert ("Brent goose").—(Lord Hurcomb.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment is absolutely right. The case of the Brent goose definitely stands apart from the case of most of the other geese. For one thing, it is uneatable, and secondly, you can easily distinguish it from the bigger geese. If, therefore, we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment, I do not think
  1216
  there would be any difficulty in carrying it out—much less, for instance, than in trying to carry out a distinction between the two white-fronted geese. The noble Lord is also justified in saying that there has been a great deal of anxiety for Brent geese in recent years. The particular grass upon which they chiefly feed has almost come to an end in some of their old feeding-grounds. There may be other reasons, but the fact is that whilst there may still be considerable numbers of Brent geese in a particular place, taken over the whole coast the numbers have seriously diminished. I imagine that that is the reason why the Scottish Advisory Committee recommended that the killing of Brent geese should be prohibited. So far as the English Brent geese are concerned, I understand—although I was not a member of the Advisory Committee—that there was a long controversy over this question. On the one hand, the ornithologists pointed to the fact that the numbers seemed to be decreasing. On the other, the wildfowlers were anxious to go on shooting them. Noble Lords know that the Brent goose is a sea-goose and that shooting, therefore, went on with the shore-shooters along the coast, and the wildfowlers think that they would miss a great deal if they had that shooting brought to an end.
  I do not want to dogmatise about this matter, because I know that there are two views about it, but my own view is that the wildfowlers would be wise to accept greater protection for Brent geese. If they do not, they will find that one of these days there will be none left upon the coast of England. I think they would do well to study what has been happening in the United States and Canada, where the protection of ducks and geese is now, generally speaking, in the hands of the wildfowlers themselves; and the wild-fowlers, in their own interest, have restricted the killing of ducks and geese to a remarkable extent. If any noble Lord wants to study that question in detail, he will find in last week's Field an interesting article about the subject. It shows to what extent wildfowlers themselves have gone in restricting the killing of certain species of duck and geese. I believe they are wise. I believe that our wildfowlers would be equally wise if they followed the same lines.
  That is the general background from which I approach the noble Lord's
  Amendment. I am, however, aware that this Bill is in the nature of a compromise between various interests, and that during the discussions of the Advisory Committee the wildfowlers' organisations took a strong view that the killing of Brent geese should not be prohibited. I own that they have not convinced me. At the same time, I am naturally reluctant to move away from a compromise which was undoubtedly made. All I can say, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb—I have made no secret about my own sympathy with his Amendment—is that I will look into the question again to see whether, on Report stage, we cannot go definitely further than we go in the Bill at present. I cannot give a pledge, because I do not know how much trouble will be caused by making a change. But I will look into it sympathetically, with the same object in view that he has—namely, that I want to see Brent geese better protected than they are at present.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: If the noble Viscount were finally to decide that the Brent goose should be given complete protection, I should suggest that it should not be inserted in the otherwise appropriate Schedule, but in a category by itself, so that the protection could be continued for a limited number of years and the position be again reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made his points moderately, but several of his statements were based upon information which others believe to be by no means accurate. Certainly his suggestion was that there are only some 500 bean-geese visiting this country annually. The Brent goose had virtually complete protection from shooting for all the years of the war because, being an almost exclusively maritime bird, not I per cent. of those shot are shot above high water mark. If then, these birds did not show a marked increase after some six or seven years during which very few can have been shot, it is obvious that the cause of the continued decline—if the decline does continue—must be sought elsewhere than from shooting. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, laid his finger on the mark when he mentioned the dispersal of its means of food, the grass, zoster a, from many parts of our coast, through a fungus or some disease that, affects that weed. In regard to other geese mentioned by the noble Lord I think that as the lesser white-fronted goose comes to this country
  1218
  only in the smallest numbers, and is not likely to nest here, its future need not be contemplated with much anxiety—no question arises out of it. But if protection is to be given, I would urge that it should be given for a limited period, subject to reconsideration from time to time.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: It would be quite possible for the two Secretaries of State to make regulations that would cover a period. That might restrict the shooting season and say that no Brent geese should be shot for twelve months. That can be done under the Bill.
  EARL JOWITT: We are not bound, as has been said before, by any compromise. If it is the right thing to put it in the Bill let us do so; if not, keep it out. We should look at it simply from that point of view.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Perhaps I may remind Lord Templewood that I have an Amendment down later to take the Brent goose out of the Third Schedule, I have found myself in some difficulty in this matter, because I have been approached by the wildfowlers in the one direction and also, in particular, by the Severn Wild Fowl Trust in the other direction; and I have definitely come down on the side of giving the Brent goose all possible protection.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): Does the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, wish to withdraw his Amendment now?
  LORD HURCOMB: On the assurance that I may be able to raise it again, I should be prepared to withdraw this Amendment, provided that meanwhile the matter will be considered in the light of the various remarks made. I should just like to add that I am not sure whether I heard or understood correctly what was said about the lesser white-fronted goose. I was not suggesting that it should have any more protection, but that the appearance of protection which it has already in the Third Schedule might be dropped. There are no more than five or six that come to this country in any one year. It will be too bad if one of them happens to get shot, but it cannot be helped, so long as people are shooting geese at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in Part I of the Schedule, after "Osprey" to insert "Peregrine." The noble and learned Earl said: Perhaps Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal knows more about this matter than I do. However, I think the peregrine is a very good bird; it is a fascinating bird to watch. He does damage here, of course, but so do many of the other birds in the First Schedule—the eagle, the hen-harrier, the marsh-harrier and Montagu's harrier, all of which are troublesome at times. But I should like to see the peregrine protected. I do not quite see Lord Hurcomb's point as to numbers; it seems to me that it makes no difference whether there are five or six, fifty or sixty, 500 or 600; but, as I say, I should like very much to see the peregrine protected. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 8, second column, after ("Osprey") insert ("Peregrine").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I do not think I can add anything to what the noble and learned Earl has said. I agree with every word. I know from my own experience how dangerous and destructive an occasional peregrine can be; but peregrines are scarce and they are very beautiful, and I should like to support what the noble and learned Earl has said.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: I have been interested in birds all my life and I have never seen a ruff and reeve in its wild state. They are pretty rare birds, and I should like to give them all the protection possible. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 14, second column, after ("Roller") insert ("Ruff and reeve").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved in Part I of the Schedule, after "Hoopoe" to insert "Kingfisher." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to put the kingfisher into the First Schedule of birds which are specially protected and for the killing of which there is a maximum penalty of £25. Many of us will be most disappointed to find that the kingfisher is not included in the First
  1220
  Schedule. It is one of our most beautiful birds, if not the most beautiful bird, in the matter of plumage, in the whole of the British Isles. It may be significant that in that old-established work, Morris's British Birds, which is in six volumes, the four birds which are all put together on most gorgeous coloured plates, next to each other, are the bee-eater, the roller, the hoopoe and the kingfisher; and I should imagine that they are put in that order because they are the birds which have the most brilliant plumage in the country. You will find that all those birds are in the First Schedule, except the kingfisher. It is no use saying that the kingfisher is already protected in the comprehensive protection given under the £5 penalty. That is not a deterrent to the man who wants to shoot a kingfisher or take the eggs. The kingfisher does a little damage of course, but what do a few trout minnows matter as against the eventual extinction—which is what it may be—of the kingfisher, one of the most glorious British birds which we possess? I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 25, after ("Hoopoe") insert ("Kingfisher").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  LORD LLOYD: I am afraid I shall have to intervene at this point, not because I am not in sympathy with my noble friend's object with regard to the kingfisher, but because there is, in the opinion of my noble friend Lord Carrington and of his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, an insuperable difficulty about the noble Earl's suggestion. They think that to put this bird in the First Schedule would in any case be a mistake, because of the need to preserve the character of the First Schedule; and the object of that Schedule, as I understand it, is that it should be deliberately limited to occasional or potential British breeding species.
  The noble Earl says that the kingfisher is becoming scarcer. I do not know, but I have heard it said that that is not indeed the case; that it is not quite so scarce as all that. I would not, however, dispute it, because he is an expert. But the main objection that we have to the noble Earl's suggestion is that, if the kingfisher is put in the First Schedule, then in no circumstances whatsoever can

  1221
  it be killed. It cannot even be killed under Clause 3 (2) (a) if it is doing the most appalling damage to trout or salmon hatcheries—and I do not think it will be disputed that it frequently does this. It would be possible, I think, for the Minister at a later stage, when undoubtedly orders will be made protecting other birds in different ways, to include kingfishers in an order of that kind. But to put the kingfisher in the First Schedule, which means that it can never in any circumstances be killed, would be a mistake. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will resist the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Viscount also look into the question which has been raised, namely, of protecting the kingfisher in some way—I am not prepared to say what way—in particular parts of the country where it can do no harm at all, and perhaps, where it is doing harm to fisheries or in other directions, raising its protection under some kind of licence? I agree with the noble Earl that to allow the killing at all times of the kingfisher is to destroy it in parts of the country where we see only one or two in two or three years.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am not sure whether it is remembered that under this Bill all birds are protected except the Second Schedule birds. The distinction that the First Schedule makes is that it considerably increases the penalty when the eggs are taken or the bird is killed. The kingfisher, therefore, has general protection under the Bill. What my noble friend, Lord Lloyd, has just said is that if we put this bird into the First Schedule, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, recommends, it would mean that nobody would ever be permitted to kill a kingfisher. In the event of its being proved that the kingfisher in a particular place was doing a great deal of harm to, for instance, trout fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture could not authorise anyone to go and kill it. No one is contemplating the general destruction of kingfishers, but we have to take into account that they can sometimes do a great deal of harm and that we ought not to prevent the Ministry of Agriculture from, in certain cases dealing with the nuisance, if the nuisance arises. For those reasons, I must, I am afraid, refuse to accept the first of the noble Earl's Amendments
  1222
  about the kingfisher. If it is any comfort to him, let me say that I shall be delighted to accept his second Amendment when he comes to move it.
  EARL JOWITT: I should like the noble Viscount to hear this in mind. If I understand this Bill aright, under Clause 8 of this Bill:
  "The Secretary of State may by order made either generally or with respect to any specified part of Great Britain add any wild bird to, or remove any wild bird from, any of the First, Second, Third or Fourth Schedules to this Act or either of the Parts of the said First Schedule."
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: No.
  EARL JOWITT: Is that not right?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: No. There is another provision in the Bill, in one of the earlier clauses, which says that the Secretary of State cannot deal with the Part I birds in that way. That is the difference.
  EARL JOWITT: I see.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: There is another point which has possibly been overlooked. I am net absolutely sure how we stand about Clause 3 (2) (a).If it is found that a bird is doing a great deal of harm, that bird can be got rid of. I think it might be dealt with in that way. Personally, I should like to see the kingfisher protected, but it might be easier to deal with it in this way.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON:I am disappointed at the line that my noble friend in charge of the Bill has taken over this matter of the kingfisher. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, speaks of "appalling damage." I have never heard of a kingfisher doing "appalling damage." Frankly, I do not know where he got that information from. I quite appreciate he does not want to alter the character of the First Schedule; but this is a Wild Birds Protection Bill, and how are we going to protect this bird if we want to protect it? Many noble Lords want to see the maximum protection given to the kingfisher. Many people all over the country, and our wild bird protection societies, want to see this bird have the maximum protection. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will give this matter his further attention before the next stage of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Hear, hear!
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF HADDTNGTON: This Amendment is to include the whimbrel in the First Schedule to the Bill. I understand that the noble Viscount is prepared to accept this Amendment, so I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 25, after ("Warbler, marsh") insert ("Whimbrel").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL:Here, again, as in the case of the peregrine, I have put down the merlin because, although I am well aware it is a destructive bird, I think that on account of its rarity, it should have the maximum possible protection. I have nothing to say beyond that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 27, first column, after ("Marsh-harrier") insert ("Merlin").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 29, leave out ("birds specially") and insert ("fully").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: This is consequential on what we have already done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 32, leave out ("Ruff and reeve").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: This is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 33, leave out ("Whimbrel").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  6.8 p.m.
  Second Schedule [Noxious wild birds which may be killed or taken at any time by authorised persons]:
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment simply redrafts the title of
  1224
  the Second Schedule. I am taking out the word "noxious" which might have been thought to be an insult to a number of species of birds. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 2, leave out ("Noxious")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK:May I say that it was my Amendment on the Paper to which I am glad to say the noble Viscount agreed. My Amendment was the first to appear on the Paper, and I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the dictionary definition of "noxious." It is all right to say that it means "destructive," "hurtful," and "injurious"—as some birds are; but I cannot associate any bird, except the hooded or the carrion crow, with the adjectives "pernicious," "unwholesome," "poisonous" and "offensive." It is for that reason that I put down this Amendment, and I am glad the noble Viscount agrees with it.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I say that the word "noxious" was not used by the Home Office Advisory Committee. Somebody has put it in since.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment moves the bullfinch out of the "Rogues' gallery." There has been a good deal of criticism about ever having put the bullfinch into this Schedule. I am prepared to take it out, and where it is a nuisance in food-growing districts, it can be dealt with under different provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 4, first column, leave out ("Bullfinch").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: Having now made a vacancy in the "Rogues' gallery," I want to see it filled up, and I suggest that we might fill it by the little owl. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 4, second column, after ("Jay") insert ("Little Owl").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: There is one more that I should like to go in, that most destructive bird, the moorhen. As everyone will know, if you have moorhens on a pond you cannot have anything else there; they kill everything else and do a lot of damage. I should like to add the moorhen. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 5, second column, after ("Magpie") insert ("Moorhen").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GIFFORD: The cormorant is already in the list of birds in the Second Schedule. Unless you are an expert it is difficult to distinguish between that bird and the shag, which is a very similar bird and has the same sort of habits, and it would be logical if it were put in as well. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13,line 6, second column, after ("Rook") insert ("Shag").—(Lord Gifford.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Unless any noble Lord has a comment to make upon this Amendment, I am prepared to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is a most curiously worded Amendment. It is to bring into the "Rogues' gallery" a "Domestic pigeon gone feral." That expression embraces the large numbers of pigeons, in places like Trafalgar Square, which do not seem to have any owner, and ought if possible to be exterminated, or at any rate restricted. As the Bill stands at the moment, it is doubted whether the City of Westminster, or the London County Council, could legally kill these birds. On that account I have introduced this Amendment. If anybody can find a better word than "feral" I shall be very pleased. I think it is a most odd word, but I cannot think of a better one. It is meant to cover tame pigeons that have gone native. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 7, first column, after ("Crow, hooded") insert ("Domestic pigeon gone feral").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: I think this is a very strange phrase. I am sure somebody can do better than that. At first glance, would suggest "wild", but the noble Viscount will consider the matter. Let it be "feral" for the present, and I am sure that by the next stage of the Bill the noble Viscount will have had some happier inspiration.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: "Feral" is an accepted term for a domesticated animal or bird which has reverted to the wild state.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: I know that there are two views which may be expressed about this Amendment. I am sorry to see the sparrow-hawk in the "Rogues' gallery." As I have been responsible for putting two in and taking one out, it would be "all square" if I got this one out. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 8, second column, leave out ("Sparrow-hawk").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I very much hope that the noble Viscount will at once refuse to accept this Amendment. If there is any bird which is suitable for insertion in a "Rogues' gallery," it is the sparrow-hawk. It is not so much a question of the damage it does to game—although that is considerable; it is the enormous destruction it reeks among our smaller song-birds, and, indeed, among some of the larger ones. It would be a great pity if the sparrow-hawk were to be included in any other place than among the most destructive birds. If that happens the law will be a dead law, and that is always something to be deplored.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: On the other hand, the sparrow-hawk can kill literally hundreds of thousands of vermin, such as mice. In some districts he is the farmers' friend.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I hope the noble and learned Earl will not press this Amendment. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the sparrow-hawk is a great nuisance. Besides that, it can well look after itself, and whether or not we put it into this Schedule I do not think there is the least risk of exterminating this bird. It is not only the damage that it does to game, although it does do a great deal of

  1227
  damage in that respect: it is the damage it does to small birds, and also to chickens. If a sparrow-hawk has a penchant for chickens, it is incredible the number of chickens that it will kill. So, in the interests of birds generally, including poultry, I say that we ought to keep the sparrow-hawk in the Second Schedule.
  EARL JOWITT: I have Lord Strathcona and Lord Burden with me here, but I will not press the Amendment now, and the noble Viscount can give it his consideration. I know that there is a great deal of force in what Lord Mansfield has said; on the other hand, this is a very attractive bird. So long as it may be considered I am quite content, and I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Third Schedule [Other wild birds which may be killed or taken outside the close season]:
  6.18 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Page 13, line 21, leave out ("Moorhen").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I put this Amendment down originally on behalf of the wildfowlers, who pointed out that in shooting in a bad light it was very hard to tell a Garganey teal from others. I do not propose to press the Amendment further than that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 31, after ("Gadwall") insert ("Garganey Teal").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment. I am fully aware of the fact that when one is fighting ducks it is difficult to tell the difference between a Garganey teal and an ordinary teal. None the less, the Garganey teal is a very beautiful little duck. It is not very common—it is becoming less uncommon, anyhow, to judge from my own part of the country—and I should like to see it given as much protection as possible. It
  1228
  may be that occasionally mistakes will be made, but if we put into the Bill that we regard it as a duck that should be protected, I think that sportsmen fighting duck will take a little more care, and possibly will not make the mistake which they otherwise would make in shooting it. I therefore hope that Lord Strathcona will not press this Amendment.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am delighted to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment relates to the point to which I drew your Lordships' attention when we were discussing my noble friend Lord Hurcomb's Amendment. I do not think that we need go over the argument again. I should like to press for a measure of protection for the Brent goose in England and Wales such as it has in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 42, leave out ("Brent goose (in England and Wales only)").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I hope that my noble friend will agree to leave this question as we left it with regard to Lord Hurcomb's Amendment. I have undertaken to look into this matter, and to look into it as sympathetically as I can. I hope that upon that undertaking the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course I agree. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT: Several people who know about these things have asked me to move this Amendment to include the grey lag goose in the Third Schedule. I do not know anything about it myself; I should like to know what the noble Viscount thinks about it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 42, at end insert ("Grey lag goose").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Before the noble Viscount replies, I must say that I see no possible reason for the complete protection of the grey lag goose

  1229
  at the present time. In my part of Scotland, it has been getting more numerous in the last few years, and this autumn it appears to be about in even greater numbers than before. I would point out that, should it be given this protection, there will be a great deal of unwitting infringement of the law, since it is practically impossible in a failing light—and not always possible in a good light—to distinguish a grey lag goose from a pink goose. In view of the commonness of the grey lag in many parts of the country, and the undoubted damage it occasions, I hope that the noble Viscount will not accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think it is an open question. My own view would be that as these lists were very carefully drawn up by the experts, and they have taken the view that the grey lag had better be in Part IIof the First Schedule, rather than in the Third Schedule, I should be inclined to leave it at that unless the two noble Lords press me strongly. I will go into the question again, but I am reluctant to make changes of this kind in these lists without knowing the detailed reasons.
  EARL JOWITT: I am afraid that I do not quite follow the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. This is an Amendment to the Third Schedule which contains a list of:
  "Other wild birds which may be killed or taken outside the close season."
  Adding the grey lag goose to this list would not be giving it absolute protection. That was not my idea at all. I rather gathered that Lord Mansfield thought I wanted this bird to be given complete protection.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I understand that the object of the Amendment is only to give protection to the grey lag during the close season.
  EARL JOWITT: The Third Schedule, where I want to put the grey lag goose, contains the names of birds which are to have close season protection, if I understand it aright. All I am seeking to do is to give this bird close season protection. I do not think there can be much objection to that.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think the noble and learned Earl will appreciate that it means a further change with
  1230
  regard to birds in Part II of the First Schedule. If the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule are not carried out, the penalty is the high penalty. The question really is whether, in the case of the grey lag goose—which incidentally is not one of the rarest varieties—there should be this very heavy penalty for infringement of the law. I think that is the reason why the experts put the grey lag goose originally into Part II of the First Schedule—to give it the protection of the bigger fine.
  EARL JOWITT: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I am content with that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule [Wild birds which may not be sold alive]:
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is an Amendment to take the jackdaw out of the Fourth Schedule—that is to say, to allow the jackdaw to be kept in a cage. The case for the Amendment is that jackdaws have become a serious nuisance all over the country, and are becoming a still more serious nuisance. They are very cunning birds, and the only way to kill them is to use a tame jackdaw in a trap. It is not a cruel business at all. That is the first reason for the Amendment. The second reason is that the jackdaw, although a difficult bird to catch or kill, is easy to tame. It is not uncommon to find a jackdaw extremely happy in a cage. For these reasons, I think we should be wise to take the jackdaw out of the Fourth Schedule. I think we can feel quite happy that by doing so there will be no cruelty involved to the particular species of bird. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 23, first column, leave out ("Jackdaw".)—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  On Question, That the House do now resume?
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before the House resumes, may I just pay a tribute from these Benches to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for the great ability,

  1231
  tact, good will and good humour with which he has conducted the Committee stage of this Bill. I should like also to join Lord Lloyd in that tribute for his share in the conduct of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am much obliged. I can say quite sincerely that the fact the Bill has gone through so easily is due to the interest which has been taken in it by noble Lords, and their readiness to get it through quickly.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As my noble and learned friend Earl Jowitt has had to depart, may I be allowed to say that we on these Benches desire to associate ourselves with the tribute which has just been paid to the noble Lords.
  House resumed.

  NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
  6.28 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.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Citation and commencement]:
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK) moved, in Clause 7 to leave out "the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four" and insert
  "such date as the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument appoint."
  The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Home I beg to move this Amendment. The effect of it is that, instead of the Bill being brought into operation on the date stated in Clause 7—that is, the first day of April, 1954—it will come into operation on "such date as the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument appoint." The only reason for that is that the Bill may not be on the Statute Book by the first
  1232
  day of April, 1954. If it is, then the Secretary of State will nominate the first day of April as the appointed day. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, leave out ("the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four") and insert ("such date as the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument appoint").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if noble Lords opposite have no objection, I should like to take this Bill through its remaining stages this evening. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
  6.33 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, I do not think I need take up much of your Lordships' time on this Bill, which was welcomed by all Parties in another place. The effect of the Bill is to extend the provisions of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949, which was passed by the late Government with the full approval of all Parties. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and his colleagues for their timely forethought in laying the foundations of this plan for

  1233
  Service housing. Before the 1949 Act was passed, all expenditure on married quarters for the Services had to be provided for in the annual Service Estimates, and the whole capital cost had to be found in the one year. During the war the building of permanent married quarters in this country had, of course, to be suspended. We were short of married quarters then, and in our long-term plans for redeployment we expect to have larger forces in this country than before the war. Furthermore, owing to the reduction in the age of entitlement to marriage allowance, a higher proportion of officers and men are now eligible for married quarters than before the war. The cumulative effect of these factors was that in 1949 the Services were faced with the necessity for building a minimum of 30,000 quarters to meet the minimum foreseeable needs. It was to facilitate the provision of these quarters that the 1949 Act was passed.
  Now this Act places the Services in the same position as local authorities for the financing of the building of married quarters. In accordance with its provisions, the Services are permitted to borrow money at the appropriate rate of interest for the purpose of building married quarters and to repay the loan over a period of sixty years. These repayments have to be met out of normal Service Votes. To qualify for the loan, the houses must be of such a type and in such a position as to make them suitable for normal civilian occupation should they at any time no longer be required for Service occupation. Only houses in Great Britain can qualify for a loan. Married quarters in Northern Ireland and abroad still have to be paid for in the ordinary way from Service Votes.
  The 1949 Act empowered the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund up to £40 million during the five years ending March, 1955, to be used to finance the building of approved houses for the Services in Great Britain. Such good progress has been made with the building of married quarters under the Act that the money has been nearly all spent, and this new Bill is required in order that work on the building of quarters may not be held up. At the time the Act was passed it was not known what proportion of the total requirement of 30,000 quarters would satisfy the condition
  1234
  that they must be suitable for civilian use. In fact, a much higher proportion than expected has qualified for the loan, and that is why this Bill is required, authorising further issues out of the Consolidated Fund by way of loan.
  Noble Lords will wish to hear something about the use which has been made of the facilities granted by the 1949 Act. In all,15,000 married quarters have been built or are under construction. Of these, approximately 12,000 have been completed. In addition, some of the money issued under the Act has been used to complete schemes which had been started before the Act was passed. These numbers are almost exactly what were allowed for when the sum of £40 million was originally fixed. I am sure that it is a source of satisfaction to us all to know that the programme has been carried out with such success. There are, of course, married quarters which have to be built in isolated areas in this country and which do not qualify for a loan. These have to be built out of ordinary Service Votes, and in the same period as that covered by the Act nearly 3,000 such houses have been constructed.
  I should like now to say a few words about this new Bill. It is a short one, and the one operative clause extends the life of the original Act by five years and increases by £35 million the amount of money which may be borrowed. It is hoped that this will permit the building of a further 15,000 to 16,000 married quarters under the loan arrangements. As at present foreseen, 27 per cent. of the money will be allocated to the Navy, 13 per cent. to the Army and 60 per cent. to the Royal Air Force. The need of the Royal Air Force is greatest because so many aerodromes were built shortly before or during the war and married quarters could not be provided at the time.
  At the end of the war, apart from a few residences for senior officers, the Navy had no married quarters. The need for them at isolated establishments, and particularly at Naval air stations, soon became evident, and under the Act of 1949 £6 million was authorised for building at such places. The 27 per cent. allocation to the Admiralty will go only a short way towards solving the Navy's housing problem. This can be solved only gradually along the present lines, and

  1235
  therefore a further loan for the Navy is likely to be needed in due course. This Bill makes provision for the Navy's second programme of married quarters. They will be built mainly at the Home ports of Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham. This will be the first time that married quarters have been built at the Home ports. The first programme under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949, when completed, will have provided for 2,000 married quarters for the Navy, and under this Bill it is hoped to build a further 4,300.
  The provisions of the 1949 Act were such as to ensure that full Parliamentary control is maintained over expenditure on housing built with loan money, and this control will apply equally to housing built under the new Act. We all know what an important part in family life is played by satisfactory housing accommodation. It is the policy of the Government to do all in their power to encourage the provision of houses for the people, and the man in the Services has at least as much right as a civilian to satisfactory housing. I should perhaps emphasise that the married quarters which have been built under the 1949 Act, and the additional ones which it is now proposed to build, are to meet the needs of both officers and other ranks. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is only just that all members of the Forces should have equal opportunities of obtaining married quarters. I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Alexander of Tunis.)
  6.42 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, from this side of the House we have nothing but welcome for this Bill, which is carrying on the work begun, as the noble and gallant Earl has said, under the Labour Government in 1949. The progress which has been reported to-day is satisfactory so far as we can see, but I should like to ask one or two questions. With reference to the 60 per cent. of the new loan which is allotted to the Royal Air Force, is it considered that the money provided under this Bill will be adequate to meet entirely the needs of the Royal Air Force? One would suppose that a large number of Air Force stations are
  1236
  in remote areas which would not qualify under the Act as being capable of fulfilling civilian housing needs, if not wanted for the Services. Perhaps we can be told something about that point. The other question I should like to ask is this. In what proportions are the different types of quarters being planned? It is always one of the problems of the Services, where there is a comparatively small married population in each station, that the quarters have to be built to suit varying sizes of families and, of course, varying ranks. I should like to know how this problem is being dealt with under the present Act. Subject to that, I have nothing further to say, other than to hope that the present measure will be as successful in helping to provide for the needs of the Services as the earlier Act has been.
  6.44 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to add a little to what my noble friend has said. In my capacity as Chairman of the National Manpower Committee I visit all Commands in this country. I have also been to a large number of Commands overseas, and have seen the conditions under which both officers and men are housed. I am glad to know that a good deal is now being done abroad, because in some of the areas abroad which I visited a few years ago the housing conditions were not always good. Now I know that they are much improved. I am sure that anyone who has seen for himself, as I have, what the conditions are must heartily welcome this Bill, and be glad that such an important measure, which was brought into operation by the former Government in 1949, has now become entirely outside the sphere of Party politics, and is simply a piece of constructive legislation for the benefit of the Services. It is extremely valuable legislation. When I think of the conditions I have seen in places like Hong Kong, Malaya, Egypt, and in other places in the Near East, as well as those on the Continent, I am glad to know that efforts are being made, and made successfully, to deal with a situation which without this provision would be nothing like so good as it is with it. I think the Forces are to be congratulated on having such provision made for them,

  1237
  and I am glad to know that the Government are carrying on this work in such an excellent manner.
  6.46 p.m.
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for their support of my housing programme which, after all, was started by the late Government in 1949. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked about housing in the Royal Air Force. As I explained, during the war a lot of new aerodromes were built and no housing could be put up at the time. Therefore there is a great need in the Royal Air Force for married quarters around these aerodromes. The Services cannot get the money from the Consolidated Fund, through the Treasury, to build marred quarters, unless these houses fulfil certain conditions; namely, that they must be in areas where They can be taken up by the local population when they are finally evacuated by the Services. There is no hard and fast rule about that; the way it is done is by collaboration with local authorities. Wherever possible married quarters are sited on land belonging to the Services; that is to say, where married quarters can be built on aerodromes or on land around aerodromes which belongs to the Services, that will be done. That saves money. Where it is necessary to acquire additional land, the normal procedure is for the Service Department concerned to
  1238
  have informal talks with the local authorities regarding the selection of the most suitable site. When the site has been provisionally selected formal application is made to the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Treasury, after consultation with the Ministry of Housing, inform the Service Department whether the project will qualify for a housing loan. This consultation with the local authorities works very well and I can see no difficulty in the future.
  The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, probably wishes to know the proportion of married quarters being built for the R.A.F. vis-à-vis the Army and the Navy, whether they qualify for the loan or not, and what proportion do not qualify for the loan through being in far away places. I cannot give him the exact figures, but I can inform him of this: that of course if houses do not qualify for the loan, then they have to be paid for out of the Service Estimates. That would not hold up the building of houses which have to be built. It simply means that the Royal Air Force, if they cannot get money from the loan, will pay for the houses themselves. I hope that is a satisfactory answer.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.