HL Deb 10 December 1953 vol 184 cc1193-212

4.36 p.m.

House again in Committee.

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, 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (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;
  3. (c) in the case of a licence under paragraph (c) of that subsection, the Secretary of State;
  4. (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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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

Forward to