Lords Sitting of 17 November 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Trefgarne—Took the Oath.

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITIES OF SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Board to manage the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and to amend the provisions of the National Galleries of Scotland Act, l906, relating to the constitution of the Board constituted thereunder. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

FUTURE BUSINESS
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I rise to inform your Lordships that on Thursday next, at the opening of Business, my noble friend the Leader of the House will move an humble Address conveying to Her Majesty an appropriate expression of the feelings of this House on the occasion of her forthcoming journey overseas.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that nearly

299
7,000,000 workers received wage increases amounting to£1,875,200 a week during the first nine months of this year, the refusal, announced in January last, to increase officers' pensions might be reconsidered and if this is not possible in toto, might not a start be made in the case of that small and rapidly dwindling band of old officers now living on pensions at the rate of 9 per cent. below the 1919 rates.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, I am sure that, on reflection, my noble and gallant friend will recognise that the increases in current wages earned by industrial workers this year bear no direct relation to the pensions of those already retired and, therefore, afford no logical ground for increasing the retired pay of officers of the Armed Forces who left the Services between1919 and 1935. Successive Governments have consistently maintained the principle that these superannuation benefits are contractual and cannot, without injustice to other persons living on fixed incomes, be increased, save in exceptional circumstances. These exceptions are where additional service is rendered to the State after an officer's retirement, or where extreme hardship can be shown to exist owing to the fall in the value of money.
As your Lordships know, increases have been given to retired officers, in common with other pensioners, in both these sets of circumstances. The latest increase, in hardship cases, was given in 1952. As regards those few remaining pensioners whose retired pay was stabilised in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rates and who have not benefited from the increases I have mentioned, Her Majesty's Government will, as I stated in your Lordships' House on June 17 last, continue their search for a fair solution which will not involve a departure from the principle I have mentioned, to the maintenance of which they attach the highest importance. However, I hope to make a statement on this subject in a week's time.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Earl for his Answer to my Question. May I ask this supplementary question? The large increase in wages given this
300
year, quoted in my Question, were almost entirely due, I understand, to the increased rise in the cost of living. I submit that those officers to whom the noble and gallant Earl referred also have to live, and they are about the only body of persons in this country who have not had an increase over the last thirty years. I ask the noble and gallant Earl to reconsider this matter, and, if it is reconsidered, I would ask that there should be no question of who was right or who was wrong a quarter of a century ago, but whether the plea for the increase is justified by an alteration of circumstances which nobody could have foreseen in 1935. The 1919 rates ought to be increased to something approximating to the 1953 cost of living.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have shorn my question of half its point on learning that the noble and gallant Field Marshal hopes to make a statement on this subject in a week's time; but does he not think that when the matter which my noble and gallant friend has brought up is considered some consideration should be given to the fact that there is no free foreign exchange and that foreign exchange rates and, consequently, to a great extent the cost of living, are within the power of the Government?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, in view of the fact that I hope to make a statement on this subject next week, I think it better that I should not say anything now in reply to the noble Lords' supplementary questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
Moved That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the second Reading of the Regency Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and for passing the Bill through its remaining stages on such day as the House may direct.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

REGENCY BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I fear that I have to ask the indulgence of the House in that I am suffering this afternoon from a common infirmity. I hope that I shall make myself heard, but if noble Lords are unable to hear me, perhaps they will make the fact known. This Bill is a Bill to amend the Regency Act of 1937. It conies from the other House following upon a gracious Message which had been read to that House, as it was read to this House a few days ago. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships at once of the purport of that Message and the object of this Bill by reading a few words of the Preamble to the Bill, which states as succinctly as I could what is its purpose.
The Preamble to the Bill which I now present to the House is in these terms:
"Whereas Your Majesty, by Your Majesty's Royal Message to both Houses of Parliament, has been pleased to recommend that Parliament should consider the expediency of providing that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh should be the Regent if a child of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness accedes to the Throne while under the age of eighteen years or if a Regency becomes necessary during the lifetime of Your Majesty while there is no child or grandchild of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness who can be the Regent, and also the expediency of amending the law so that the heir apparent or heir presumptive to the Throne should be capable of being Regent if he or she has attained the age of eighteen years:
And whereas Your Majesty by the same Message recommended that Parliament should consider the amendment of the Regency Acts, 1937 and 1943, so as to add Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the persons to whom, as Counsellors of State, royal functions can be delegated."
As your Lordships see, the Bill deals with two different matters: first, Regency—the necessity of a Regent in certain events; and, secondly, the provision of Counsellors of State for a different event. So far as Regency is concerned, the necessity may arise in one of two ways, which are indicated in the Preamble. In the first place, it may happen that the successor to the Throne succeeds while yet under age. Her Majesty the Queen has taken these unfortunate possibilities
302
into account in her Message, and one must mention them, however deplorable the possibility may be. Supposing the Queen died, leaving as Heir to the Throne her son, or it might be her daughter, still under age (and I would remind your Lordships that by the Common Law the Sovereign attains full age on reaching eighteen years, not, as her subjects do, on attaining twenty-one years), if the successor to the Throne should not be eighteen years of age when he or she succeeds, there must be a Regent. The other possibility is this—equally deplorable to contemplate, but nevertheless necessary to be contemplated: that the Sovereign herself may be totally incapacitated in the course of her Reign. Then, equally, it is necessary that a Regent should be appointed.
The Regency Act, 1937, made provision for each of those eventualities. It provided that in the case of there being the necessity for a Regent, that Regent should be the next person in succession to the Throne. To translate that into the terms of to-day, supposing this event were to happen at an early date, the next successor to the Throne who is of full age being the Princess Margaret, the Princess Margaret would become Regent. The purpose of the amending Bill is to provide that, in that event, and indeed, in either of those events to which I have referred, the Regent should be the Duke of Edinburgh. That is the wish of Her Majesty it is the declared wish of Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret—my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had her express authority for saying that in the other House, and I repeat it here and it is a wish on their part which I think is echoed by the whole of the people, who have come to recognise the great service which the Duke of Edinburgh has, in this short space of time, rendered, and the firm hold which he has now acquired on the confidence and affections of the people. Accordingly, the purpose of this Bill, in the first place, is to amend the Regency Act by providing that, in the event of the minority of the successor to the Throne, the Duke of Edinburgh should be Regent; and that in the event of the total incapacity of the Queen during her Reign, he also should be Regent, but only until there is an Heir Apparent to the Throne, child or grandchild, who attains the age of eighteen years.

303
The second purpose of this amending Bill is one which must commend itself to everybody—namely, to provide that amongst those Counsellors of State who may be appointed in the event of a temporary absence, and only a temporary absence, of the Queen, there shall be included the name of the Queen Mother. I venture to think that in doing this we shall not only get the advantage of the great wisdom and experience of the Queen Mother, but shall also have an opportunity of showing to her how deep is the hold which she, also, has upon the affections and loyalty of the people.
I do not think I need deal with the Bill at any great length, but perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to turn to it. It is a short Bill, but as an amending Bill it is a little difficult to follow without reference to the Act which it amends. By Clause 1 it is provided that:
"If a Regency becomes necessary under the Regency Act, 1937, on the succession to the Crown of a child of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh while under the age of eighteen years, His Royal Highness, if living, shall be the Regent."
I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is simply an ad hoc amendment of the Act, and it goes no further than it says: if the event should happen that the Duke of Edinburgh was not living upon the occasion of the necessity for a Regent, then the old Act would stand, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret would be the Regent.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the other eventuality. It says:
"If a Regency becomes necessary under the Regency Act, 1937, during the reign of Her present Majesty, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, if living, shall be the Regent unless, or (as the case may be) until, there is a child or grandchild of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness who can under the provisions of the said Act be the Regent."
That deals with the other possibility to which I have referred, of the total incapacity of the Sovereign. Subsection (3) is machinery. It provides that the preceding provisions of the Act shall have effect subject to the appropriate disqualifications. For instance, under the Regency Act, 1937, a person is not qualified to be a Regent if he is not domiciled in this country, or if he is disqualified under the Act of Settlement—that is to say, he is either himself a Roman Catholic or married to a Roman Catholic. In
304
such a case the provisions of this subsection would not take effect. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 is also a machinery provision, to give effect to what has been previously provided. Clause 2 is consistent. As I told your Lordships, the heir to the Throne succeeds on reaching the of eighteen years. It seems proper that if he is thought by law qualified to reign at the age of eighteen years, so also is he qualified to become Regent. Accordingly, Clause 2 provides that the heir apparent shall, for the purpose of the Regency Act, be deemed to be of full age if he or she has attained the age of eighteen years. Clause 3 deals with that other matter which I have mentioned. It provides that
"Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother shall be added to the persons whom subsection (2) of section six of the Regency Act, 1937,…requires, subject as therein mentioned, to be the Counsellors of State for the purposes of any delegation of royal functions under that section, and accordingly during her life that section shall have effect as if a reference to her were inserted in subsection (2) thereof next after the reference to the wife or husband of the Sovereign."
I do not think there is anything in Clause 4 to which I should call attention. I would add only this. This is an amending Bill, and nothing more. It has been suggested that it might have been better to repeal the 1937 Act and substitute a new Act altogether. In that view I do not concur. I think it is a wise provision to have an Act permanently in force, providing a general pattern to which you can add or subtract, as the occasion may require. Anybody who has taken the trouble, as I have, to delve into the records of this House and see what happened in 1811, when there was no permanent Act and when the Sovereign was totally incapacitated and unable to give his Assent to any Acts, will realise the importance of there being an Act which will operate automatically. Accordingly, we have thought it wise—and I hope your Lordships will concur—to proceed by way of amendment of this Act for the particular purpose which we now have in mind, and not to introduce any General Act substituting a different provision as to Regency. If there is any further point which requires explanation I shall, of course, be only too happy to give it, but I think I have made sufficiently clear to the House what is the purpose, the limited purpose, of this Bill. I

305
beg to move that the Bill he read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.54 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, in matters concerning our Royal Family there is fortunately no controversy between the Parties in this House. We give this Bill our most cordial support, and we will do all we can to facilitate its passage through the House with the least possible delay. I am sorry for the Lord Chancellor's voice, but in spite of the handicap under which he was suffering he made himself heard perfectly well. He never had an easier case to argue. Even if we had not heard him, we should most certainly have concurred in what he was saying.
The proposition to which he asks us to give our assent is almost self-evident. In the unhappy event or events which we are contemplating, what should be done? It is obvious that if the mother dies, the father should be the guardian of his children, unless there is strong reason for the contrary; and, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, not only is there no reason whatever to the contrary, but there is every reason, from what we know of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, that that normal principle should apply. And if his Royal Highness is to be the guardian of his children, since the children or one of the children would presumably succeed to the Throne, surely he should also be the Regent. We have been assured, both in the Bill and again by the Lord Chancellor, that the Bill accords with the wishes of Her Majesty and with the wishes of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, it is in no sense an exclusion Bill in regard to Her Royal Highness. It seems to me obvious that this scheme is the right scheme, and that we ought to give our assent to it. I am sure your Lordships will give your assent to it, devoutly hoping, as we all do, that the contingencies against which we are providing will never in fact take place.
When we turn to precedents, surely it is enough to think of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort. In precisely similar circumstances, the Parliament of that day made provision that the Prince Consort should act in this capacity. Therefore
306
we have good precedent to guide us, and it is obviously sensible that we should accede to Her Majesty's wishes. With regard to the other branch of the Bill, which adds Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the Counsellors of State, that, surely, is right, too. She has had great experience which she is willing to put at the disposal of the country, and we should indeed be foolish if we did not make it possible to avail ourselves of her services.
In another place, the interesting question was raised by Mr. Gordon Walker as to whether the better principle would be not any longer to have the Counsellors of State, but to have some official, some personage, rather in the position of a Governor-General. The reason he advanced for that new scheme was that it would put this country on exactly the same footing as various countries of the Commonwealth. The Home Secretary said that he would like time to inquire into it. It is obviously a matter which needs careful consideration. I should be reluctant to express any decided view upon it. I can see strong arguments against it and I can see some attractions towards it, but it needs careful consideration and, I suppose, discussion with the Dominion representatives. It is a matter which might be looked into, but it obviously cannot be contemplated at the present time. Therefore, all we have to do—accepting the principle of Counsellors of State—is to add Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the Counsellors, and that we shall all do without any hesitation whatever. I give this Bill my cordial support on behalf of the Party whom I have the honour to represent.
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we all most earnestly hope and, indeed, may reasonably expect, that none of the contingencies contemplated by this Bill will occur. But they may, and what is sure is that it is the clear duty of Parliament to legislate accordingly. As the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken has said, the guardian of a Sovereign who is under age would naturally be his father. The person who should be responsible for his person, his education and his training should be, as in all other walks of life, the father. But if the father were guardian and were not the Regent, one could foresee the possibility of great difficulties arising should differences of

307
opinion between those two persons occur in any matters of importance. And, indeed, one could imagine great controversies and friction if two different persons were to exercise the functions of guardian of the Sovereign and the Regent. Much injury would be done to the prestige of the Monarchy and, therefore, to the welfare of the State. If only for that reason, then, it is proper that His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh should be the Regent, especially since he has already won the respect, the confidence and the friendship of the whole nation.
The other provisions of the Bill seem to me not open to objection. I noted with interest that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, spoke about the suggestion made in the other House with respect to the provisions to be enacted concerning the absence of the Sovereign. I do not know that that proposal would have attracted much attention if it had not been made by a member of the late Government who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He even put down an Amendment to raise a point on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, and therefore, it is becoming, I think, that we should make some observations on this particular proposal, even at this early stage.
Mr. Gordon Walker's suggestion was that in the case of the absence of the Sovereign, the Royal functions should be exercised by a Governor-General, for the reason that the Statute of Westminster enacts a complete equality of status between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth, and that equality is not observed if this country monopolises, in a way, the symbols of unity—namely, has a special position in relation to the Crown. Undoubtedly a point such as this having once been raised, touching the relations of the Monarchy to the members of the Commonwealth, it at once becomes a question of great importance and delicacy, and demands serious consideration. But in this particular case, I would submit, the circumstances envisaged are really matters for the United Kingdom as such, for if the Sovereign is absent from this country it is the management of the affairs of this country that is raised in question by this proposal.
308
The difference between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth resides in this: that by the Act of Succession, the Crown is vested in the Royal Family, and the Royal Family is resident in the United Kingdom; and when the Sovereign is absent it would be natural for his or her functions to be put into commission, so to speak, and to be exercised by other members of the Royal Family who are resident here. No such conditions exist in any other part of the Commonwealth, and I believe—in fact, we can have little doubt—that the people of this country would prefer, in the case of the absence of the Sovereign, that the Royal functions should be put into commission in the hands of other members of the Royal Family who are not absent, rather than be devolved on some figure in the public life of this country, no matter how eminent, who would have the same position as a Governor-General.
It is such considerations as this, I imagine, that have led to the constitution of a body of Counsellors of State who act in the event of the Sovereign's absence, and to the practice that that body should not include the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, or any other of the high dignitaries of State. Furthermore, this proposal would not apply to the Regency: that would be dealt with on one principle, and the absence of the Sovereign on another principle. I believe it is unlikely that the peoples of the other parts of the Commonwealth would regard the proposal as anything more than a merely logical formula to provide for equality of status and one which would not be consonant either with convenience or with considerations of sentiment. It would be far better to maintain the practice which has hitherto prevailed. If this new clause suggested in the other place were to be raised in your Lordships' House, I have little doubt that it would receive very little, if any, support. For the rest, we on these Benches trust that the Bill will pass speedily into law, without any substantial amendment.
3.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say one word of gratitude to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for the support they have given to this Bill. In particular, I would thank Lord Samuel

309
for his observations on the suggestion that something should be substituted for the present system whereby Counsellors of State are appointed. I think we may be sure that if ever there was any intention to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage it will not be put down now, because his arguments seem to me singularly conclusive.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill for the better protection of birds. I hope it will not be necessary for me to enter into great detail about the merits of the general case. We had a full debate in this House about a year ago. There was then a general expression of opinion that the present state of the law is out of date and intolerable and that the time is long overdue for bringing both the Statute Law and the regulations up to date. I need only point to the Schedule of the Bill, in which, as noble Lords will see, we are proposing to repeal no fewer than twenty-six Acts of Parliament, some of them going back to the early years of the reign of George III. In addition to these Acts of Parliament, there are no fewer than 250 regulations and orders, many of them contradictory, and many of them entirely out of date. The result is that, because of this general confusion, the state of the law is quite unintelligible and the protection of birds is so unsatisfactory that not only are rare and interesting birds not effectively protected in this country but we have fallen behind other countries and find it impossible to be parties to international agreements for the protection of birds in the world because our national legislation is not sufficiently up to date.
Well, my Lords, that, in two or three sentences, is the present state of affairs. It has long been admitted to be indefensible. Home Secretary after Home Secretary for years past has wished to deal with the question, and during the last five years there has been a most exhaustive inquiry by the two Advisory
310
Committees that advise the two Secretaries of State, the English Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ilchester, and the Scottish Committee. Both these Committees are fully representative of practically all the various interests concerned with bird life.
Let me, in passing, inform your Lordships of the many organisations that have been represented in the English Committee. The Earl of Ilchester is Chairman; there is a representative of the British Museum, a representative of the British Ornithologists' Union, a representative of the International Committee for Bird Preservation, a representative of the British Trust for Ornithology, a representative of the County Councils Association, representatives both of the Forestry Commission and of the Ministry of Agriculture, a representative of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a representative of the Zoological Society, a representative of the British Field Sports Society, and a representative of the Wild Fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. I give your Lordships those details to show how very representative these Committees have been and how remarkable it is that representatives whose organisations may often differ as to details have all finally come to an agreement. The fact that both the English and the Scottish Committees and the representatives of all these various organisations have reached agreement I think is largely due to the patience, the knowledge and the care of my noble friend Lord Ilchester. I take this opportunity of congratulating him upon a most remarkable achievement.
In the drafting of this Bill, based, as I say, upon these unanimous recommendations, we have had constant help from the Home Office, and particularly from my noble friend Lord Lloyd who, ever since the last debate, has taken the greatest possible trouble in smoothing over difficulties in the drafting of the Bill. I give your Lordships those details to show that the Bill is not just the bright idea of some private Member of your Lordships' House but is the result of all these discussions, spreading over a period of five years, between representatives of all sorts and kinds of different organisations. The fact that there have been so many representatives upon these Com-

311
mittees has inevitably had one result: it has meant that in certain respects some details of the provisions of the Bill are in the nature of compromises. That was inevitable when there were upon the Committees representatives of the ornithologists, of sport, of the county councils, and so on. I shall try to say a word or two about those compromises when I have dealt with the main objects of the Bill.
I can define the main objects almost in a single sentence. They are two: first, a reversal of the present system for dealing with wild birds, and, secondly, a consolidation of all the legislation within the cover of a single Bill. As to the reversal of the present system, what is proposed is that, instead of setting out in a number of local regulations and orders lists of birds that may not be killed, lists that are so complicated that scarcely anybody can make head or tail of them, we start with the broad prohibition that all wild birds are to be protected. The only substantial exception that we make is in the case of the mischievous birds—your Lordships will see them set out in the Second Schedule—that do harm not only to agriculture and forestry but to bird life generally in the country. As to the consolidation of the legislation, the effect of bringing all the various provisions under one cover necessarily means that the Bill is more complicated than a great many of us had at one time hoped. If we are to have a complete code of bird law, I do not believe it can be contained in less space than the fifteen clauses and the five Schedules of this Bill.
I come back to the question of the reversal of the present position. All birds are protected. Subject to the exceptional provisions in the Bill, or to its coming within the list in the Second Schedule, no bird can be killed. Within this general prohibition there are, however, two subsidiary provisions. In the first place, there is set out in the First Schedule a list of the more attractive and interesting birds that are likely to breed in this country. A breach of the general prohibition in their case means a much more severe penalty. Whereas for killing the more common birds the penalty would be a maximum fine of £5, in the case of
312
the birds named in the First Schedule, the more interesting and more uncommon birds, the penalty would be £25, and for taking their eggs the penalty would be £25 for every egg.
Secondly, your Lordships will see that the First Schedule is divided into two parts. I have dealt with the first part. The second part concerns the more common ducks and waders that can still be shot but are protected in the close season. I think noble Lords generally will agree that we wish to do nothing to restrict or to stop legitimate wildfowling. Some of the happiest hours of my life have been spent in wildfowling. It always seemed to me to be essentially the kind of sport that brought out, in particular, country interests and knowledge of the habits of birds, and, incidentally, the power of endurance in very severe weather. I do not think the lists in the Schedules should interfere at all with legitimate wildfowling, but I shall return to that question in a minute or two to carry it a little further.
So much for the general scope of the Bill—a general prohibition, and then these limitations or additions set out in the Schedules. I said just now that, because this Bill is the work of a great many different people, inevitably it contains compromises. The most notable of these compromises concerns the question of nesting. Many excellent people who are keenly interested in birds claim that a Bill for the complete protection of birds should contain, in addition to a prohibition on the killing of birds, a prohibition on all birds nesting. I am inclined to think that logically that claim is unanswerable. At the same time, we have to deal with these questions in a practical way, and, so far as I am concerned, being in charge of this Bill, I say frankly to noble Lords that if it is possible I prefer the line of least resistance.
Let me put the case that is made against the turning of birdsnesting into a criminal offence. There is no secret about the fact (I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will elaborate it further, later in the debate) that the Home Office take the view that it would be unwise, to put it no higher, to ask the local police to spend, perhaps, much of their time in "running in" boys and girls for taking the eggs of thrushes' and blackbirds' nests. The general public would not it is thought, accept a total prohibition of all birds-nesting.

313
On this account, the Bill proposes a compromise: that in the case of the birds set out in the First Schedule there should be complete prohibition in regard to the taking of any eggs, and that the penalties for taking these eggs should be very severe—no less than £25 for each egg, and the possibility of a sentence of three months' imprisonment. Secondly, there is a provision in the Bill making it illegal to sell any eggs. It has always seemed to me that the sale of eggs has been the chief temptation to the intolerable people who come down to bird sanctuaries, as they do to my own county of Norfolk, and steal the eggs of the marsh-harrier or the Montagu harrier. This Bill, for the first time, prohibits the sale of eggs altogether. Thirdly, if anyone is caught taking the eggs of those birds in the First Schedule the eggs are forfeited. That is a great thing, because in the past, as noble Lords will remember, these nefarious aggressors paid a fine of, perhaps, £1, and got away with an egg which they afterwards sold for £25. This practice is to be stopped altogether. There is the compromise, and I say frankly to the House that it is a compromise between the two views: those who wish to abolish all birdsnesting—that is to say to turn all birdsnesting into a crime—and those who think that, on the whole, some halfway house is more practicable in present conditions. My Lords, I do not wish to dogmatise upon a question of this kind. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with my friends who wish to go further; at the same time, my advice to noble Lords is that they should accept it, if for no other reason than that its acceptance will be the best way of getting the Bill on the Statute Book.
Now f come to the next of the compromises that underlie the provisions of the Bill, namely, the compromise with reference to the date of the shooting season of wildfowl in coastal areas. The present position is that in certain coastal areas the close season does not finish until February 21. I remember that when I was Home Secretary I had, somewhat reluctantly, to accept that date during the discussions upon the Bill upon ducks and geese that I was instrumental in getting through Parliament in 1939. In these coastal districts the shore shooters can go on shooting, mostly sea-duck and some geese, up to February 21. I can imagine that several noble Lords may say. "Well,
314
here now is an opportunity to get the position uniform and to do away with this exception" There again, my advice to noble Lords is that it is not going to be easy to get this Bill to the Statute Book, and in these circumstances I suggest to them the wisdom of accepting this compromise and leaving it to the Home Secretary afterwards to make regulations in certain areas—these provisions affect only certain areas—and to be careful to see that in no case the regulations make the position worse than it is at present. I can well imagine that that would be one of the first acts of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland in adapting provisions of this Bill to actual circumstances.
I pass from these two admitted compromises but before I sit down I have a word or two to say upon the other clauses of the Bill. I have dealt mainly with Clause 1 Clause 2 deals with sanctuaries. Already, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this clause. Noble Lords will see that it contains no provision for compensation in the event of a landowner's property being turned into a sanctuary. In view of criticism on that point, I have been further into the whole question as to whether or not this Bill should include a clause about sanctuaries. I find that the National Parks Act, 1949, provides already everything that is needed; it provides, so I am informed, compensation where compensation is necessary. That being so, I suggest to your Lordships, both on the ground that the present clause has laid itself open to misunderstanding and also because it is unnecessary, that when we come to the Committee stage, we should delete Clause 2 from the Bill altogether.
I now turn to Clause 4, which deals with the prohibition of certain methods of killing, except by authorised persons. Authorised persons, means, of course, persons who have received a licence, and in passing I would say that I hope there will be no cumbrous procedure about granting licences. The Home Secretary would do well to delegate to the county councils the power to grant licences, but where licences are granted, authorised persons can use the means set out in this clause for killing birds such as crows and magpies, which my own experience has

315
shown can be killed and controlled only in this way.
Next, I come to the clause that deals with cage birds. I raised the point, when the draft of the Bill was shown to me, whether it was necessary to have this clause in the Bill at all. It seemed to me that cage birds were outside the scope of a Bill of this kind, but I was convinced that it was wise to include the clause for the reason which I stated at the beginning of my speech—namely, that our objective is to have all the various classes under one cover in this Bill, cage birds as well as ducks and geese, and the rarer birds with which I have been dealing. That is the history of the fact that cage birds are included in the Bill. And let me say that though the clause and the Schedule that accompanies it look formidable, they merely mean including in this Bill what is already the Statute Law, under the Act of 1933: they merely embody that part of the Act within the cover of this Bill.
Clause 6 tightens up the prohibition of the importing of dead ducks and geese during the close season. I welcome this provision. I have always felt that something further was needed to stop the importation particularly of ducks from the Continent, where they have probably been killed in decoys in Holland, at the end of our shooting season. Not only does one wish to discourage the killing of these ducks and geese for the London market, but one also wishes to make it easier for the police and the Customs authorities to prevent British ducks from being killed and sold as if they came from abroad. Noble Lords will see that we tighten up those provisions.
Next, your Lordships will see that, in Clause 11, we set out much stiffer penalties for those who fail to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I remember very well that when we had a debate upon the subject a year ago, several noble Lords drew attention to the complete inadequacy of the present penalties. In this clause we have tried to remedy that defect. Clause 10 deals with the Advisory Committees that are to advise the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to any modifications of the Act, particularly whether this or
316
that species should be added to this or that Schedule. Therefore, for the first time—and this is an important point—these two Committees are being made statutory. Up to the present, they have not been statutory Committees; henceforth, they will be. And they will be in close touch with the local committees of the county councils in England and the corresponding bodies in Scotland. The local committees will advise the Advisory Committees upon local conditions, and the Advisory Committees will subsequently advise the two Secretaries of State before they make new regulations. Lastly, noble Lords will see the formidable list of Acts, set out in the Sixth Schedule, which we are asking Parliament to repeal. It is really fantastic that there should be twenty-six Acts of Parliament, dating back two hundred years, to deal with a question of this kind, yet dealing with it so completely ineffectively.
My Lords, I have tried to explain the origin of the Bill—the fact that it is based upon these years of work by these two expert Committees. My part is simply this. The two Committees asked me to take charge of their Bill, and that is what I am trying to do. Secondly, noble Lords will remember that it is a remarkable feat that these two Committees have been unanimous on these proposals. I am fully aware that every noble Lord who is going to speak may have his own ideas upon some detailed point connected with the Bill. He will wish this or that bird to be removed from one Schedule to another, or he will wish this or that date altered. Those points we can discuss upon the Committee stage. I do not claim in the least that this Bill is verbally inspired, but I do claim that it is a practical way of dealing with a practical problem. In any case, like other noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that are made in Committee.
I should like to say in this connection—and I do not think I am disclosing any secret—that I hope very much that a Bill upon not dissimilar lines will be introduced in another place. If so, I should welcome that Bill, and I would suggest that we should press on in this House with this Bill and Members in another place with the other Bill, and eventually bring the two rivers together in a volume that will sweep away opposition and

317
finally get a Bill on the Statute Book. As I say, I am aware that there will be criticisms of some of the details. Let them be made, but let noble Lords think of the background I have tried to describe. The proposals strike people in different ways. Here is a letter from an unknown correspondent, who takes rather a different view of these provisions from the view I take. He writes:
"MY LORDS,
"I heard with dismay an announcement by the B.B.C. on November 4 that sparrows are no longer to be protected, and can be killed by anyone. Some years ago I lived in the Midlands when the same kind of thing was broadcast. The result was truly disgusting. The country lanes were strewn with dead bodies of all kinds of small birds, even robins; fledglings were taken out of their nests and crunched under heel by young hooligans, whose one joy in life is still to kill and maim. When I spoke to the children about it, I was told, 'Well, it said so on the wireless.' I should be grateful for the sake of the country if you would put this matter straight.
"May I draw your attention to the Gospel record, that Christ said God was present at the death of every sparrow. You are going to keep Hint pretty busy when other things need His attention, such as this killing of young children. A child who is encouraged to kill young birds will be a potential criminal of the future."
I hope that your Lordships do not take the somewhat fundamentalist view of my correspondent, and that you will give the Bill your general support and will help me in this House, working upon parallel lines with our friends in another place, to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the end of the Session. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Templewood.)
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to say that I shall certainly give this Bill my general support. For a private Bill I think it goes much too widely, and that is a mistake. I wish the framers of the Bill had contented themselves with much narrower topics. I believe the right thing to do is to have a Bill which deals with the protection of wild birds and does not attempt to deal with consolidation. It would be a much better arrangement to have a Bill to deal with this matter and then leave its consolidation with the other Acts to the machinery which exists. Looking at this as a Private Member's Bill—I do not know whether the Government are going to take it over and give time
318
for it—one finds that it deals with all sorts of questions which are really unnecessary and I wonder whether that will not rather prejudice the central purpose of the Bill, with which I am entirely in accord. I should like to join the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in his tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and his Committee, to whom we should all be most grateful. Lord Ilchester has great knowledge of this question and he had with him a Committee of vast experience and knowledge. I hope it will not be thought, however, that because these people were so eminent and had such knowledge, those of us who have much less knowledge are in any way precluded from making our suggestions and moving our Amendments to the Bill, because there are some respects in which I think the Bill could usefully be amended.
With regard to the main outline of the Bill, apart from where it strays I think it is perfectly sound. It is a good idea to start with a general prohibition of the killing of wild birds. Incidentally, may I point out that "wild birds" are so defined that game birds, as normally understood, do not come within the definition? There is this general prohibition of the destruction of wild birds then there is special provision for dealing with noxious birds. Here we shall have to consider rather carefully the birds that are named therein. Another Schedule deals with specially protected birds, with regard to which it is an offence to take an egg from a bird's nest. The broad general compromise is one that may commend itself to your Lordships, though, fortunately, your Lordships are not bound by other people's compromises: yet I think it is a sensible idea that it should not be an offence if a small boy goes and takes an egg from the nest of art ordinary bird. I did it when I was young and made a collection of eggs. In doing so I got to know a considerable amount about birds, and, in consequence, birds have been an abiding interest all my life. It would be rather dreadful if every small boy who took a thrush's or blackbird's egg could be hauled before the police court and fined. We should be losing our sense of proportion. It. is much better to try and teach the children not to take eggs, but to content themselves with finding the nests and putting that fact down in their diaries. Later on they can turn up their diaries and feel rather proud of the fact

319
that they did not take the eggs from the nests they found. That is a much better way than bringing the boys before police courts.
Clearly, however, the eggs of certain birds must not be taken. The names of these birds are given in the First Schedule. To these I should like to add some other birds, not because the birds are particularly rare, but because they are particularly beautiful and do no harm to anyone. For example, there is the kingfisher—a glorious sight. I give the kingfisher merely as a type; there are many other illustrations one could give. I think it should be an offence to take a kingfisher's egg, and I believe I shall have a great deal of support from other noble Lords in that view. We should add to this Schedule the names of birds which manifestly do no harm and, while not particularly rare, are very beautiful and ale birds whose numbers we should like to see greatly increased. I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will keep an open mind when we consider which birds should be put in one Schedule or another.
I am glad to see that the glorious golden eagle is included in the First Schedule, though it may be described as a bird of prey and it is obvious that the eagle does do a certain amount of harm He takes the grouse, the young lamb, the mountain hare and so on; but, in spite of his defects, I am not sorry to find him in the First Schedule. I should also like to see in the First Schedule the peregrine falcon. He is a rare bird, and a beautiful one, and I feel it is a pity that he is not included in the First Schedule. I speak without much knowledge of fishing, but I should have thought that a goosander might very well go into the category of noxious birds. I remember shooting a goosander many years ago, and finding in his crop a mass of small trout. I should have thought that he might well be considered a noxious bird. However, that is something we might consider. I see that the bullfinch is in the noxious bird category. He is a lovely bird, and I am sorry to see him in that rogues' gallery. However, it may be necessary. All these matters we shall have a chance of discussing, and I would beg the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who moved the Second Reading, and the noble Lord,
320
Lord Lloyd, who is to speak later not to have a closed mind about this matter but to listen to argument and to see where we stand.
As I say, I like the Bill. I propose to speak about it briefly, rather to indicate the sort of points that have been in my mind, because it may be of some use to those in charge of the Bill to know at any rate how I am thinking about it. I am sorry there has been introduced into this Bill, which is for the protection of wild birds, the concept of trespass and authorisation. I believe that will create considerable trouble. I realise that people who trespass may do great damage, but remedies against that already exist. Consider what this Bill provides. Clause 1 (1) (a) refers to a person who wilfully
"kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any wild bird."
To that there is an exception at the top of page 2 where it says:
"Where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act."
That is the mischievous Schedule; that provides for the authorised person who is, for instance, killing a magpie. In paragraph (b) no question of authorisation arises at all; it deals simply with the fact that the bird is named in the Schedule. Therefore, we get this odd result. Suppose two people, both being unauthorised, kill on the same day, outside the close season, a magpie and a ruff and reeve, or any other bird named in that Schedule. This is the odd result: they commit a criminal offence in respect of the magpie, but they do not commit a criminal offence in respect of the ruff and reeve. I shall propose in due course (I mention this now only so that it may be considered) to take out from Clause 1 (3) (a), the third line on page 2 of the Bill, the words "the person is an authorised person," so as to equate paragraphs (a) and (b), because that provision does not come into paragraph (b). I cannot see that that is sensible.
I used to have a shoot, and I walked over my neighbour's land to get to it. Suppose that, not being authorised to shoot on his land (though he would not have minded if I did) I shot a teal, or a woodcock, or something of that sort. I should commit no offence; but as I say, if it had been a magpie or a hooded crow, I should have committed an offence. If

321
I had seen my neighbour afterwards, and I had let a hooded crow go, he would have "told me off, good and proper." But had I shot it, the mere fact that I shot that hooded crow would constitute an offence. I think that is a pity. Therefore, I should eliminate the whole question of authority, and consider this measure as a Private Member's Bill dealing with birds. I should not consider questions of trespass or authority but I should deal with those two matters in the same way, by leaving out any reference to an "authorised person." I notice also that we shall have to go into a difficult proviso concerning what shall be done on the Sabbath day. That is a pity. I hope it will not bring about such a mass of controversy so as to preclude this Private Member's Bill from passing into law. I suppose it is necessary to deal with that proviso.
In considering Clause 1 (1) (b), which deals with a person who wilfully
"takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird,"
I have asked myself how I would consider that provision if I were siding judicially. It certainly does not apply to the taking of one egg. That is obvious, because you must compare it with paragraph (c), which says.
"takes or destroys an egg."
Does it apply where all the eggs are taken, but the nest is left intact? I am inclined to think that it does not; and I am inclined to think that the construction that will be put on the phrase, "destroys the nests," in that context, will be that it means what it says—namely, destroys the nest. So long as you leave the nest intact, even if you take all the eggs, I do not think you would he in the mischief of paragraph (b). I feel that that point needs to be carefully considered. I think the intention is to include a case where all the eggs are taken from the nest; but I am not sure whether that is so.
I like the provision in Clause 2, to establish bird sanctuaries. If bird sanctuaries are to be established under this Bill, might it not be worth while to confer upon the Secretary of State, when he makes the bird sanctuary, a power to prevent entry during the nesting season, save under authority? If people are going through a bird sanctuary, it is most difficult to see that they behave as they
322
should and do not interfere with the birds. It would be worth considering whether, in those circumstances, that power should not be given to the Secretary of State. I should have thought that if a bird sanctuary is to be established, it should not be done without the consent of the owner of the land. To me, it seems a pretty tall order to go and make a wood belonging to some gentleman a bird sanctuary without his consent. If I had done it in the last Government I do not know what your Lordships would have said to me. This Bill provides merely that you have to consult him and tell him what you are going to do. I think it should not be clone without his consent, and that there should be added my provision about preventing entry during the nesting season, save under licence or such conditions as may be specified.
A difficulty arises under Clause 3 (2) (a) which is familiar to us. Broadly speaking, you may not kill any wild birds; but under Clause 3 (2) (a) you may kill wild birds other than those which are specially protected, if you catch them doing serious damage. That is likely to lead to a good deal of trouble. When you see a bird on your cherry tree pecking away your blossom, he is not at that moment of time doing serious damage; it becomes serious only if he keeps on doing it and a number of his pals come and keep pecking, too. I foresee great trouble in applying this provision. If we must have this exception, a great number of birds will be shot under it. Cause 4 is one which seems to me to go very widely outside what is appropriate for a Private Bill. I do not know what the law is at present—that will be dealt with by consolidation—but I would venture to say that there is no effective way of getting rid of magpies other than by using poison. They are canny birds and go high up in the air. You cannot get them except by poison. I do not know whether it is an offence at the present time to use poison bait. All I know is that a large number of people authorise their keepers to do it, and I should think it is pretty widely done. Under this Bill, such action would require a licence. As we all know quite well, it is a formidable step to get a licence from a Government Department, and I believe that that point needs to be looked at.

323
I notice that the Bill prohibits the use of decoy ducks. I have in my time shot in places where there have been some pinioned ducks on the lake, and they have attracted wild duck. I believe that is commonly done. I gather that that is now to be made illegal, for the first time. It depends upon whether the bird can be said to be maimed—I suppose it can. That is a remarkable step to take, and I do not see why it is done. Under Clause 4 (1) (c) it is now to be an offence to use a maimed decoy. I should have thought that Clause 4 (1) (d) went right outside bird protection. That paragraph deals with punt guns. I shot with some American Air Force officers stationed here during the war, and I used guns which fired an innumerable number of shot. I am bound to say that they did not seem to be very successful in hitting the birds. But is this a proper place to deal with this provision, which for the first time makes it illegal to shoot with a gun of that sort? I believe that this is one of the provisions in the Bill which it would be wise to jettison.
Passing to Clause 5, I see that for the first time it is to be made illegal to sell gulls' eggs. During the last few years, at the club or where one eats, it has always been possible to buy a gull's egg. Many people have done so, and like it. I do not think there is any particular harm in doing that, but why put this provision in this Bill? This is not a Consolidation Bill or anything of that sort. If the noble Viscount tells me that the gulls are decreasing in consequence of this practice, or anything of that sort, then he has made a case; but if not I do not see why the prohibition is there. Dealing with Clause 6, I suppose that the provisions about live or dead quail are consolidation—I have not looked at the law. In our young days we used to go to a hotel and find quail on the menu. I have not seen that for many years, because I have not been to these hotels for many years, but I suppose that is the effect of the Act of 1937. It certainly is not the law of this land that you cannot bring into this country the eggs of any lapwing. That illustrates the vice of mixing up consolidation with what is not consolidation.
The Lapwings Act—which I felt was a classical example of what well-meaning
324
people can do—proved disastrous. I believe that ever since that Act was passed the number of lapwings in this country has gone down remarkably, and it is not difficult to find the reason. I believe the reason is that in the old days the first clutch used to be taken, and the second clutch was then reared when the birds were protected by the corn or longer grass. We said that we wanted to encourage the lapwing because it is a lovely bird and the farmer's friend; but the question of the eggs is neither here nor there. It is no longer permissible to sell the first clutch, and the result is that the plover sits on its young who are hatched out. They then find comparatively barren ground, and are picked up by some enemy when about three or four weeks old. The mother bird has her heart broken and she does not try again. They have not passed a similar Act in Holland, and I am glad to see that plovers have kept up their numbers—indeed, I am told that they are increasing. My wife and I know a large number of people over there, and every year until this year we always had plovers' eggs sent to us. This year, for some reason of other, the import of plovers' eggs was prohibited—under what powers I do not know. I suppose it may be as a kind of sumptuary law, but what it has to do with the protection of birds I do not know, and I suggest that it is something which might well be jettisoned from this Bill, which otherwise is an admirable Bill.
I take it that Clause 7 (2) is also consolidation. I have never seen one of these pigeon shoots, but I should think it is a miserable form of sport, and I am only too glad to see it ended, if it is not already ended. If it is already illegal, then it is unnecessary to have it here as this is not a Consolidation Bill. Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State a complete power to make what schedules he likes. When we come to the Committee stage I should like to suggest some modification for your Lordships' consideration. I think it confers too great a power upon the Secretary of State. I quite agree that there must be power to alter or amend these lists in the light of experience, but the point I would suggest is this. These two Advisory Committees, one for England and one for Scotland, are to be set up, and I suggest that when the Secretary of State brings his order before the House he should show by some paper

325
that he has consulted his Advisory Committee, and should let us know what the Committee have advised him. At the present moment, these Committees are set up but are given no powers. They simply have to advise on whatever questions the Secretary of State asks them to advise upon. I suggest that it would be a good idea to say that, before the Home Secretary alters the Schedules, he shall consult the appropriate Advisory Committee and that when he conies to the House with his Order in Council he shall show what questions he asked the Advisory Committee and what their advice was. I believe that that would give them a real task and that we should all like to see it.
I have little more to say. With regard to cage birds, I should like to see it made illegal to keep any wild British bird in a cage—I am talking not about domestic poultry or a battery system for hens, or anything of that sort, but about wild birds. There used to be many people who went about catching linnets and sometimes, I believe, larks. That seems to me entirely deplorable. Was it not Blake who said:
"A robin red breast in a cage
Sets alt Heaven in a rage."
Surely we all agree that the place of every British wild bird which naturally lives here is in the open air, and not in a cage. The Bill stipulates that these birds must not be sold. If that is to be made effective, the best way of doing so is to say that no one must keep them in a cage at all. If it is said that there must be certain exceptions for aviaries, then let that be under licence from the appropriate Government Department. That would be all right, but I would ask the noble Viscount to consider (I have asked him to jettison some parts of the Bill) whether he would not enlarge this one slightly and make it illegal to keep British birds in a cage, no matter what the size of the cage is. The prohibition is on keeping them in a cage which is too small. What I find offensive is keeping them in acage at all. Canaries and budgerigars may be kept in a cage, because they could not live here in the open; but that is not true of linnets, chaffinches or any bird of that sort.
I have made those criticisms deliberately, because I thought it might be useful if I showed how my mind was working at the present time. Having made those
326
criticisms, I say that, so far as I personally am concerned, and I think, other noble Lords who sit with me, we cordially support this Bill. We would far rather have this Bill as it is than the present state of affairs, with its utter chaos. But I believe that if we work together on this—after all, we have a vast amount of knowledge in this House—we can make a really workable Bill. I conclude where I began. Let us remember that we are not bound by anybody else's compromises. Let us look at this Bill and see what we can do to make it a useful and serviceable measure, not going outside the proper scope of our ambit. If we do this, and do not regard each clause or Schedule like tables of stone, handed down by divine authority, we may be able to make this an effective Bill to protect the splendid heritage that we have in this country—our wild birds.
4.11 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I should like to start by following the noble and learned Earl in giving this Bill a cordial welcome on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It has been admitted on previous occasions in this House—and in all parts of the House—that the existing law dealing with the protection of wild birds is hopelessly confused and unsatisfactory. I do net think anybody doubts that; nor does anyone doubt that more effective legislation is extremely desirable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has explained to your Lordships that this Bill is the result of several years' work by the English and Scottish Advisory Committees. Moreover, since the proposals were first submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, they have been exhaustively discussed and, revised in consultation with those Committees. Furthermore, the Nature Conservancy have been given full opportunity to comment on the proposal. As a result of this, as I think my noble friend said, we have a Bill which has been carefully considered and which is largely an agreed measure. The main feature of it is the principle of comprehensive protection for all wild birds, with certain exceptions. I strongly agree with what has been said, that we in this House must not be bound by anybody's compromises. On the other

327
hand, before we alter the Bill too much we must carefully consider what we are doing, since the Bill represents a great deal of labour by a number of people who know a great amount about the subject.
So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I do not think there is any question—certainly there is no question in my mind—that the application of this principle of comprehensive protection will make the law more uniform, simple and comprehensible. Further, I believe that the great majority of people in this country would agree with the general proposition that no bird, rare or common, which is neither harmful nor wanted for food should be wantonly killed or captured. I am confident, therefore, that most people in this country will not feel that this Bill, in adopting the principle of comprehensive protection for birds, goes in any way too far. On the contrary, my fear is that in restricting the principle of comprehensive protection to the birds and in not extending it to their eggs, some people may feel that the Bill does not go far enough. I have no doubt that we shall hear arguments directed towards that particular point in the present debate.
I do not for a moment dispute the fact that a strong case can be made out for the comprehensive protection of birds' eggs. At the same time, I confess that I am glad that my noble friend Lord Templewood has not adopted that second principle in his Bill, since, whatever its advantages may be—and they may be many—in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government they are greatly outweighed by the disadvantages. It is to these disadvantages that I should like to draw your Lordships' attention for a few moments. First, it is clear that any complete prohibition of birdsnesting must apply particularly to children. The noble Viscount made that point. It is extremely difficult to justify a law the main impact of which will fall upon children, particularly when the activities which are made illegal are in many cases pretty harmless. After all, children are not selective: they just go birdsnesting. In many cases, the eggs they take are not the eggs of rare or valuable birds; nor can one pretend, in many cases, that the bird population suffers unduly by their depredations. I think it is highly probable that a large element of responsible opinion in this
328
country would regard the complete prohibition of birdsnesting as unnecessary arid, indeed, crankish, with the consequence that it would not been forced and would tend to bring the whole law on wild birds into contempt.
In most people's minds to-day there is a great deal of difference between killing birds and taking their eggs. I believe that the average citizen, although sympathetic to the general principle of protecting all birds, might well jib at the idea of making birdsnesting a crime. Nor can I accept the argument sometimes put forward that it does not matter if the prohibition goes rather far because, in practice, it will not be strictly enforced against children. I do not think we can ask Parliament to pass a law with the deliberate intention that it shall not be fully enforced. I am sure your Lordships will agree on that. Nor do I think it proper or fair to the police to enforce any law selectively; naturally, most policemen would prefer to "turn a blind eye" in such circumstances and not enforce the law. The problem of enforcing selective protection is often said to be a very difficult one, owing to the difficulty of identifying a species of egg. Nevertheless I think it has been exaggerated. In practice, if protection is selective, and therefore aimed primarily at the collector, he will know when he is breaking the law and will take precautions accordingly. Enforcement is seldom likely to be a simple matter of observation by the constable on the beat. Much more often it will be a question of acting on information received, probably at the instigation of some local society or individual who will be able to give the police any necessary help about identification.
In the view of the Government, to make a broad generalisation, the protection of birds' eggs involves two distinct problems. The first arises from the depredations of collectors whose concern is with rarities. The second arises from the depredations of the hooligan element among children, to which my noble friend referred, and which, as I have already said, is not selective. I would reinforce what my noble friend has already said: that the Bill does attempt to deal with the collector by providing effective penalties against taking rare birds' eggs and by prohibiting the sale of eggs of all species that breed in Britain. I am not going to join issue

329
with the noble and learned Earl about gulls' eggs. I like gulls' eggs as much as he does, and I shall have a most nostalgic feeling if I never see them again.
EARL JOWITT: I do not like them very much, but I marvel at people who cannot differentiate between a gull's egg and a plover's egg.
LORD LLOYD: Be that as it may, I think the prohibition on the sale of eggs will be a sanction against the collector, and the scheme of protection under the Bill, which is based on a national list of protected eggs—a list which the Secretary of State may alter on his own initiative—should be simpler, clearer and more effective than the existing system of protecting all eggs by local orders, made on the initiative of innumerable local authorities.
The second problem, that is to say, that of the hooligan element amongst children, is quite a different problem from that of the collector. I am convinced—and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me in this—that the right way to tackle that is really through education and not by means of the criminal law. I have dealt at some little length with the objections, as we see them, to this question of the comprehensive protection of birds 'eggs, because I have felt that here was a matter of fundamental principle—at any rate, it is a matter which some people feel to be a question of fundamental principle—and because I have felt that on this matter the House would like to have the views of Her Majesty's Government at an early stage in the proceedings.
The noble and learned Earl raised a number of points with which I do not think he will expect me to deal this afternoon. There is one, however, about which I should like to say a word, and that is the question of authorisation, because I feel that there is more in the question of authorising people to kill these "black list" birds than perhaps he has put forward to your Lordships. After all, if you are going to allow the general public to kill "black list" birds wherever they see them, which I presume is what the noble and learned Earl wishes to do——
EARL JOWITT: No; I do not wish that at all. The noble Lord misunderstands me altogether. The existing law
330
of trespass would apply. I would net give people authority by this Bill to go on to other people's land to do anything at all. I would not make authority the test of whether you breach this law or not.
LORD LLOYD: As the noble and learned Earl is aware, under the existing law of trespass it is necessary to prove damage. A man can go and walk in another man's corn, possibly in pursuit of a magpie. Unless the landlord can prove damage—and it is often too expensive for him to do so—that man can go and poach on anybody's land, and I do not feel that there is any effective sanction against him. I think that if we were to throw the Bill as wide open as that, it might well become known as the "poacher's charter." However, that is a Committee point, and that is the sort of question which we shall have to consider in greater detail when we come to the Committee stage. I agree profoundly with what the noble and learned Earl has said, that we have to examine this Bill in detail and with the greatest of care. I can certainly speak for Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure I can speak for my noble friend, when I say that I do not think that anybody has a closed mind on any of these issues; that is the important thing. I feel convinced with the noble and learned Earl, that if we tackle the measure in this way we ought to be able to produce a Bill which will be a real advance on the existing state of affairs.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the Government welcome this Bill without any reservation. Indeed, as I think: I said on a previous occasion, we ourselves should have been only too glad to introduce a measure on similar lines had it been possible for us to do so. But nobody who has read the gracious Speech will be unaware of the very heavy programme of legislation which is before Parliament in the present Session, and it has been quite impossible, as I explained before, for the Government to undertake a Bill of this kind during the present Session. Therefore we are all the more grateful to my noble friend Lord Temple-wood for introducing this Bill. If I may say so, I can think of nobody with greater knowledge, greater experience and greater enthusiasm, nor one who is more suitable to undertake a measure of

331
this kind. I can only say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we assure him of our full support and of all the help that we can give him during the Bill's remaining stages.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: My Lords, a good deal of what I was going to say to your Lordships has already been said, especially with reference to the ancient history of this Bill; therefore, I shall not repeat it. I should, however, like to comment at this stage on a remark of the noble and learned Earl who thought it was a great pity that the Bill should incorporate consolidation. 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, and therefore I think the suggestion that it goes too far for a Private Member's Bill falls to the ground. My Committee were dealing with it as a Government Bill, and it was only in the last few months that we realised that it would not be brought forward in that way. When we did realise that, I had a talk with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who very kindly said that he would step into the breach and introduce it as a Private Member's Bill, which my smaller knowledge of Parliamentary procedure would have made it impossible for me to do. My Committee and I are most grateful to him for the way in which he has taken up the matter, and I feel, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd said, that there is nobody who could possibly have done it better and nobody that we should rather have to introduce this Bill in your Lordships' House.
It is a very short matter, but one unfortunate effect of the necessity to bring forward this Bill as a Private Member's Bill at rather short notice in this House is the fact that it has been impossible to produce the memorandum which I promised your Lordships a year ago and which we hoped to issue with the Bill. Since the Bill was drafted it has become even more complicated
332
than it was before, and in some respects I find a great deal of difficulty in discovering what it means. However, I think that is inevitable. I am sure your Lordships would wish me to say a few words on some of the larger points which have been brought forward to-day. Most of them fall within the first two or three clauses of the Bill; the rest are an endeavour to work out the way in which we can deal with those clauses.
My first point concerns Part I of the First Schedule, which deals with rare birds. My Committee would have gone much further: we should have liked to see a £50 fine imposed in regard to each bird killed or each egg taken, so as to stop the loss of these really important birds. As the noble and learned Earl said, I think it possible that in Committee we shall have some more names to add to that Schedule, but that is a matter for the next stage. A number of topics which have been brought forward to-day are, I think, Committee matters, and therefore I shall not go into them at the moment. I am afraid that about a year ago I was rather optimistic when I said that my Committee hoped that we should be able to protect all birds and their eggs. I think that we have been able to do a great deal towards protecting the bird itself, but the question of the eggs is an extremely difficult one. We have had meeting after meeting to discuss this matter and we have never really found a suitable suggestion about it. I agree that nobody wants to prosecute small children. I myself had a very good collection of birds' eggs when I was a boy, and I learned a great deal from it. But that kind of thing has largely died out now. In these days one does not hear of many boys doing anything of that kind; therefore I do not feel that the same difficulty arises. There is no doubt, however, that while the only way of dealing with it is to say that no birds' eggs shall be taken, we must consider the other side of the question and what we are going to put in its place.
I suppose the only way to deal with the problem is through the multifarious lists of local authorities which we suffer from at the moment and which Mr. Chuter Ede specially asked us to try to get rid of in order to simplify the whole matter, We did our best, and I am very doubtful whether the Government proposition for

333
dealing with it in the way suggested is going to work. It is going to be most difficult because, in many cases, as things are at present, the police know nothing about these birds—nobody knows much about them and even the local authorities themselves take little interest in them. The other way is to have a long list of the names of perhaps 150 birds whose eggs are not to be taken. Whether that is a wise method of dealing with the matter I cannot tell. I do not know who is going to draft that particular regulation, but it is going to be a pretty difficult job. I am told, but I do not vouch for it, that in spite of the new Scottish law about salmon fishing, whereby no smolts or salmon parr are to be taken, everything goes on just the same, and there have been no prosecutions. I wonder whether we might not have left the matter rather more in the air than the Home Office feel is advisable.
The next is really a matter for the Committee stage, but the noble and learned Earl, who is not here at the moment, mentioned the bullfinch. Had he been here he might have been interested to know that the bulk of agricultural interests insisted on our including the bullfinch in this list. We did not want it in at all. Yesterday, I had an interesting talk with my gardener, who is an authority on these matters. He told me that though he sees a vast number of bullfinches, they do practically no harm at all, but that in our case the little tit does a great deal more harm. Yet in other gardens around the bullfinch does a great deal of harm. That is a very curious situation. In any case, I do not want to see the bullfinch exterminated.
The Third Schedule deals with edible wild birds. My noble friend explained the reason why the season for the shooting was lengthened to February. That was a compromise. That is the case at the present time, but few counties have adopted the present provision. They have to apply for permission to do so if they so desire. I understand that hardly any counties in Scotland have done so, eider. However, we are going further and are putting the matter the other way round. What we have suggested is a matter of compromise with the Wildfowlers' Association, who wanted the period extended to the end of the season. We did not agree to that, and there the matter remains. However, everybody will have the right to shoot these birds up to
334
February 21, unless application is made to their local authority to cut the period down. With regard to Clause 2, I confess I was horrified to hear my noble friend say that he wanted to cut out the provision regarding bird sanctuaries. I think that would be the greatest possible mistake. It is the first I have heard of it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: May I interrupt my noble fiend to say this? I am just as much interested in bird sanctuaries as he is, but I understand that this matter is fully covered by the provisions of the National Parks Act. It is therefore unnecessary, I understand, to put these provisions in this Bill.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I think my noble friend will find, if he makes inquiries, that there are many places in this country which do not come under the Act which he has mentioned. How is that gap to be filled?
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am told that it is all covered.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: That is a matter which, naturally, must be considered. There was one point which I was very anxious to secure but which the Home Office would not allow. It relates to the question of the disturbance of nests in a bird sanctuary. As anyone knows who has had any experience of these intruders, much damage can be done by a man going into a bird sanctuary. He can really drive a ternery mad, but, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said, you cannot turn him out, you cannot deal with him unless he has eggs on him, and, of course, the moment he sees you coming he throws away any eggs which he may have. The consequence is that you are helpless. This, too, is a matter which needs close study.
I will not take up too much of your Lordships' time, but before I sit down I should like to touch upon a few other clauses without going into any great detail. Clause4 deals with illegal methods of killing or taking birds. Punt guns are not prohibited in England as they are in Scotland, but the bore of the guns is limited. That is an important point. Decoys are permitted, but no new decoy can be started except by licence. Clause 5 is important. The matter with which it deals has been mentioned on several occasions, so I need not say much

335
about it. It provides that no live birds named in the Fourth Schedule can be sold, nor can their eggs, blown or otherwise, and that no bird named in the Third Schedule can be sold in the close time. Clause 6 sets out restrictions on the importation of certain wild birds and eggs. Under Clause 7, there are provisions as to cage birds and the size of cages. Evidently we are going to have some discussion on that, so I need not raise any point upon it. I think there is nothing further with which I need deal. I only wish the Bill could have been a less complicated measure, but I can assure your Lordships that we took a great deal of trouble to try to make it as easy to understand as we could. We did our best, but it was impossible to make the Bill simpler. I would again thank my noble friend for taking up this Bill and putting it before your Lordships' House. On behalf of my Committee, I am sure I can say that if he wants any help from any member of that body we shall be only too pleased to give it to him, especially when the Committee stage is reached. I can see that when we do get to that stage there will be a great many matters to be gone into and threshed out.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I do not wish to weary your Lordships by going again over the ground which has already been covered in the admirable speeches which we have heard to-day from previous speakers. I would just say that we know this Bill has been most anxiously awaited, not only in your Lordships' House but all over the country. I am sure that it must be a great satisfaction to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who has worked so hard over such a long period to get a Bill like this brought before Parliament, to be able to be here this afternoon to introduce it for its Second Reading. I wish very strongly to support him.
None of us suggests that it is a perfect measure. Was any Bill ever perfect? Personally, I had hoped for something very much simpler than this. The fact that there are four scheduled lists of birds may indicate more complication than is necessary, and may suggest that the Bill is not a great improvement in simplifying the existing law. But we must
336
remember that it has been an extremely difficult task for Lord Ilchester's Committee. I think they have been in the situation of having, to steer between Scylla and Charybdis—on the one side they have had the wildfowlers' organisations, with their legitimate interests to consider, together with the people who want birds-nesting to continue just as it is now carried on; and on the other side they have had people who are all-out protectionists. So the Committee have had to steer a sort of middle course between those conflicting interests. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that the Committee have done extremely well to produce this Bill.
For the first time, we shall have what we may call comprehensive legislation over the whole country, instead of these innumerable local orders and Acts in different counties, which, as noble Lords have said, are often quite unintelligible to the persons who commit offences and also to the police who have to prosecute offenders. I believe that in England there are as many as 200 different Acts and by-laws affecting wild bird protection. In Scotland, I understand, there are over forty. So your Lordships see how terribly confused the whole thing has become. Now we are to have uniformity of the law. Under this Bill, all birds are to be protected except those which are considered harmful and those which are useful for purposes of food. As regards the selective protection which is to be applied to eggs, I think that that is good, for we are still allowing the harmless activities of schoolchildren and others who take the eggs of the commoner birds. After all, it is the commoner birds which are the most able to survive. The fact that they are common birds means that there are plenty of them. To permit the taking of the eggs of blackbirds, thrushes and a few other species will not do a great deal of damage. It will certainly not make these common birds extinct.
There is one point here that I should like to mention I suppose noble Lords have considered it: that is, the question, When is a nest "in use" and when is it not "in use"? Clause 1 (i) (b) refers to any person who wilfully:
"takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use;"
One wants to stop damage to a nest as soon as the building of it has begun,

337
but one cannot call it a nest "in use," I suggest, until the bird is sitting on it, or laying eggs. It is rather a fine point—I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has any suggestions to make about it. Perhaps if we could alter that passage to "when the nest is in building or in use" it might be more simple. Otherwise a nest might be carefully built by a bird over weeks, and just as the bird was about to lay its eggs the nest could be taken without an offence being committed. It might be considered to be not "in use because there are no eggs in it.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: My Lords, we discussed that point very closely. The real trouble is that these rapscallions of boys come and break the nests. They not only take the eggs but pull the nests out, and we must try and get that stopped. Another point is that with certain nests an egg cannot be taken out without destroying the nest—the long-tailed tits are an example of that. There are a number of difficult points about this problem.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I thank the noble Earl. If he thinks that we cannot make a finer definition, we shall not worry any more about it. As regards the harmful birds, which are placed in the Second Schedule, it seems to me that birds may be harmful in one district and not in another. The bullfinch has been mentioned. Suppose that only one bullfinch has been seen within an area of fifty miles, which is quite possible; is that one bullfinch, when it appears, to be shot ruthlessly? In that district it is a rare bird. I think this is an important point which might be considered. As regards birds which are classed as food birds, although I appreciate the difficulties of the Committee, I am sorry to see that the lovely wild whimbrel has been put in Part II of the First Schedule, and it is an offence to kill the whimbrel only in the close season. The same applies to the ruff and reeve. In Scotland these are not common birds; they are rare birds, and it seems to me that if they are rare enough to be included in the First Schedule, they should be protected entirely and not put in Part II, where they are allowed to be taken during the open season. The curlew is another bird classed as a food bird. I am sorry that the Bill could not have gone a bit further
338
and excluded the curlew altogether from the Third Schedule and put it into Part I of the First Schedule, where birds are protected at all times.
I do not want to delay your Lordships much longer, but as I am speaking on behalf of Scotland there are one or two points as regards Scotland that I should like to mention. There is not a special Scottish Bill, for two main reasons. The first it, that it would have been impossible to find time, whether Government time or Private Members' time, for two Bills, and the second point is that the same kind of laws are wanted on both sides of the Border. So it is clear that this Bill will serve the purpose for both countries. If a special order is required for any particular bird in Scotland, then I imagine it is up to the Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of State and get an order made as soon as possible. One point that has occurred to me is that at present the eggs of certain birds are protected by local laws, and under this Bill these would be exempt from protection. May I give one example? In my county of East Lothian, the eggs of the common tern and the ringed plover, or sand lark, are protected, because it was considered advisable to allow these birds to breed more freely. They are not very rare, but they are nice birds, and the local authority wanted to encourage them. Under this new Bill, a new law will have to be made for their protection. I hope that this law will be made. It will be up to the Advisory Committee to advise the Secretary of State to do this as soon as possible.
Under the Bill, shooting is prohibited in Scotland on Sundays, but is to be allowed on Christmas Day. That is rather a ticklish point. I had a letter to-day from the Scottish Society for the Protection of Wild Birds, which is the representative society for Scotland and which has a large membership. They say that it is felt that, in addition to the protection to be afforded in Scotland on Sundays, there should be added New Year's Day and Christmas Day. That was in answer to a specific question which I put to them. In this connection, opinion is divided in Scotland, as it is on most other questions. This point may have to be looked into, and I reserve the right to put down an Amendment on this question. Another point with reference to

339
Scotland is that the close season for snipe is from February 1 to August 11, while in England and Wales it is from February 1 to August 31. The reason for that is that in Scotland snipe are much more frequently found with game birds than they are in England, and the Committee thought it advisable to make the dates of the close season for snipe and game birds coincide.
I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and to the members of his Committee, who have done a very difficult job extremely well. They have produced a Bill which, though it may not be perfect, nevertheless, if it becomes law, will go a long way to protect wild birds and save many of the rarer from extinction, because these greatly increased penalties are bound to be a deterrent. It will do something more, which I think has not been mentioned: it will encourage other countries, who now lag behind in their own laws for bird protection, seeing our example, to follow suit and amend their laws. In this matter of bird protection we do not want to think in insular terms. So many of these birds migrate. We want to look on the world as one vast aviary in which the birds may be free to go from one country to another if they wish and when they wish, to the joy and benefit of all mankind. Finally, my Lords, cannot this Bill possibly come into force before December 1, 1954, as is stated in the Bill? If it could come into force before the spring we should have the benefit of it next nesting season. I have great pleasure in giving my support to the Bill, so ably introduced by the noble Viscount.
5.0 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, in welcoming this Bill I speak for a great many societies which are interested in the protection of birds. They would all wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, who introduced the Bill, and the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. As a result of their work, after nearly thirty years of discussion on this subject by official and unofficial committees, a conclusion which, on the whole, is a most satisfactory one has been reached. I am sure, also, that the helpful attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is greatly appreciated, as well as the assistance given by his
340
Department. There will be acute disappointment if, when your Lordships have dealt with this Bill, time is not found to pass it into law in another place. I heard with some surprise that objection might be raised to the extent of the consolidation achieved by this Bill, though, at first sight that would seem to be one of its more important merits. I feel, with most of those who have gone into this subject, that there will be no satisfactory administration of the law unless there is this consolidation. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will consider that point further before pressing it too far.
EARL JOWITT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would say that I am all in favour of consolidation, but I believe the right way to get it is to pass the substantive law first, and then leave it to the experts, with the machinery we have, to consolidate.
LORD HURCOMB: I quite follow that, but I am sure that in this particular instance it will be the happiest way of giving early improved protection to the birds. I have no doubt that many legal problems will arise with which I am incompetent to deal, and the status of a nest in the course of construction may be one of them. If we are looking for problems of that sort, which I do not think will give rise to any practical difficulty, noble Lords who are learned in the law might consider what is the status of a house-martin's nest which is temporarily in use by a house-sparrow, which is in the list of noxious birds. There may be room for argument about that.
I recognise that in a matter of this kind there must be some degree of compromise. There are two points where compromise has, perhaps, been achieved, and where the solution will be found to disappoint a great many people who had hoped for more. I appreciate the difficulties in relation to the question of eggs. It is highly satisfactory that in dealing with the live bird the moment it has emerged from its own shell the right and logical principle has been followed of protecting them all, except the short list of outlaws in the Second Schedule. I still feel that it is unfortunate that, when it comes to the question of eggs, the opposite and most unsatisfactory principle is adopted, that of protecting only a short named list. Nobody wants to multiply offences, and

341
the small boy who takes a thrush's egg ought not to be treated as a criminal. But if it is left open to him to do what he likes, the same will apply to all the people who, for various reasons, make collections of eggshells and who plunder and destroy the vast range of our native species.
Other countries have faced this problem and dealt with it. I should have thought that, if there were some understanding or direction, the prosecuting authorities, and the magistrates themselves, in their own good sense, would not treat as a serious offence, or even as an offence at all, some taking of a common bird's egg by a small boy. I will not take up time with that point, because I realise from what has been said that the attitude of the Government is strongly against any other sort of approach, and we cannot ignore the experienced advice that the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, has given. If that position is to be accepted, however, I feel bound to draw attention to the situation which will result. I wonder whether all your Lordships realise how far the provisions of the Bill fall behind the protection which is now given by existing orders to a large number of species of birds. I agree that we must get away from this welter of separate county orders, and the machinery proposed in the Bill for the future represents a great improvement. But if nothing else is done, the only birds that will receive protection under the Bill on the day it comes into operation, in respect of the eggs—and it is that of which I am speaking—will be the forty-four species listed in the First Schedule. Most of these birds rarely nest in this country and, so far as the others are concerned, they nest only very sparsely. The far greater number of species which are at present protected by the law will lose that protection if nothing further is done.
I will not weary your Lordships by going through the lists operative in the various counties, nor will I attempt to deal with Scotland. But in England alone there are forty-seven administrative counties in respect of which orders are in force. In all of them the eggs of the goldfinch are at present protected. The kingfisher is protected, I believe, in forty-four out of the forty-seven. The nightingale is protected in forty-five out of the forty-seven—and I doubt whether
342
it breeds in the other two. The red-backed shrike and the stonechat (and the stonechat is a species which was seriously diminished by the hard winter a few years ago) both birds at the extreme end of their range, are protected in forty-four out of the forty-seven counties. It would be deplorable, in my view, to take a step backwards, and remove from the protection they now enjoy the eggs of species like that. It is true that under Clause 1 (2) the Secretary of State will have wide power to prohibit the taking or destruction of the eggs of any wild bird specified in the order, other than the "outlaws "included in the Second Schedule, in any part or the whole of Great Britain.
I do not ask that the list of the First Schedule should be much, if at all, expanded. That Schedule is really aimed at the collector, and not at the wanton or indiscriminate destruction of a lot of other species. What I do ask (I might be out of order in asking for any assurance from the Government at this moment on what is a Private Member's Bill) is that at the right stage, and in the right place, an assurance should be given by the Home Secretary that before the end of next year, and before the Bill comes into force and all the existing protections go, a new consolidating order should be made continuing the protections which now exist. That seems to me to be the minimum which ought to be done. We should not risk even one breeding season occurring with the gap that would be made in the existing law. These are protections to which the county councils have already consented, and for which, indeed, they have themselves asked. If the list were reviewed, no doubt some of the protection could be made more general, and a great many of the anomalies that exist as between one county and another could be removed. But that may take time; that may want review by the Advisory Committees. The immediate point that I am urging is that no risk should be run of a gap or a severe contraction of the protection which many important species now enjoy. I hope the noble Lard, Lord Lloyd, will not regard that as an unreasonable request, although I am not expecting an answer now.
LORD LLOYD: I wish to help the noble Lord as much as I can. I do not

343
think he can expect me to commit the Home Secretary at this stage in the terms that he has mentioned to your Lordships. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill, he will see that before my right honourable friend can make any order he has to consult the two Advisory Committees, and he has to allow representations to be made to him by county councils and other bodies on the matter concerned. Again, I think the noble Lord will probably admit that these lists and local orders have grown up in rather a haphazard manner in some cases, and it might be argued that they go rather far. This seems to be the opportunity for reconsidering all those lists and trying to get the matter right this time. Therefore I cannot give the noble Lord an undertaking in the terms he wants. I will say this to him: that he need not be too concerned that the list he sees in the First Schedule is the last word on this subject. My right honourable friend is conscious of the difficulties he has raised. The matter will be considered. I cannot guarantee that one breeding season may not elapse. There may be a gap because of Parliamentary time, but I can tell the noble Lord that full consideration will be given to the point which he has raised.
EARL JOWITT: If we put that in the First Schedule, as the noble Lord suggested, there would then be no hiatus, because the birds continue under the existing protection until this Bill becomes an Act.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I hesitate to intervene between the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and the House, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, not to commit himself to-day but to think over this question between now and the Committee stage. I do not disguise my own opinion—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I do not want an interval in which things get worse, and I do not want any part of the country which is behaving well in this respect to behave worse. It is not a simple issue, and I would ask my noble friend Lord Lloyd to think about it and to realise the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has made an important point.
LORD LLOYD: I can only reiterate that I am not going to commit my right
344
honourable friend. I have said that already. The point will certainly be taken into consideration.
LORD HURCOMB: I was careful to say that I did not expect an answer. I hope that I also made it clear that I am not asking for a series of additions to the First Schedule; I am asking for an exercise of the powers the Home Secretary will have under subsection (2) of the clause. If these birds are included in the First Schedule, among other results it would become a special offence to take the eggs. The consequence would be a £25 fine instead of the ordinary £5 fine, and I am not asking for that. All I say is that it is not safe to leave even one breeding season open when terns'eggs—as the noble Lord speaking for Scotland said just now—and a great many other eggs could be taken with complete impunity and when, in my view, a great many of these important and rare species (though not the extreme rarities named in the First Schedule) would get plundered on behalf of collectors. With a little discussion, the point is so reasonable that in principle it ought to be accepted, and those who are urging their point of view will be so reasonable in practice that it ought not to cause the noble Lord much difficulty.
Another important matter which has been mentioned is causing great concern to those interested in the conservation of wild fowl and to the Nature Conservancy, of which I have the honour to be a member. It is the proposal in Clause 1 that in the case of wild duck and wild geese shooting should be allowed below high water mark of ordinary spring tides commencing on February 21. That, again, in some respects is a retrograde step. My friends find it difficult to see why a compromise should be necessary on a matter of that sort. To advance the close season a little in August does not set off an extension to the end of the third week in February. At the end of August there are no geese in this country—for example, no Brent goose is anywhere near the country at the end of August, but they may be on our coasts in the early weeks of February, and that is when they are vulnerable. As the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, said, a large number of counties have never availed themselves of their right to ask for an extension beyond February 1, and it seems unfortunate that

345
any protection for those species which now exists should be withdrawn. It is fair to say that the Home Secretary could, when all the motions have been gone through, restore it. Surely, it would be far more satisfactory to omit the paragraph dealing with this extension to the end of the third week in February. Five months open season ought to be enough, and it would simplify the Bill and should not give rise to much opposition, even from the wild-fowlers, if that point were reconsidered. I hope at any rate that your Lordships will agree that there again existing protections should not be withdrawn.
Those are the two major points on which the Bill falls short of the hopes of some people. There are others which no doubt can be discussed in Committee. There is, if I may mention it, the position of the Nature Conservancy, which is the statutory body and, under its charter, the proper adviser of the Government on all these questions of conservation, but which is not mentioned in the Bill. I will not develop that point, because I know it is under discussion between the Ministers. Then there is the particular point of the protection which ought to be afforded to the Brent goose. That is connected with what I was saying just now about the prolongation of the shooting season into the third week in February. As your Lordships know, the Brent goose is a species which winters very largely on the East Coast of England. When it is said that there are still a good many about, it is overlooked that a very large part of the world population of that particular race is there to be found. Its status has given rise to great apprehension among those who are interested in the maintenance of wild fowl. In the interests of the wildfowlers themselves, as well as in the interests of ornithology and science, in the view of many people that species ought to have absolute protection. That is a point which I think is likely to be raised on the Committee stage, and I will say no more about it now except to remark that the importance of its protection is enhanced if the close season is to commence only so late in February as is proposed.
The position of the bullfinch has been mentioned. I feel that there is no need to put the word "noxious" into the heading of the Second Schedule at all: it is quite enough to tell the carrion crow
346
that it can be killed and taken without also calling it "noxious." I am sure that that would be the general feeling in respect of the bullfinch. It may do some damage, but if it is found to be damaging the fruit trees the owner of the trees is allowed by the provisions of the Bill to kill it and is not liable to be convicted of an offence. One would have thought that that was quite enough. It can be urged on behalf of the bullfinch that it is a special race separate from the Northern and Continental variety. If that is too technical a consideration to weigh with your Lordships, it has been pointed out that in spite of its handsome and dashing appearance it pairs for life—hardly a noxious habit.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: The word "noxious" is a Home Office description and has nothing to do with my Committee.
LORD HURCOMB: It is the draftsman whom it concerns. He may see a way of omitting it. Another point—it is one which my noble friend Lord Terrington asked me to mention: he is not able to be here now—relates to the lapwing. I venture not to agree ornithologically with all that was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I think I am right in saying that in practically every county in England one is not allowed to take a lapwing's eggs at all. That protection again disappears, but I suspect that that is just a drafting point which can easily be put right after suitable argument in Committee. I mention these points now because it may save time at a later stage. They can also be considered by Lord Templewood and by the Home Office.
I am alive, as everybody must be, to the importance of not jeopardising a measure so valuable and so long-overdue by raising any unnecessary points. At the same time, I urge upon your Lordships the necessity of exercising the greatest care to see that you do not acquiesce, in removing protections which now exist. A glance at the Schedule of Repeals will show what a gradual and grudging process the protection of our wild bird life has been in the past. There is now a far wider interest taken in this matter, and a far greater fund of knowledge as to the steps which can most wisely and reasonably be taken. Now that at last—

347
thanks to the efforts of many of your Lordships—we have an opportunity of replacing the confused mass of existing Acts and orders by a rational and effective scheme of general protection for birds and their eggs, the opportunity surely must not be allowed to slip. There will be great disappointment in many quarters if this opportunity is not fully taken, and taken in a generous spirit towards the birds themselves.
5.25 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I shall not detain you for many moments, but on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I want to say one or two words of welcome to this Bill. I do not want to cover the ground which has already been gone over, but we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for introducing a Bill which, though we recognise it is not a perfect Bill, nevertheless provides for a much better state of things than we have now. There is one point on which I should like to express my support of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb has said. I feel that it is necessary that birds and their eggs which are at present protected should not lose that protection under this new measure. One has to be careful to see that nothing retrograde like that is going to occur. I should like to join in the general thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, for the great amount of work which he has done in the preliminary stages of this Bill, and also to the noble Viscount for introducing it into your Lordships' House.
5.26 p.m.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, it gives me special pleasure, as Chairman of the Council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to support this Bill. In the past we have had tremendous trouble to get any convictions or adequate sentences, on account of the totally out-of-date and confused legislation on the subject. Some birds are protected in Scotland and not in England; some in one county and not in the next; and, worst of all, the very rare bird is not protected at all, either because nobody had heard of him or because he was not expected. Well, my Lords, it is the rare bird about which I am worried. Under this Bill, should the dodo rise from the dead and walk over here he would be
348
protected and would be well received. But if he, or rather she, should lay an egg, that would not be protected. And now we are back at the same old trouble. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in what he said about the comparatively rare bird—the nightingale, the red-backed shrike, or, as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, pointed out, the kingfisher. All these birds ought to have their eggs protected; and there are other rare birds which might wander over here who ought equally to have their eggs protected. It is difficult to think of a constructive way out, but I suggest that, just as the Bill protects all birds from being killed, yet contains a "black list" so that a few birds may be killed, we might protect all birds' eggs, yet have a list of certain common birds, such as the blackbird, the thrush, the hedge-sparrow, et cetera, whose nests the small boy is likely to rob—as, indeed, he may do, although we hope that he will be gradually educated not to. I throw out that suggestion; it has occurred to me since hearing some of your Lordships speak.
In referring to the Second Schedule, I should like to remind your Lordships that under this Bill there is nothing whatsoever to hinder the genuine sportsman. We wish to hinder the collector, and some of your Lordships who may still have sufficient money to rear a few pheasants can continue your sport. The only man who I hope will be hindered—and probably for three months, and most uncomfortably—is the collector. He is usually a man of wealth, who can afford to bribe people in far localities in the Orkneys and Shetlands. Let him know where any rare bird is nesting, and he goes up there, takes the eggs and comes back. Even then he cannot really enjoy his clutch, because he can only look over it in secret with his cronies. In any case, I am so pleased to have this Bill in principle that I would not wish to risk putting in any Amendments that might jeopardise it. I hope your Lordships will give all possible support to the noble Viscount in his magnificent work in introducing this Private Member's Bill. When it reaches the Statute Book it will be an achievement as great as I believe it is rare in your Lordships' House.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has certainly done a great service in introducing this Bill. It is one to which, on the whole, I give unswerving support, but it still has a number of deficiencies which ought to be made good during the Committee stage. Moreover, its general form is rather unnecessarily complicated, though that is something which I fear cannot easily be remedied. I am sorry that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is not here at the moment, because I wished to congratulate him on an admirable and most knowledgeable speech, with which I was 90 per cent. in agreement, because he laid his finger upon a number of weak spots in the Bill as it stands, most, if not all, of which could be remedied during its later stages. It is not my intention to go deeply into the question of what birds should be placed in, or removed from, the various Schedules; after all, that is a Committee point. There are, however, one or two birds which have already been mentioned, and one or two which have not, on which I think a few remark s would not be entirely out of place.
First of all, there is the bullfinch. I am rather in agreement with those who would like to see the bullfinch taken out of the general list of noxious birds. I think that if this were done, however, it would be necessary to allow some of the major fruit-growing counties, possibly Kent and Worcestershire, for example, to apply to have the bullfinch restored to that list, because, delightful little bird as it is, it is capable of creating havoc among fruit orchards in the early part of the year. Then there is a bird which has not been mentioned—that is, the buzzard. For many years the buzzard has enjoyed legal protection and, on the whole, general unofficial protection; but its numbers, particularly in Scotland, have been increasing at a most extraordinary rate, particularly during the last few years. Little more than twenty-four hours ago, I saw a buzzard within three miles of the outskirts of the city of Perth. That was something I had never seen before, and never until this year had I seen buzzards circling all day over Oban Bay. A member of your Lordships' House informed me yesterday that, when he was shooting recently in Wales, there were no fewer than five circling overhead
350
practically the whole time. In the county of Argyll, at any rate, the buzzard is becoming a definite nuisance, and it may well be that in certain counties it will be necessary to remove him from the protected list. From being a decidedly uncommon bird, he has now become in many parts of the country a bird sufficiently common to become something of a menace. If there is no opportunity of taking him off the protected list, it only means that he will be shot illegally, which is something one always wishes to avoid.
Many other points were dealt with by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, on which he is deserving of support. One is the question of the difficulty of the "authorised person." I think this is going to be a very considerable difficulty because, as the Bill stands, if anyone took out a small boat on the West Coast of Scotland and did the decidedly meritorious deed of shooting a number of cormorants and greater black-backed gulls, he would apparently be guilty of an offence unless he had previously obtained a licence from the local county council. That, I submit, is a somewhat ridiculous position. An even more ridiculous position will arise if provision is not made for the taking of the eggs of the black-backed gull. This species for a long time past has been increasing almost everywhere in the country; and it is still continuing to increase. There is no reason whatever why its eggs should not be taken. That is done in a great many gulleries, and during the war it was found that they could be taken over a much longer period than had hitherto been thought possible, without causing the birds to desert those gulleries. They represent a small but not altogether inconsiderable amount of foodstuffs and there is no reason whatsoever why the eggs of the black-headed gull, the common gull, the lesser black-backed gull and the herring gull should not be taken for food.
There is also the question of the importation of quail. The word "quail" in this Bill refers to the common quail, a bird formerly of much more frequent appearance in the country than it is today. All my life I have seen only one quail in this country, and, although they nest sporadically every year in some part of the country, owing to the enormous havoc that used to be wrought along the Mediterranean by catching them in nets,

351
they have become much more rare to-day and, therefore, are deserving of complete protection. But in the Bill as it stands, it would be illegal to import other species of quail from, say, the United States of America, from which several attempts have been made to introduce that very charming and entirely harmless species, the bob-white. I think, therefore, that some provision should be inserted whereby quail, other than the common quail, might be imported under licence into this country.
On the question of the taking of the eggs of the peewit or lapwing, again I am in agreement with the noble and learned Earl. It is perfectly true that in many years most of the first clutches are destroyed. In some cases they are taken by the crows and other birds, and it is only as a rule when the first grass or early corn begins to appear to a length of several inches that the clutches are anywhere near safe. The best way would be to revert to the former law, whereby it was legal to take the eggs of the lapwing up to, say, as it was formerly, April 15. I do not say that should be a fixed date; it could be the 10th or an earlier period. But there is no reason to suppose that the complete prohibition of the taking of these eggs has, in fact, done the species very much good. Certainly taking them late in April is a mistake.
There are one or two other points in which the Bill is rather unworkable. We get birds specially protected at all times—the rednecked phalarope and Temminck's stint. There is no reason why those two birds should not be protected, particularly as the phalarope nests in Scotland in very small numbers. But I wonder how many ornithologists there are in this country, let alone wildfowlers, who could distinguish either of those species, particularly in autumn plumage, from a number of other waders—even on the ground, far less in flight. The answer is that it could not be done. Equally, coming to the lesser white-fronted goose, that is one where such protection is not workable because very few people would be able to distinguish a lesser white-fronted goose from an ordinary white-fronted goose on the ground, and I am sure they could not do so in the air.
As regards other geese, particularly the Brent goose and the barnacle goose, there is a considerable divergence of opinion
352
about their present status. If they are to be given complete protection in either country, England or Scotland, I suggest that that protection should be reviewed at intervals of not less than three nor more than five years; and it may well be that in the case of these two species an even more limited shooting season might be enforced—say, only the months of December and January, with to February 21 below the high-water mark. I might add, despite what Lord Hurcomb said, that I think there is no doubt that a curtailment of those extra three weeks below high-water mark would be bitterly resented by wildfowlers. The Brent goose in particular is one which in normal circumstances never comes inland at all. Practically all the Brent geese that are shot in this country are shot not even on the foreshore but out at sea, and in many areas the Brent does not put in an appearance until somewhere in the neighbourhood of Christmas. Therefore, if he is not to be shot for those three weeks in February, it means that to all intents and purposes he cannot be shot at all; and if his position is such that he should not be shot at all, then obviously the provision whereby he is still an object of chase in England ought at least to be temporarily abolished. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, would like to have seen certain of the other waders taken out of the Third Schedule—notably the knot and the curlew. He also mentioned the whimbrel.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: And the dunlin.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: And the dunlin. The answer to that is that the dunlin is an extremely common species on the shores in winter, and I have not heard that there is any diminution in its numbers. They nest in the country in small numbers in various places. The knot is again a bird which one finds along many parts of the coast, although I believe there is no record of its having nested in this country. The curlew is one of the chief objects of pursuit of the coastal wildfowler, although I think most inland shooters, including myself, do not regard it as game. I do not see why those three birds should be exempted from this list. Shooting them has not in the past produced any noticeable reduction in their numbers, and there would indeed be something to be said, although

353
no doubt it would meet with opposition, for permission being given to shoot them until February 21. Certainly the whimbrel should be protected, but once more we are up against the difficulty: how can the fowler distinguish the whimbrel from the curlew, particularly in the autumn when the whimbrel has ceased to give his characteristic and extremely delightful summer song?
I cannot say that I am altogether in agreement with the theory that the collector of birds eggs, who may himself be described as a most noxious species, is usually a rich man. If such men exist, I am afraid that no provision of any Act will deter them from attempting to secure the eggs they desire. All that they will do is to guarantee to pay the fine of the person getting the eggs for them. The collectors who are really most dangerous are those who earn a portion (sometimes a very substantial portion) of their income by the taking and selling of the eggs of rare birds. Some of these men also pose as ornithologists and bird protectors. If time permitted I could give your Lordships several examples of people of this kind. One of them used to visit Hickling Broad some years ago, but his activities were soon found to be not those that he had made them out to be, and the late Mr. Jim Vincent gave instructions that that particular person, if he ever visited the spot again, was to be thrown into the nearest water that came handy and that it did not matter whether he got out again or not. I do not think he came back.
But the professional collector is one, if not the worst, of the enemies of the rare nesting bird of this country. I throw out this suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Forester, in his capacity as Chairman of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: that where it is feasible to approach the nest of one of the rarer birds, particularly the larger ones, without causing its abandonment, it would be a good thing if the eggs could be stained with some indelible dye so that they would be quite useless for the purposes of commerce. When I suggested that to an eminent protectionist some time ago, he replied that in that case the egg collector would probably be so angry that he would smash the eggs. In that case the species is no worse off, but the collector is very certainly worse off But
354
if such a collector knew that the eggs had been daubed with an indelible dye in such a way that they could never be exposed on the market, I think it would go far to discourage the activities of such a particularly unpleasant person.
To return for a moment to the shooting of wild fowl as a whole, it is to be remembered that the wildfowler does not wish to exterminate or greatly to diminish the numbers of birds which are his quarry, because if he does that, then obviously his sport is finished. A notable example of that was the formation among wildfowlers some years ago of a society to encourage the preservation of wild duck in the United States of America. Many of these men from all over the country met together and decided to take various steps and to form themselves into a corporate body. Then they had to decide what name they should take. One man mildly suggested the name "Ducks Limited" to which, if your Lordships will pardon the repetition of it, more violent members said: "'Ducks Limited'?—hell! what we want is ducks unlimited." So the now very important body in America known as "Ducks Unlimited" came into existence, and working in close co-operation with the conservation services of the United States, it has helped to bring about a great increase in the numbers of wildfowl there. It must also be remembered that the greatest step forward in the conservation of wildfowl in this country in recent years—that is to say, the establishment of the Severn Wildfowl Trust—was carried out by a man who is not only a great ornithologist but an almost greater wildfowler, Mr.Peter Scott. So it is the case here that protectionists and wild-fowlers should work together, because their aims are really the same.
There are only one or two more observations that I should like to make. One is that I think it is a pity that in Clause 8 of the Bill one finds that the Secretary of State may add to or remove from the lists of birds in any of the Schedules relating to Great Britain. The clause finishes in this way:
"Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection with respect to part only of any administrative area."
My Lords, I think that is unfortunate, because administrative areas, when they

355
are counties, are often very different in their various parts. When I became a county council or simultaneously on becoming a Member of your Lordships' House, I was approached not by the conservationists but by the wildfowlers of the Tay Estuary to see whether something could be done to stop the horrible slaughter of immature duck, many of them small birds hardly even to be designated as flappers. This slaughter took place annually on August 1, as the season then opened in the Tay Estuary. There was great opposition to the date being extended over the whole county of Perth to September 1, but we did succeed in getting a compromise measure whereby the nine estuarial parishes of the county—those bordering on the Tay—had, and have had ever since, September 1 as the opening day of the duck-shooting season. The result of this protection has been undoubtedly a. considerable increase in the numbers of duck, particularly of mallard and teal, all over the area surrounding the Tay. I submit that there are cases—very likely rare ones—when only a portion of an administrative area would be the proper one, either for the protection of, or the removal of protection from, any one particular bird. I think, therefore, that it would do no harm, and possibly might do good, if those two lines were deleted.
There is one bit of protection with which I am not in agreement, and I cannot understand the reason for it, and that is the suggestion that the woodcock should be protected until the end of September. The woodcock in the first thirty years of the century was increasing very rapidly as a breeding bird throughout most of Britain. Perhaps in the last fifteen years or so there has been a slight recession, probably because its numbers had reached the ecological maximum, if they had not passed it. The woodcock is not shot habitually in August or September; most woodcock shooting is done in woods which are not normally shot until October, anyhow. As regards woodcock on moors and rough grounds, I know of no case of their being pursued as such during August and September. A woodcock that comes over during a day's mixed shooting adds spice to the bag. In view of the woodcock's very satisfactory position as a breeding bird in this country, I cannot see why any such protection
356
should be necessary. However, I welcome most strongly the protection which is now to be given to the capercailzie. The capercailzie ought, of course, to be a game bird. The only reason why he is not officially classed with them is that when the first Game Acts were introduced in the early part of the last century the capercailzie had been extinct in Britain for a great many years, and so there was no reason to mention him. A few years later he was reintroduced with great success, but he has had until now the status merely of a "wild bird," and so he could be shot from August 1 until the end of February. That is a position which ought to have been regulated long ere this. I may add that, despite what the Forestry Commission or anyone else may say against the capercailzie, the damage which he does to coniferous woods is entirely negligible.
There are other various points on which emendation could be made, but, as they are mainly of a Committee character, I do not propose to weary your Lordships with them now. I repeat that I think this to be on the whole a most admirable Bill. I hope very much that the noble Viscount who is in charge of it will not be too resistant to any endeavours that may be made during the Committee stage to make it an even better Bill than it is to-day.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise, not to make a second speech but to thank the many noble Lords who have spoken for the many suggestions which they have made. Indeed, they have put forward so many suggestions that I am almost overwhelmed by them, and I am wondering whether it would not be the case that, if we took up all of them, we should be discussing this Bill week after week and month after month. But I will do my best between now and the Committee stage to take full account of what has been said, and to look forward to the Committee stage when we can deal with the details better than we can to-day. At this moment I am not going to try to deal with the details at all. I am merely going to make my general position clear at the end of this very interesting debate.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, objected to this Bill on the ground

357
that it was too complicated and too comprehensive. From the point of view of someone like myself who is trying to get it through Parliament, I should have much preferred the Bill to be simpler and shorter. At the same time, I think the noble and learned Earl must take account of the fact that this is the kind of comprehensive Bill for which everybody has been shouting for years past. I think he will find, if he looks into it further, that it is not so easy as he suggested to take out this particular clause or that particular proviso. I believe he will discover that the Bill does hang together, and that some, at any rate, of the clauses which he criticised to-day are not likely to lead to any long discussion. They are in the Bill chiefly for convenience—so that we can see the whole picture at one and the same time. I do not want to join issue with the noble and learned Earl to-day. I would merely ask him to consider what I have said, particularly that it is a comprehensive Bill which successive Home Secretaries, the two Committees which have been mentioned and speakers in the various debates, in which I have taken part in this House, have always demanded. So much for that broad question. It is one of the broad questions which have been raised to-day.
I come now to another broad question—one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has once again, if I may say so, made a most interesting and valuable speech. He pointed to the risk of certain areas being left less well off, from the point of view of protection, than they are to-day. That would be the last thing in the world which I should wish to see. I own that I was attracted by his idea of a consolidating order carrying over the present regulations until the two Secretaries of State have had time to review them, and, if they so wish, to make new orders. I can assure the noble Lord to-day that I regard his suggestion with the greatest sympathy, and if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will permit me, I will make a point of consulting with him and the Home Office to see whether some assurance could not be given before the Bill becomes—as we all hope it will—law. It should be quite clear in the matter of nests and the killing of birds, and also in the extension of the date for the shore-shooting, that in no area should protection be worse than it is to-day.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment at this point? I will certainly consider what he has asked me to consider, but I hope that in his discussions with the Home Office he will consider the possibility of putting into the First. Schedule—or something like the First Schedule—all birds which at present get protection. Thereafter the Home Secretary, if so advised, can take them out. That would result in there being no hiatus in time, and birds which are at present protected would still get protection. I think that is a possible way of doing it.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I should not like to give the noble and learned Earl a specific answer on that point until I have considered it further. I have a natural reluctance to increasing the number of birds in these Schedules. From what has been said by members of the Advisory Committees, I know that they wish to keep the Schedules as limited as they can. But I think my object and that of the noble Earl are the same, and between now and Committee stage I will see how best we can make proposals that would carry it out.
As I say, I am not going into all the many details that have been raised. In passing, I may say that one or two of them have been contradictory. But we will look at them all. Once again I would appeal to noble Lords in all parts of the House to give me all the help they can. I regard my task as an extremely difficult one, and I do not think there is the least chance of my succeeding unless I find not only a general body of support but also a readiness to accept the fact that we are dealing with a complicated question and that it may often be wiser to take the line of least resistance. I would suggest that I put the Committee stage down for December 1. I know that that is a short time between Second Reading and Committee stage, but as so many points have been raised I think the sooner we start on it the better. Lastly, thinking over what I said this afternoon, I find that I made a terrible mistake—I am saying this particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Haddington and Lord Mansfield. I described the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Ilchester as the British Committee, and I know that if

359
I do not correct that here and now I shall have every Scotsman in this House, and every Scottish paper, abusing me. I beg to withdraw the word "British" and to substitute for it the word "English."
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes past six o'clock.