HL Deb 10 December 1953 vol 184 cc1212-31

BIRDS SPECIALLY PROTECTED DURING THE CLOSE

SEASON

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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

Back to