PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL

HL Deb 29 April 1954 vol 187 cc201-72

4.5 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs

1. Save as provided by or under this Act, if any person wilfully—

1. (a) kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any wild bird; or
2. (b) takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use; or
3. (c) takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird,

he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if that offence is committed in respect of a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act or in respect of the nest or egg of such a bird, shall be liable to a special penalty.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

had given notice of two Amendments to Clause 1, the first of which was to leave out the words "Save as provided by or under this Act, if" and to insert "If, save as permitted by or under this Act." The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the House, I should like to move my two Amendments to Clause 1 together. These Amendments are put down to meet a point raised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Your Lordships may possibly have seen a letter in The Times last Saturday which had a reference to this matter. Section 3 of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, makes it an offence, amongst other things, for a person to have in his control or possession after the 15th day of March any wild bird recently killed or taken"; but it is a defence to prove that the bird was legally killed or taken. The Act of 1880, apart from local orders, protects birds only between March 1 and August 1; and even then only scheduled birds are protected against owners and occupiers. Thus, all birds could legally be taken at some times of the year and most birds at all times of the year. Consequently, apart from the words quoted above, there would be no possibility of proving an offence under the Act unless a person was actually seen killing or taking a bird.

In these circumstances, for effective enforcement, the provision quoted, which throws on a person found in possession of a wild bird recently killed or taken the burden of proof that it was legally killed or taken, is clearly necessary. Under this Bill, however, most birds will be protected at all times, and therefore the need for such a provision is less evident, and no such provision has up to now been included in the Bill. The R.S.P.C.A., however, say that the absence of such a provision would seriously hamper enforcement. They say that for many years they have been responsible for the great majority of prosecutions in England and Wales under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, because, of course, as your Lordships know, in Scotland virtually all prosecutions are undertaken by the Crown. Most of their prosecutions have always been for the offence of being in control or possession of a wild bird which has been recently killed or taken. They point out that, even when nearly all birds are protected at all times, it will often be impossible to bring home to a person found in possession of a dead bird the offence of having himself killed it. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no other offence for which he could be prosecuted. This also applies to people found with birds which have obviously recently been taken and put in cages. In all these cases, it will be obvious that an offence has been committed, and it seems reasonable that the person found in possession of the bird should be made liable even though it is not possible to prove that he himself actually took or killed the bird. I recommend these Amendments to the House because they will provide for that point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 5, leave out from the beginning to ("any") and insert the said words.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

EARL JOWITT

May I say something, if only to reveal my own ignorance, I am afraid. This Clause 1 deals with the killing of birds and the taking of eggs. I notice with great interest, and some relief, the noble Lord's letter in The Times, but I would ask this question. Supposing, for instance, we are dealing with the egg from a common bird, such as the blackbird or thrush, or some bird of that sort: how does that stand under the Bill? Is the taking of the egg of such a bird legal or illegal? Would the noble Lord mind expounding the position, so that we may see exactly where we stand?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

If the noble and learned Earl will permit me, I will deal with that point on a later Amendment, when it comes to be dealt with.

EARL JOWITT

Certainly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I have already spoken on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("or if any person has in his possession or control any wild bird recently killed or taken which is not shown to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of this Act or any order made thereunder.").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Exceptions to s. 1 with respect to certain wild birds, nests and eggs.

2.—(1) Except in a prescribed area on Sundays, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act by reason of the killing or taking of, or an attempt to kill or take, a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act, or by reason of the injuring of such a bird in the course of an attempt to kill it.

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section one of this Act— (a) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act or of any other common wild bird which the Secretary of State may by order made with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain prescribe for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(6) In subsection (2) of this section, the expression "close season" means— (c) in the case of wild duck and wild geese in or over any area below high water mark of ordinary spring tides, the period in any year commencing with the twenty-first day of February and ending with the thirty-first day of August;

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

had given notice of four Amendments, the first being in subsection (1), to leave out "in a prescribed area on Sundays" and insert "on Sundays and on Christmas Day." The noble Earl said: It may be more convenient for the House if I take together these four Amendments to Clause 2 standing in my name because they all refer to the same matter. My Amendment does not seek to dictate what it is right or what it is wrong to do on Sundays or on Christmas Day, but I should remind your Lordships that this is a Bill for the better protection of all wild birds. Your Lordships will see that even in the Second Schedule, which comprises birds which are supposed to be harmful, birds and nests and eggs can be taken only by authorised persons. This Bill has been welcomed, I think, on all sides. It comes at a time when everybody is becoming more and more bird conscious, so it seems to me not unreasonable that we might extend our good will to all wild birds, irrespective of their Schedule, on these particular days in the year, and to give the birds and their nests and eggs a little further protection. If these restrictions were applied there would still remain (if my counting is correct) 312 days in the year when war might be waged against noxious birds. I have little doubt that this Amendment would be welcomed in Scotland, where at present there is an almost total prohibition, made, of course, by local orders and by-laws, against shooting on Sundays. I should like to think that it would be equally acceptable in England and Wales, so that we may have uniformity in this matter over the whole of the British Isles. That is all I have to say on the Amendment. I hope that the Government may see fit to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, leave out ("in a prescribed area on Sundays") and insert ("on Sundays and on Christmas Day").—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

All of us who know the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, know his lifelong interest in birds, and his desire to see that they get the fullest and most sensible protection we can afford them. But I confess that I have a good deal of misgiving about this Amendment. Under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 2, authorised persons are allowed to kill a Schedule 2 bird, and anyone can kill Schedule 3 birds outside the close season, "except in a prescribed area on Sundays." Subsection (5) defines a "prescribed area" as meaning Scotland or any county or county borough in England and Wales prescribed for the purpose by order of the Secretary of State.

When the noble Earl put down those Amendments I was not absolutely clear of his intention because the first and third Amendments omit the reference to "prescribed areas" and there was not, as I thought, a consequential Amendment to clear it up. But now the noble Earl has made his position perfectly clear. His intention is to afford some few more days in the year during which birds may be safe from the shooter, and the prohibition on Sundays he suggests should become uniform. To my mind that goes rather too far.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

And Christmas Day.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I will come to that in a moment. Shooting at present is prohibited by local orders in many parts of England and Wales, but by no means in all of them. I have always felt that any law in which Sunday and the preservation of the Sabbath is involved should be a matter of local option. On this point sentiment varies locally very greatly, and there are some areas where Sunday is considered a normal day for many drives against the wood pigeon and other agricultural pests. So to my mind—I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl, who I know holds his views very strongly—it seems that the right course is to preserve, or to let the Secretary of State preserve, the existing situation.

About the second and fourth Amendments, which extend the prohibition to Christmas Day, as well as Sunday, I understand that the Scottish Advisory Committee have no strong views. But there is no prohibition of Christmas shooting in Scotland at present, and on balance it was thought, when the Bill was being prepared, that it would be better not to introduce this prohibition for the first time in the Bill, particularly as Christmas Day is not, as the Committee will know, regarded in quite the same light as a religious festival by those of us who live in Scotland, as it is by those who live south of the Border. In some areas of England and Wales, where shooting is at present prohibited on Sundays, it is also prohibited on Christmas Day; but this is not always so. As I have said, the noble Earl seeks to gain a few more days of peace and quiet in the year for birds which are sometimes quite hard-pressed. But for the reasons that I have given, I have some misgivings about the purport of the Amendment and I am afraid that I cannot accept it.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

Naturally, I am disappointed that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept my Amendment. I think that the best thing I can do is to withdraw the Amendment and to ask leave to put down on the Report stage a further Amendment applying to Scotland only. I will not move the other three Amendments to which I have referred.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out all words from "Act" down to and including "paragraph." The noble Earl said: I hope that I have already relieved the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, whose noble relative has so successfully, so gracefully and so lightheartedly piloted this Bill through another place. I want to assure her that I am not attacking her pet clause in any way, but I have approached the subject in this way because there is certain information which I think it extremely important the Committee should have before passing this clause. The Committee may remember that when the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, introduced his Bill, the Advisory Committee handed over the results of their four-year attempt to solve these very difficult problems; and on that account I refrained from putting down any Amendment at all, either for myself or for my Committee, because I felt that it would not be right to do so. We were forced to hand over the Bill, which originally I understood from the late Home Secretary would be introduced as a Government Bill. On that point we were attacked on several occasions because certain things had been put into the Bill which were not really suitable for a Private Member's Bill—but that, I think, was ruled out, and therefore I took no part in attacking that Bill in any way, though I did not entirely approve of some of it.

The great idea of our Advisory Committee was to produce a Bill which would be as simple as possible, but unfortunately the Home Secretary took the line that he could not agree to what we suggested, which was that all birds and their eggs should be protected. That, of course, made an enormous difference, and as a result the whole matter has become far more complicated. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, moved an excellent proviso to Clause 3 (3), which made things more palatable, and conducted the earliest stages of his Bill, which required great tact, with consummate skill. The noble Lady's Bill, however, is rather a different matter; it is much further away from our original Bill, so that I have no compunction in moving Amendments to try to correct one or two blemishes which have crept into the Bill.

The efforts of my Committee have met with kind words in many directions, and I am grateful, on my own behalf and on that of the other members of the Committee, for what has been said. I greatly value also what the late Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, said. He always did everything to make things as easy as possible for us right up to the time when his régime came to an end, just at the time when we handed over our Report, which had taken us over four years to prepare. As I have said, in my opinion his successor has wrecked our reasonably well-balanced Bill by allowing eggs to be taken; and I do not believe that the clauses which have been substituted will work—though I hope that I may be proved wrong. Everyone—except the birds themselves—has had a peck at our Bill, and I cannot accept any responsibility whatever for the present Bill, because I do not like some of the things in it. I know, moreover, that most of the original Committee hold the same views as I do. As I have said, everybody has altered this Bill, starting with the Parliamentary draftsmen, whose job no doubt it is to make everything extremely difficult for the ordinary man to understand. Then we had an attack from the Home Secretary, and then came my noble friend Lord Templewood, with a few minor jabs; and now we have the present Bill, which really bears very little resemblance to the original Bill.

We have heard a great deal about the short list of birds which is now being produced, or which I hope is to be produced, of the birds whose eggs will not be protected. For many months before the noble Lady in another place came upon the scene I myself considered this clause most carefully and I came to the conclusion that it was quite undesirable and unpopular. It will open up an extraordinarily easy time for the people we want to stop—that is, the stealers of rare birds. It can become a paradise for them, so far as I can see—even with Clause 6. Thieves are well known to go underground, and I do not see how we shall be able to stop this stealing, except, as I say, by prohibiting the taking of all eggs. In the old days, some of us enjoyed collecting birds' eggs; we enjoyed collecting butterflies and moths, and wild flowers, but the present generation have very different tastes from what we had in the old days. They like machinery, their motor-cars, photography and so on, and I am sorry to see the complete waste of time which is going on in watching television. People will sit at home in the afternoon and watch what is going on. I think it is a very serious mistake, but that is the way things are going.

I want to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House whether he can tell us anything about this short list. I take it that this aspect was considered by another place when the Bill was introduced there, but nothing has transpired. Perhaps the noble Lord today is going to act the conjuror, and produce it out of his hat. So far, however, I have heard nothing about it. I think it is important that we should know what this list is. Are we to give a completely free hand for any bird to be put down in this list? I do not know. No doubt the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will tell us. I look upon this as a very important point. I feel even more trepidation about the whole thing, in view of the fact that I understand that the two members of the Advisory Committee best-qualified for such purposes were asked to help and then were told that they were not wanted. Who is going to produce this list? That is a matter which seems so important to me. In the years when I was working in the Home Office I am sure that neither I nor my Advisory Committee ever found anyone there who knew anything about birds at all. No doubt the people in the Home Office were extremely good on the legal side, but as regards the scientific side, or knowledge of birds, there seemed to be no one with any capacity. I certainly have no wish to press this Amendment, and I shall be willing to withdraw it. What I have said is to explain the reasons why I have put it down. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("Act") to ("or") in line 15.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

4.32 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I should like to rise at this moment in order to allay some of the misgivings which the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, obviously feels. Before I do that, may I join my tribute to those which have already been paid to him and his Committee for more than four years' hard work which they did? His patience and great knowledge of the subject helped to knit together that Committee on which every major bird interest was represented. Having said that, I will try to dispel some of the reasons for the concern which the noble Earl obviously feels, and to show him that this clause is entirely in line with the principle of the Bill—in other words, comprehensive protection subject to scheduled exceptions. Before making an order, the Secretary of State must consult the advisory committee and he must also give a public opportunity for objections and representations. There is no question of the Home Office, who do not pretend to have any expert knowledge of the subject, drawing up the list without consulting the committee. For this purpose the advisory committee to be set up under Clause 11 will be the Secretary of State's advisers. I hope that will do something to dispel the noble Earl's concern.

Before introducing the Bill the sponsor—if I may add to the Definition Clause—to whom I am known to be related, made certain inquiries to see whether some of the members of the existing advisory committees would be prepared at short notice to draw up a provisional list for inclusion in the Bill as an additional Schedule. In the very limited time available, however, it was not possible to make any real progress on these lines, and, therefore, it was decided to leave it to the Secretary of State, with the advice of the new advisory committee, to draw up the list at more leisure when the Bill had been passed. It follows that no list, therefore, has yet been drawn up, and no attempt will be made to draw it up until the Bill becomes law and the advisory committee has been appointed, so that it can be consulted. The idea is, broadly, that the very common birds which one sees every day in the breeding season, and whose eggs the boy or girl making a collection is more or less bound to find, and which as species can very easily survive the loss of a few eggs in this way, should not be protected. Their eggs have always been taken, and they have maintained their numbers. No Act of Parliament will affect that. The Government have accepted this idea, and in the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth indicated the Secretary of State's willingness to give it effect.

If one accepts the view that it would be wrong to make all bird's-nesting a crime, one is left with two alternatives—either to draw up a list of birds whose eggs are to be protected, or to protect the eggs of all birds except those on a list whose eggs are not to be protected. Essentially, it is the same problem either way: one must draw up a list of British breeding birds and draw a line between those whose eggs must be protected and the rest. Under the first system, the protected eggs would be put in an order and under the second, the unprotected eggs. The great advantage of the second system is that the list will be much shorter and the names in it much more familiar to people who are not experts; the results, therefore, will be clearer and more practical. The only objection to this system seems to be that a list of unprotected eggs may be thought by some—I think this was in the noble Earl's mind—to constitute a standing invitation to people to take those eggs. The adult collector, however, will not be interested in these common eggs, and the child collector is hardly likely to be influenced by whether the eggs that he is allowed to collect are those of birds included in an unprotected list or those of birds excluded from a protected list.

In conclusion, I should like to say that since the Second Reading of the Bill in this House a good deal of Press publicity has been given to something said in the debate which seemed to suggest that this clause would make small boys into criminals and the law might be brought into disrepute. This is very far from being the case. One thing is certain: You will never stop small boys bird's-nesting. I do not believe that small boys very often find rare birds' nests. When I was a small boy I collected birds' eggs. I stopped when I was sixteen, which I think is what most of us do. I had then thirty-one eggs in my collection. Ten of them would have been named in the Second Schedule. I only once found the nest of a moderately rare bird and that was the nest of a lesser redpoll. At the age of sixteen I gave up collecting, and began to pay attention to the scientific side of the subject. I believe that for small children to make a collection of eggs is, in the overwhelming number of cases, the start of a lifelong interest in the subject, and a lifelong interest in the protection and care of birds. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity of ventilating this point, and I hope that I have allayed his misgivings.

4.38 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB

I have the utmost sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, in his general remarks on this matter. The Bill in no way differentiates between small boys and other persons. A great many of your Lordships probably have not the faintest idea of the extent to which this mania for collecting eggs prevails amongst those who are not small boys. A friend told me of a doctor who said that he had given up collecting eggs, adding, "I took only ninety-six clutches this year." Those ninety-six clutches, you may be sure, were not the eggs of hedge-sparrows or robins; they were the eggs of marginal birds if not of birds in the First Schedule. A great many people feel that if it had been possible to make some special provision so that proceedings should not be brought against small boys unless there had been circumstances of wanton cruelty, or something of that kind in connection with the collecting, it would have been a far better solution of this problem. There are great risks that, by reason of the loophole that is left in the Bill, a much more serious kind of collecting will go on. And that will depend largely upon the list. I must say that on that point I would venture to differ from the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and entirely to agree with the contrary view that no attempt should be made to produce or discuss a list in this House.

The Home Secretary has taken upon himself a very difficult task. I think it is an under-statement to say that the Government have accepted this solution. Surely the Home Secretary made it quite clear to the Committee that he would not give complete protection to all eggs, and the pressure has come from that side. But there is to be a new advisory committee and we may hope they will get the Home Secretary out of some of the difficulties he would otherwise find himself in if, as I ventured to say before, he starts by assuring small boys that nothing will happen to them if they take the eggs of the robins, which decorate our Christmas cards, and of the song thrushes, about which we write songs.

It is an ingenious compromise on a very difficult matter. For my own part I am not seeking to challenge it at this stage, but I am bound to say that the protection societies for which I can claim to speak acquiesce in this solution only as a temporary measure, with the extremest reluctance and because they realise that in many other respects the Bill is such an important move forward in the right direction. It must not be supposed that this has hearty approval or support. It is an ingenious way out of a troublesome matter, and on that ground alone I think it can be left as it is.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

Noble Lords who followed the discussions upon my Bill will notice the difference between the way in which I attempted to deal with the question of nesting and the way in which the Bill from another place deals with it. Upon the whole I do not attach greater importance to one method than another. If left to myself, I would have gone for a prohibition of nesting altogether, but it was borne in upon me that in this varied world a proposal of that kind would stir up a good deal of opposition. I think the opposition has been exaggerated. My own impression is that the small boy now is becoming much more interested in birds than in taking birds' eggs. Be that as it may, as a hard-bitten politician I thought it was best to accept the compromise that was included in my Bill, and, so far as I can judge, the compromise in this Bill makes not very much difference.

Let me say to my noble friend Lord Ilchester that I hope he will not feel too deeply that his own Bill has been "messed about" (if I may use a slang expression) in the discussions here and in another place. I have had perhaps as much experience of Bills, some of them very long Bills, as a great many people; and I venture to say to him that a Bill of sixteen clauses, such as this, is hound to raise discussion in both Houses, and that upon the whole I am surprised that the changes that have been made in the two Bills have been as small as they have been. Noble Lords will remember that I made it clear from the outset that the proposals in my Bill were a compromise and that they were based upon the reports of the two Advisory Committees. I attended the last meeting of Lord Ilchester's Committee and, if my impression is correct, the Committee accepted these proposals as a compromise.

My advice to your Lordships this afternoon is that we should accept these clauses, even though many of us believe that they do not go so far as we might have wished. I believe the proposals in this Bill are practicable and that they will work reasonably well. I look forward to the general interest in birds that I hope will be stimulated by schoolteachers all over the country, making boys and girls think more of the different species of birds than of taking nests and of making collections of eggs.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)

Perhaps I should say a word on this matter on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, since on the Second Reading of Lord Templewood's Bill I expressed strongly the point of view of the Government with regard to the proposal for the total prohibition of bird's-nesting. I feel bound to say again this afternoon that, had the Government felt any doubt about this matter, I could not have risen to support this provision in the Bill. On the whole we feel that this is an improvement on the noble Viscount's Bill. I do not think it matters much which way we do it. The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, said it departed from comprehensive protection, but in substance this is nearer to comprehensive protection because it gives such protection with exceptions.

I should like to say a word about the list which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, explained, is going to be drawn up by the Home Secretary on the advice of the advisory committees. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, expressed grave fears that that would leave wide loopholes for the collectors of eggs, but I understand that most collectors do not collect the eggs of common birds, and if the noble Lord will look at the Bill he will see that the words "common wild birds" are specifically put into the clause, so I do not think he need entertain any great fears on that score. The object here is to try to provide a list of commoner birds' eggs which may be taken by small boys so that we may avoid the situation about which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, feels so strongly, that we should not have small boys appearing in court for taking a common bird's egg. That is something which I feel all noble Lords would deplore. Therefore, we are perfectly happy about this change in the Bill. It will not be an easy matter to draw up a list and it will lead to a certain amount of discussion and dispute about which eggs are to be included. Where there is a doubt, I hope the list will err on the side of liberality towards the small boy rather than otherwise, and I think that is the view of my right honourable friend.

EARL JOWITT

I, too, have great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. I wish it had been found possible to deal with this problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb suggested, by knocking out adult egg collectors altogether, more especially those who do it on a kind of professional line. I think that ought to be knocked on the head. I am told that the promoters of this Bill came reluctantly to the conclusion that it is impossible to do that. We cannot make a definition by reason of the age of the offender; we have to decide on what the offender does. I must accept that with regret.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said. I think it would be a mistake to make a child, often quite a young child, an offender against the law. Only last Saturday my own grandson, aged six, discovered a blackbird's nest and came in a state of great excitement to me with an egg which he had taken out of the nest, to ask what sort of egg it was. I made him go and put it back, but I am sorry to say that on the way back the egg got broken. It is not much good making that a criminal offence. What we have to do, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, so truly said, is to rely on teachers and on public opinion, which in my view is much better now than it was in the old days, to try to stop this sort of thing; and let the children take a delight in watching birds and get to know the different types of birds, but leave the eggs alone. I am sure that is the best thing.

Whether it is done this way, or the other way, I do not think matters. However, I see the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, sitting opposite, and if this had been done in the days of the old Government—if we had said that we would not take a decision from this House, but would leave it to the Minister to decide, and not Parliament—I tremble to think of the eloquence he would have expended on my unfortunate head. But I have no such eloquence, and I have no desire to expend it, even if I had; therefore I say nothing about it. I feel that we can leave it to the Home Secretary to act on common-sense lines, as I am sure he will. But I would say this. I believe one of the drawbacks in leaving it to the Home Secretary, as opposed to having it in the Schedule of the Bill, is that sometimes you do not know what is in the list and what is not. The Home Office have a habit of adding names. I suggest that we should have one clear Schedule so that everybody knows what it is. Your Lordships will know that it is absolutely impossible to know what is and what is not permitted in the various counties. Let us have one Schedule, and if it needs to be amended I suggest that we should republish the Schedule as a whole, with the Amendment, so that everybody may know where he stands.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for his explanation. I am sorry we are not going to see this list, because I feel it is an important list and we ought to know exactly what it is. However, I see the point. I am not disturbed particularly about the list; but I am disturbed about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, as to the egg stealers. A small boy may be going round looking at nests, and an egg stealer may come along and say to him, "There is a nice egg in that bush. You go and get the egg for me, and you will get 5s.," or something of that sort. The boy will get it, and that is the very egg which the egg stealer wants. That is the danger of having a list. The only way to stop that is not to allow eggs to be taken. I would say that in this I am speaking only for myself. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JOWITT moved to add to subsection (4): or (c) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year. The noble and learned Earl said: Here we come back to the matter that I raised with your Lordships before and I should like to raise it again, quite briefly. I suppose we are all agreed that of all birds that we want to see increase the peewit, the lapwing, the plover, or whatever you like to call it, is about the first. In the first place, it is one of the most beautiful birds we have; and secondly, it is unquestionably the farmer's friend—it does a vast amount of good and, so far as I know, does no harm whatever. Farming would be much better and more profitable if there were many more plovers than there are. The only question is as to what is the right course to take to increase the number of plovers. I can assure noble Lords opposite—I always feel myself rather the subject of suspicion when I raise this point—that the pleasure of eating plovers' eggs has nothing whatever to do with this question at all. I have been interested in this matter for a long time, and I have watched and over the course of many years got to know something about it.

When Lord Buckmaster introduced his Bill—I forget the date; it was 1926 or 1928—he was good enough to ask my opinion about it. He felt that the thing to do to increase plovers was to make it a criminal offence to take the eggs of the plover. I begged him to do it in a different way, and to say that the taking of the eggs of plovers before a certain date should be allowed, but that after that certain date it should be prohibited. I told him this. I believe that if people are prevented from taking the first clutches, laid at an early time, the young birds will hatch out when they have singularly little protection and cover. All sorts of enemies will then get them; and if the mother bird loses her young birds after they have lived for about three weeks, or something of that sort, she will, if I may mix my metaphor slightly, throw in her hand and not try again; whereas if the first clutch are taken when they are still a clutch and not sat upon, and the mother bird loses those eggs, she will wait a little while and then I believe she will think again and go and lay another clutch. That will be a later clutch, and they will come up and do well and have the necessary cover. All I can claim is that I said that to Lord Buckmaster at the very time that he introduced his Bill. He made some slightly rude remark to me about it, but the Bill was passed.

What has the result been? It is most difficult to make any general statement—everybody knows his own little piece of land, and that is about all—but, so far as my little piece of land was concerned, which in those days was down on Romney Marsh, after the war and up to the passage of Lord Buckmaster's Act we used to have on our farm something of the order of thirty plovers' nests a year—sometimes more, sometimes less, but something of that order. We always used to take the eggs up to the 15th April. I do not know why we selected that date, but we did. It is a good sort of date; it is the date I have selected in this Bill, and it happens to be my birthday, too. After the 15th April we never took the eggs. Things went on, and the number of plovers' nests on the farm, as I say, would be round about thirty. Lord Buckmaster's Bill was passed, and we honoured the Bill and did not take the eggs. What was the result? On my farm—I can talk only of my own farm, and many noble Lords will be able to speak of their experience—in the ten years between the passage of Lord Buckmaster's Bill and the outbreak of the war, the plovers' nests had gone down from thirty to about four.

Noble Lords will be able to speak about their own areas, but I believe there has been a considerable reduction of plovers in Scotland; I believe there has been a reduction in Suffolk, although I rather gather from the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that things are rather good in Norfolk now—I have no doubt that it varies in different areas. However, speaking by and large, I suppose I shall carry the vast majority of people who know about this subject with me in saying—I am not arguing the cause or effect—that since Lord Buckmaster's Bill was passed the number of plovers has gone down astoundingly in this country. It is true to say there may be other causes at work. Unfortunately, the place the plover likes is rather a deserted, lonely spot, and we all know that we are farming every bit of land we can now, cottages are springing up in places where they were not before, and so on.

Therefore, I thought it would be interesting to see what was the position in Holland. In Holland they are farming everywhere now, and building new houses and cottages all over the place. What is the position there? Here again, many of your Lordships can say much better than I can, but I believe I am right in saying that Holland shows no sign of decrease at all in the number of peewits which live there. I have been at pains to find out the position in Holland. It is the fact that for a long time the bird lovers have been pressing the Government of Holland to make it illegal to collect plovers' eggs at any time. The Government have, as I think wisely, resisted that, and the position there is as follows. Up to April 19 you are allowed to collect eggs; after April 19, you are not allowed to collect eggs, and after April 21 you are not allowed to export them. In my Amendment, I take the date April 15, instead of April 19. The Government of the Netherlands have done this quite deliberately, with my object in mind. I believe that that is wise, and that it is the right thing to do if we want to increase the peewit—and we all want to increase the peewit. I beg your Lordships not to think that I am not just as concerned as any of you about that.

That is the position in Holland. They have taken a different line and the numbers of their peewits have not gone down at all. Since the passing of Lord Buckmaster's Bill the numbers of our peewits have gone down terribly badly, taking the country as a whole. I am glad to think that on the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, with his great experience was kind enough to say that he did not think Lord Buckmaster's Bill was the right one. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said the same thing, and I would ask your Lordships, therefore, to accept my principle. I have a series of Amendments which would make it legal to take plovers' eggs up to a certain date but after that date, April 15, in order to avoid a black market, I should make it absolutely illegal to take plovers' eggs for sale or to touch them at all. I commend this principle to your Lordships. I know that I have powerful adversaries who do not agree with me. I am sorry to see the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is not here, because he was supporting me. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said on the last occasion, that he did not agree with me, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, also did not agree. He did not agree because he said that "the plover knows best." To my mind, that is a most astounding proposition. So far as I know, the plover is a very old-fashioned gentleman. He has not changed his habits since the Roman occupation. He knows nothing about the invention of tractors or ploughs, or about the new methods of farming. I do not think we can allow it that the plover knows best. I do not believe he does for a moment. I think your Lordships know best. As I attach considerable importance to this matter, and I have a certain amount of support from my noble friends who are interested in the protection of plovers, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("or (c) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year.")—(Earl Jowitt.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I have listened with great interest to the argument put forward by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I think it was four or five years ago when we were having a talk about birds that he first put this idea to me. I thought that this panacea of his was immensely interesting and original in its action, and had a good chance of success. I do not think the plover has an enemy in this House—or, indeed, in the country. In my boyhood, the cry of the tumbling plover was a great sign of Spring, but we hear it no longer, or virtually no longer. No one can deny that the lapwing has decreased most drastically over all in the British Isles. I have been to a great deal of trouble to try to prove that the noble Earl was right. I have a good deal of contact with Holland. I happen to be Vice-Chairman of the Anglo-Netherlands Society, and I went on two glorious days in the greatest bird sanctuary in Northern Europe. I have given a great deal of thought to this. As we know, the law at the moment is that the sale of lapwings' eggs has been prohibited since 1928 by the Protection of Lapwings Act of that year, and their taking is entirely prohibited by local orders throughout most of the country. People might now regard it as a retrograde step to fall in with the noble Earl's suggestion. I should regard no step as retrograde, and would take any step if I thought that I could bring the lapwing back.

The noble Earl's argument rests on two bases. The first is that it is in the lapwing's own interest that the first clutch of eggs should be collected, because she will then lay again after agricultural activity is over, and the later clutch will have a far better chance of survival. I submit to the noble and learned Earl that that was true when the Lapwings Act was passed, but, since then an agricultural revolution of the first order has taken place and it is no longer true now. I used to find plovers' nests as a little boy in the old overgrown permanent pastures. Modern farming does not allow of permanent pastures. The lapwings go to the ploughed fields where the movement of machinery annihilates the second clutch as surely as the first. The noble and learned Earl has put forward the fact that in Holland, where they have adopted the principle of his scheme, the plover is holding his own. This is more than open to challenge, if I may say so. I have made exhaustive inquiries in Holland and if I may give the wording of the letter I wrote to the head of the ornithological museum in Amsterdam, I think the noble Earl will agree that I did not put the matter too unfairly. This is what I said: In your country I understand the lapwing is very plentiful, whereas it has become extremely rare here. Would you give me your opinion as to whether your law has had a beneficial effect on its numbers. Has it, for instance, become more common since that law was passed? I have here three letters from which I will quote a little. The learned Dutch doctors who wrote knew a good deal more about ornithology than about syntax of the English language, so I have had to edit them slightly.

Mr. Buisman, of the Netherlands Ornithological Union, who is a very weighty authority, has said in a letter to the British Section of the International Committee for Bird Preservation that lapwings are not increasing in Holland generally, but that in parts of Holland, where all collecting of their eggs has been stopped, there has been an increase.

EARL JOWITT

Which part is that?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I cannot tell the noble Earl that; I have not that information. Mr. Buisman writes: The reason for the decrease of the lapwing, both in England and in Holland, is the change of agricultural methods. It has been proved in Holland that the collecting of eggs has some influence, too, though not so much as thought by some bird protectors. In former years the taking of the plover eggs ended on the 1st May; later the date was the 28th April. In 1936 it was further restricted to the 19th April, and there is a possibility of a still further shortening of the season. Alas! it is not true that the birds are increasing now in Holland; on the contrary. Even the commercial collectors of the eggs acknowledge the fact that the taking of the eggs is not in the interest of the birds themselves, but they say other factors are of a much greater importance—early cutting of grass for drying, haymaking in May, spreading artificial manures in May, the turning out of cattle on the land very early. The easier access to the country and increase of houses have brought cats and roving dogs, while in addition there has been a certain amount of collecting eggs after the close time. It is true that the birds can lay a second and even a third clutch, but the results in large areas of Holland where all collecting has been stopped are extremely promising. The number of birds has increased in these areas every year. I would like to put is as follows: there are very many factors endangering the status of the lapwing and we should not add any additional ones. I have a further letter from Doctor Buisman which arrived this morning in my mail, and I will quote very few words out of it—as I say, he is a very weighty authority on the subject. He says, in conclusion, that this agricultural revolution which has affected Holland as much as Britain is the cause of the decrease. He gives it as his opinion that It is absolutely certain that a decision to allow what he calls the reaping of eggs in England will not lead to any improvement, but will only lead to a still sharper decrease. Special reserves, where all agricultural work between April 1 and June 15 is only done with the utmost care, the controlling of crow and magpie and an ardent appeal, to protect the bird, to all counties and countries where the bird is still shot and caught, is the only way to keep the lapwing as a breeding bird in sufficient numbers. I try to judge this case, not on the strong sentiment I feel for the lapwing but on the facts. I was entirely on the noble and learned Earl's side when I first heard his thesis propounded, but in the face of the evidence that we have accumulated I am driven to the conclusion that I must resist his Amendment.

EARL JOWITT

Would the noble Lord tell me about this area of Holland? I have gone to great trouble to get chapter and verse and have been told definitely that this is a rule governing the whole of Holland. I have gone to the very top to get the information. I have heard no suggestion of a part of Holland where there is this exception. Does the noble Lord know where it is?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I am afraid that I cannot give the noble and learned Earl that information now, but I will find it out for him. My correspondent is speaking of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, he omits that information.

LORD CRANWORTH

I had come to this House with the strong intention of supporting the noble and learned Earl, but I must confess that I am much shaken by the last speech. The reason why I intended supporting him was that I have experience of exactly the same circumstances as he has had. I was brought up for fifty years on land on which there were large numbers of plovers from which we got a large and succulent quantity of plovers' eggs. The keeper who assisted in my education told me then, "The plover lays one clutch and, if that is left, she lays no more. If you take that, she lays another. If you take that, she lays one more. She will not lay more than three; but, of those three, the last is the most likely to survive. Therefore, by taking the first and possibly the second one, you increase them." What impressed me was the fact that almost from the day the law was changed, and it was no longer legal to collect the eggs, the numbers of plovers began to go down, as we had been warned that they would go down. The numbers have now decreased, I think, by an even greater proportion than was contemplated. I do not think now that there is one plover for ten that there were then. I find it difficult to believe that it is pure coincidence that causes that to be so, because in my part of the country there are very large areas where there has been no particular change in the method of cropping the land—in fact there remain considerable areas where there is no cropping at all—yet the plovers have decreased just as much there as elsewhere. I came here determined to say a word or two in support of this Amendment, but I confess that I am shaken by the very strong arguments, as well as the eloquence, of the noble Lord in charge of this Bill. I cannot but regret that I am so shaken, though I am not yet completely convinced.

5.14 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

One of the minor sorrows of my life is the decrease of the green plover—I will not call it the "grey plover," as it is called in the Bill. I remember the time when at my home the whole sky was covered with green plovers. I can say with certainty and without any hesitation at all that to-day there is not one green plover for a hundred that were there then. I remember when the diminution first occurred; it occurred with the first Bird Protection Act, passed by the Liberal Government in the first decade of this century. I cannot remember the date now, but I believe it was some time round about 1910. The county council fixed a very early date—I think it was April 1; there was a quarrel as to whether it should be April 1 or April 6—which, practically, meant no collection at all of plovers' eggs. From that moment, the numbers of plovers began to diminish.

I think that is an important point to remember, because that took place long before the change in the methods of agriculture mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, and it supports the argument put forward by the noble and learned Earl who moved this Amendment. I am not sure whether the date ought not to be varied in different parts of the country, but I am certain that the prohibition of the taking of plovers' eggs very largely contributed to the decrease of the plover. There is one matter I should like to mention in passing, and that is that I greatly regret to find that the "grey plover"—I believe what is meant is the green plover—is included in the Third Schedule and not in the First Schedule, which is where it ought to be, because I do not like the green plover to be considered at all as game.

There is another point that I should like to make in support of this Amendment, and that is that the green plover has taken very largely to laying on ploughed fields. Therefore, according to the strict tenor of this Bill, no ploughman can plough, harrow or roll a field on which a green plover has a nest, because he is bound to destroy the nest or destroy the eggs. Your Lordships may think that it is nonsense to suggest that nobody would prosecute, but I know of a ploughman who ploughed a field, removed a plover's nest from in front of his plough and was prosecuted and fined in the courts. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will, I presume, be enforced in the same way as other Acts, and, if it is found impossible and absurd to enforce it, then you will have a situation in which you will have passed a law to the breach of which you will have to turn a blind eye. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will consider this Amendment again. I support the noble and learned Earl who moved it.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

May I say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun? First of all, to clear up one small matter, I would point out that the grey plover is a separate species. "Grey" is not a printer's mistake.

LORD SALTOUN

Where is the green plover named in the Bill?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The green plover is not in the Schedule of birds which may be shot. I entirely agree with Lord Saltoun's thesis, which is the noble and learned Earl's thesis, that by taking the first clutch you could help the plover, if agriculture was as agriculture was, but not as it is now. The revolution that has taken place has meant that activity goes on in the fields later, and the second and third clutch is as likely to be destroyed as is the first. The noble Lord showed concern about the question of the ploughman who may be "run in." If the noble Lord turns to Clause 4 (2) (d), he will see what is the ploughman's defence, and it entirely, I think, cover that point.

LORD KINNAIRD

I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Saltoun in regard to what he said about ploughed fields. My noble friend Lord Mansfield could not be here to-day, but I live in the same sort of country as he does. It seems rather foolish that you can prosecute a ploughman for destroying a nest, and it seems to me that something might be done to allow eggs to be taken, instead of being destroyed. I know that we used to get all our plovers' eggs from the ploughed fields, and the harrow went over the fields afterwards, destroying the nests. It seems that, with a little common sense, something might be done to meet that case.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I entirely agree with my noble friend. In the old days we used to get an enormous number of birds nesting on the fallow ground. That was the place where one went to look for them. Nearly all the nests were destroyed by the ploughmen—they had to be. Of necessity, if any land was ploughed between January and April, the nests went. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl in his Amendment. I think we should allow the eggs to be taken for the first fourteen or fifteen days, or whatever the time may be. I do not think that will do any harm at all. I was always against Lord Buckmaster's Bill. I believe that the noble and learned Earl's suggestion is the right one.

LORD SALTOUN

There is one minor point that I should like to raise—namely, that it is difficult to distinguish the egg of a gull from that of a plover, and if the offender is caught with an egg there will be great difficulty in proving that it is a plover's egg.

EARL JOWITT

I think I can distinguish between a gull's egg and a plover's egg, though I may be in some difficulty about distinguishing a plover's egg from that of a snipe. But I feel strongly about this matter and I should like to take it to a Division at some stage. The only question is, whether it would be convenient to have a Division now or on Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has read a letter which he thinks is an answer and which has rather made him lose faith in me—and Lord Cranworth, too, has rather lost his keenness for the Amendment. May I point out that for years the bird societies in Holland have been pressing their Government to do something about this problem, and the Government have rigorously and strenuously resisted, perhaps thinking that the bird lovers are guided in this matter rather by sentiment than by intellect. But these are facts that you cannot get away from. In this country there has been a marked diminution in the plover; in Holland there has not been a diminution. I do not say that there has been an increase—I do not know; but there has not been any appreciable diminution. That fact stands out on that letter, and it seems to me that it is a complete fallacy to say that the letter affords any answer to the case.

What I should be willing to do is this. If the noble Lord would like to look into this matter further, and in particular would try to find out whether there are parts of Holland where there is an absolute prohibition, then by all means let this Amendment stand over until the Report stage. I should then want him to tell me the results of his investigation. But if he cannot do that I would rather have a Division now, in order to see where we stand. I believe that, in the interests of the plover, we shall be making a great mistake if we do not try something on these lines. Perhaps I might throw out this suggestion; that the noble Lord should try it for five years. Let us insert a clause to that effect in the Bill. Then, at the end of five years, if we find that things are no better, by all means let us abolish it. If we find that where we have prohibition plovers go down, and that where there is no prohibition plovers go up, then we can say there must be some cause and effect between the two. If the noble Lord will tell me that he will keep an open mind until the Report stage, I will not press this to a Division to-day; but if the noble Lord cannot do anything about it, then I would rather put the matter to the test, to see whether we should not insert this Amendment.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

We have tried throughout this discussion to avoid Divisions and to reach general agreement in all parts of the House. I differ from the noble and learned Earl opposite—I do not agree with his assumptions to-day. In my own experience in Norfolk I am told that more lapwings have been seen this winter than for many years before. But be that as it may, I do not regard this Amendment as being very important one way or another. I do not in the least regard it as one of the important Amendments in the Bill. In that respect I differ from the noble and learned Earl opposite, who obviously attaches a great deal of importance to it. But because I do not think it is very important, and because I should like to see this Bill go through without any Division at all, I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir that he should look into the point again. It may be that upon one or other of the lines suggested by the noble and learned Earl he will find a solution which can be supported, but in any case I would avoid pressing it to a Division to-day.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I have listened with great interest to this discussion, and of course in this Bill we wish to achieve the maximum obtainable degree of consent. There is one point upon which I did not quite leave the noble and learned Earl clear, because I did not want to read too many extracts from my rather voluminous correspondence. But in another part of Dr. Buisman's letter he talks about the period of bird's-nesting having been shortened as a decrease of this very nice, and, for the agriculture, useful, bird was imminent. He refers to the lapwing, and says that in many places in Holland this bird has disappeared altogether. I think the noble and learned Earl has been very fair about his Amendment. I have made considerable inquiries in regard to this subject, as he will gather, but this is something about which we want to marshall every single relevant fact. If, therefore, he sees his way to choose his first alternative, which is to put the Amendment down again on the Report stage, then, although I cannot guarantee anything, I will make further researches until we have marshalled a sufficiency of material facts which should put both of us and the House absolutely at one. I will do that between now and the Report stage.

EARL JOWITT

I will certainly take that course. The last thing I want to do is to have a Division on this Bill. But I feel that this is a matter of importance. I think it important that the plover should be increased, and at the present time the plover is decreasing. I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that I shall put it down on the Report stage; and unless I can get some satisfaction then, I shall ask the Committee to support me in the Lobby.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.28 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (6) (c), to leave out "wild duck and." The noble Duke said: I think this Amendment and Amendment No. 11 go together. My point is a small one, but I am sorry to say that it is controversial. Might I ask the patience of the Committee for a few minutes, to make an appeal which I hope is reasonable and may meet with acceptance, even reluctantly? In this Amendment I am not asking for an extension of the existing period in August during which it is permissible to shoot wild duck, nor am I asking for a reduction of the present close season during August. The close season was wisely extended a few years ago from August 1 to August 12, and as it stands this Bill will bring the close season to the end of the month, to August 31, and the opening date of shooting will be on September 1 instead of August 12. Those persons for whom I am speaking ask that you do not go quite so far. They say you are going just a little farther than is necessary or justifiable. There are arguments both ways. I have considered this matter very carefully before moving the Amendment. From what I have heard in conversation on this subject, I understand that circumstances and conditions vary considerably in different parts of the country and in some parts it is more necessary than in others to ask for the restriction demanded in the Bill.

I ask your Lordships to remember that the second part of August is very much the holiday time in Scotland and opportunity is taken by many people to get a little shooting then who get very little opportunity at other times. Many of them would like the present date, August 12, adhered to; but, knowing that some of your Lordships and other people outside this House would think that asking too much, and recognising the strength of those arguments and the experience favouring them, I ask for a smaller concession with which I hope you may still be willing to agree. For though on your reasoning you might not think so, my experience in Scotland gives me the impression that the request is fair and that you will obtain a more popular and more general support of the Bill if you agree to it. In Scotland, many people go out for a few duck and snipe at the end of August. They take small shootings at that time. They may find it difficult to keep the law, and I think you will put them in difficulty when the wild duck gets up. I do not know whether they will carry out the law, but if you could modify it only a very little it would be much more easy; you would get more willing support for it and enforcement would be made easier than it will be if you make it too extreme.

If it is a matter of preservation of the numbers of wild duck, I do not think our case is weakened. I think the numbers killed in August, or which would be shot during the last few days of the month, are relatively few. I understand that the numbers of wild duck killed in the south of England in the decoy traps dwarf the numbers killed throughout the year in the north of the country and in many other large areas. I am told that in a district which I have in mind the total numbers of ducks killed in August and killed in the year will be fewer than the numbers killed in any one decoy trap in one day in the south of England. There is also the point that many wild duck in south Scotland begin to drift southwards at the end of August and early in September. They then become the target of persons further south and also of these traps, and so it makes little difference. The date, August 20, which is suggested is in line with another date, which is that for black game, and is considered less confusing than a different date altogether would be. It is just as convenient as to bring it in with September 1—that is to say, with the same date for partridge. There may be a few flappers shot in August. I do not think many are killed by sportsmen, and there is no more need to shoot them than to shoot cheepers when grouse shooting opens at the end of August or partridges on September 1. If shooting is allowed to continue as a pastime and a sport the shooting of wild ducks is more natural and less artificial. I do not think we should be in a hurry to take away from many persons in this country some of the opportunities which they take when they are available.

It has been suggested to me that this intervention comes rather late. I am sorry if that is so, but I do not think many people who are concerned realised until lately that the change had come, and perhaps not many know it now. Moreover, it is not a big matter: it is quite a small one; and there has not been much publicity about it. For this reason, I am not trying to claim unanimity among countrymen in different parts of the country, but I know there is very strong support for the Amendment. I believe, and I am informed, that the dates of August and February were the best compromise to which the English Committee could agree. I hope that that does not lessen the right to bring forward the views of many who have felt that they were not entirely represented and who are in Scotland. Therefore I felt justified in raising their point of view now. Though I believe in England organisations were to a great extent represented, it was different in the case of Scotland.

I hope your Lordships do not think I am trying to ask for something which might spoil the Bill—I do not think it will. I hope you will think I am justified in bringing this Amendment forward, and I should like any modification, if it be possible, to be by agreement. If I have not put our object forward in the best way, I should very much like to be advised. At present in Scotland local authorities can extend the close times and they do so on occasion; and I think it works very satisfactorily. I know some people would like uniformity all over, but it is not possible. I think we are going in too much for uniformity. As I am speaking more of my experience in Scotland, I had it in mind to confine this Amendment to Scotland; but so much support and so many requests have come to me from the north and the south of England that I am moving it for Scotland and England. I was also advised that it would be more simple and convenient to put the Amendment forward for both countries, as I have done. I hope the noble Lord and the other promoters will give consideration to the points I have made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, leave out ("wild duck and") —(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I know that the noble Duke feels very strongly on this point, and for that reason I should like to thank him for the moderate tone in which he introduced his Amendment. Many people will have sympathy with the arguments he used, and many will have sympathy with those who take their holidays in August and whose pleasure may to some extent be prejudiced. But I will give the noble Duke, very briefly, the reasons why I do not feel able to accept his Amendment. The bulk of this Bill, as we know, is based—in fact it is entirely based—on the unanimous Reports of the two Advisory Committees. Parliament is not bound by the advice of any committees of experts. Those Committees are there purely as a signpost, to point out what, in their expert knowledge, seems to them to be the best way. These committees agreed on the close season which is in the Bill and which the noble Duke seeks to change.

I cannot agree with him that the Scottish Committee were not entirely repre- sentative. I admit that they were based on two different bases. Whereas the English Committee was chosen to be representative of various bodies, the Scottish Committee was chosen as experts, but if you look at the names of one or two people who sat on the Scottish Committee you will see that they can hardly be called unrepresentative. Those who have the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. John Berry, the Director of the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy and President of the Tay Valley Wild Fowlers Association, and those who know the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, who is a considerable naturalist and one who could put other slants of opinion, could hardly say that this was arrived at without a good deal of representative discussion.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I did say representative of organisations such as the Sports Society and the Landowners' Association.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The noble Duke is quite right in saying that they did not sit on that Committee as direct representatives, but amongst the people who sat were people who had membership or voice in the more substantial nature organisations of Scotland. But I will not stress that point any more. The sporting interests and also the naturalist interests, to both of which I belong, were well represented on both committees. The Wildfowlers' Association actually went on record in the Shooting Times of January 27, 1951, as saying they were in favour of maintaining a close season for ducks until August 31. I am not suggesting that they were hotly in favour. I am not suggesting that anyone was. What I am saying is that people, one by one, representing every major section of interest in this matter, argued it for a very long time; and by a little giving here and taking there they reached a compromise on which they were eventually unanimous. I regard this as a rather important part of the Bill, and I wish to maintain that compromise, which I regard as being of major importance.

The noble Duke raised the question of uniformity for its own sake. I have certainly never been a disciple of uniformity for its own sake. I believe that, in a protection measure such as this, uniformity in relation to a clause like this gives a great deal better chance of the law being observed. That is, of course, not what one might call an ornithological point. I do not suppose the noble Duke will agree, but I personally attach a good deal of importance to not shooting when there are flappers about. One does not legislate or frame legislation solely for men of principle and reason. One has to legislate for those who are not so scrupulous. This close season to the last day of August is already the law in eight English and six Scottish counties. By this close season, the shooting season for duck and geese will be a good deal longer than for almost every other game bird. Many may feel misgivings that the farmer in the Autumn is not able to protect his crops. If they will refer to Clause 4 (2) (a) of the Bill they will find that their misgivings are groundless. This is the outcome of advice of the Ilchester Committee and the Scottish Committee. I believe it to be a most important compromise, arrived at only after long and serious argument. I have to say to the noble Duke that for those reasons I must support them on this, and I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

No one has greater respect for men of great attainments and ability than I have, even though my respect is tinged with envy. But I am always nervous when any passage in a Bill before your Lordships' House is supported mainly by great names outside. Not many years ago, we had public affairs almost thrown into inextricable confusion by the Government's seeking to implement what was described to us in this House as a very great Report. It was only through the intelligence of the Government of the day that we managed to save the situation. Ever since that time I have been more nervous than ever concerning that matter. I think that the noble Duke's dates are the right ones. I am bound to say that all my experience in the country is against any shooting after February 1, especially in the years when you have an early season. I think there is hardly any case where shooting is justified after that date. I think that the open season until February 21, is too long.

I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that, if he will not accept the Amendment, there is another way in which the matter might be settled. In the proviso to subsection (6) it is stated that the Secretary of State may extend the close season, but may not contract it. By Clause 9 the Secretary of State may prescribe a close season but only for a bird which he has added to the Schedule. It seems to me that this Bill as it stands rather puts the Secretary of State into a strait-waistcoat. Why should not the Secretary of State be given power to vary the close seasons in accordance with the facts in the areas under his jurisdiction. That could be done by deleting from the proviso to subsection (6) of Clause 2 all words after "specified in the order." I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will look at this matter again, because I am sure that it deserves serious consideration.

5.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I rise to support the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. This was a very definite compromise. There was a great deal of discussion in our Committee over the dates February 1 and February 21, but so far as I remember, no one objected in any way to September 1 as the date for shooting to begin again. I am surprised that this has all arisen since. We knew nothing of it. The date we put forward was an absolutely agreed date. I spoke in your Lordships' House before on the sanctity of this arrangement with the wildfowlers, and I think that we ought to adhere to it, though I frankly confess that I am not sure that the wildfowlers have not been trying to get more things out of us since. However, that is another matter. I repeat that I think that this particular compromise is a matter of sanctity.

5.47 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for a few moments on this particular point, because I think it is of a certain importance. Clearly this is a matter upon which noble Lords hold a number of very strong, perfectly sincere but, unfortunately, entirely conflicting opinions. There are, broadly speaking, three schools of thought. First of all there are the ornithologists, pure and simple; I think that if, it were put to them as an article of faith, they would say that the right dates were August 31 to February 1, and not a day over. Then there are those who believe that the shooting season ought to be extended further in February. Finally, there are those, like the noble Duke, who would like to extend it at the other end, in August. Perhaps I might say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about his suggestion that the Secretary of State should have power to vary the season more or less as he liked. I do not think that would be an acceptable solution. We must have some minimum close season and it ought to be laid down in the Bill. I do not think it would be acceptable to the majority if it were left entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. I think that would be too wide a latitude to give him, and one which he would not desire to have.

If this Bill is to be enforced, I feel that it ought to carry the good will and acceptance of as many people as possible. I do not think it can be enforced by riding roughshod over people, or enforced by the police if the generality of people do not accept it. When there are so many schools of thought as there are in this case, it is almost impossible to please all of them. We have to try to please as many as we can, and that is what the Ilchester Committee tried to do. They tried to strike the best compromise they could between the conflicting views put to them. They were a Committee of experts. The noble Duke said that the Scottish Committee was not so fully representative as it might have been.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I did not complain of that at all.

LORD LLOYD

The noble Duke did not complain; he merely stated as a fact that the Scottish Committee was not so representative as the English Committee. The members were expert, however, and on the whole they were fairly representative. In the end they arrived at this solution. I think we ought to stick to it, because if we try to find another compromise we may get into a worse mess. Furthermore, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill from another place. It did not have an entirely easy passage there, and it was only due to the skill and persuasion of the noble Lady who presented it that it got through as well as it did. The present issue was determined in another place in accordance with the compromise advised by the Ilchester Committee. Obviously, I am not suggesting to your Lordships how to decide this matter, but I think it is right to remind you of the difficulties that face Private Members' Bills. They are frail craft which can easily be sunk. I think that on this very controversial issue, on which a compromise has been successfully worked out, and has been accepted by another place, we should think very carefully before altering it and throwing the whole thing back into the melting pot. My own feeling is that, though it is not a perfect solution, and will not be satisfactory to everybody, it is the best compromise that we shall find. I hope the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

In his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that I was asking the House to extend the open season during August. I did not do that. I asked that we should not extend the close season quite so far, which is asking for quite a different thing.

LORD LLOYD

I was referring to a close season, from September 1 to February 1, Which I said would perhaps be the ideal close season for the ornithologist pure and simple.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I am sorry to say it, but the noble Lord may have given the impression that I was asking for more than the present position, which I am not doing. As regards the acceptance of the proposal by another place, there was an Amendment down which was not called, so there was no discussion on it. Because a compromise has been reached and because it might upset the Bill if any alteration were made now, it is desired that I should withdraw my Amendment altogether. So far as I can see, the compromise is that we should give up 100 per cent. in August on the granting of 100 per cent. in February. No doubt this was a necessary and suitable compromise from many points of view. Before withdrawing the Amendment I should have liked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say whether he would consider further the position as regards Scotland and whether some notice could be taken of my point. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun mentioned, in Scotland there is a fixed date, August 20; but it is open to county councils, or we could make it open to the Secretary of State, on the representations of local authorities, to extend the close season to September 1. It would still be left open to other districts in Scotland to keep the old date. I should like to have the point considered between now and Report stage.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I have listened with interest to the suggestion which the noble Duke has put forward, couched in very moderate terms, but I cannot hold out any hope to him. The Bill as it stands derives from many counsels, and this issue has the agreement of such a substantial number of people concerned that I feel that there is no course but to allow it to pass into law as it stands.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I am sorry that I have obtained no concession whatever, but I feel that I should respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.59 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (6) (c) to leave out "spring." The noble Earl said: This is a small point on which I ask to say one word—a very important word. So far as I can see, this word makes complete nonsense of the clause. The clause says: below high water mark of ordinary spring tides. In my opinion there is not such a thing. What it ought to be is: the high or low water marks of ordinary tides. A spring tide is a different thing altogether. A spring tide in my lagoon in Dorset may vary from a few yards to two miles—it is a matter of the weather. This word "spring" is all wrong. I am sure that if noble Lords look at the Ordnance Survey, they will see that that is correct. I appeal to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to agree that in a prosecution, the court would rely on the Ordnance Survey. Here we have something which does not really exist.

LORD GIFFORD

I regret that I cannot support the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester. His Amendment, if accepted, would do a great harm to wildfowling and would cut down considerably the area over which shooting is allowed. On Admiralty charts a definite line is marked: H.W.O.S.—high water ordinary springs. The high-water ordinary tide is not marked: nobody knows what the ordinary tide is: nor is it marked on any chart.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

It is definitely marked on the Ordnance Survey. Certainly the compromise was arranged on that basis. We never discussed anything else but the ordinary tide. I agree that it makes a great deal of difference. We shall have people all over the place if the Bill is passed in this form, and I do not think it would be possible to get a prosecution against anybody. This is a serious matter.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The noble Lord has given me an opportunity, for which I thank him, of finding out quite a lot about tides about which I did not know before. For this purpose, however, we need a more precise definition, so that the line below which shooting will be allowed in February shall be clear. This paragraph allows shooting below high water mark of ordinary spring tides. The noble Earl rather questions whether this is the right line to take, but it is what his Advisory Committee recommended.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

No. We recommended on the Ordnance Survey. We never discussed spring tides at all; they vary so enormously.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I am surprised to hear the noble Earl say that, because I am advised, on what I might call the highest authority, that that is the case. I am given to believe that there are several recognised tide lines, and no statutory or other guidance seems to be available in choosing which to follow. There are spring tides and neap tides, and exactly half way between them there are the medium or ordinary tides. The Limitation Act, 1939, refers to high water mark on medium tides. On the other hand, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, repeating earlier legislation, refers to high water mark of ordinary spring tides.

If we turn to Ordnance Survey maps, as the noble Earl has said, there is a lack of any really clear guidance. Those for England and Wales mark high water mark for medium tides—before 1935 they were called ordinary tides. The maps of Scotland, however, show the high water mark of spring tides, and this first landward limit of the foreshore in Scotland. As a practical matter, the high water mark of ordinary spring tides, generally speaking, coincides roughly with what an ordinary person would regard as the upper limit of a beach or salting. That would seem to be the right line to take for the present purpose. This is not a scientifically precise definition, but as one who has haunted foreshores of more than one continent in the pursuit of wildfowl, I should say that it is a term that is generally construed and understood. For that reason, I feel I must disagree with the noble Earl in this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, but I should have thought that it was a scientific explanation that has been given to us. Where does the ordinary shooter stand in all this? As the noble Lord knows. I have lived on the west coast of Argyll for a number of years, with the Atlantic lapping up on my shore. How am I to know by looking at this clause whether or not I may shoot below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides? We all know what the ordinary high water mark of an ordinary tide is; but who is to say what the ordinary spring tide is? The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said that it is marked on the charts; but we do not go about with these charts when we are shooting. From the practical point of view, I cannot see that it will make any difference if the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, accepts this Amendment to leave out the word "spring."

LORD LLOYD

There are two observations that I should like to make. The first is with regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, said. I have in my hand the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and I see the words: as are below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides. That is what the Committee recommended. On the other point mentioned, obviously it is a difficult matter—the definition of boundaries is always difficult. I am not pretending for one moment—and I do not think my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir is—that this is the ideal definition. What he is saying is that, in most cases, the high water mark of ordinary spring tides coincides roughly with what the ordinary person would regard as the upper limit of a beach. My noble friend's case—and I should have thought that it was a good case—is that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, gives an even worse boundary than this one; it is far less precise than the ordinary spring tides. That is the whole point. We may not have a perfect definition, but let us take the best mark we can. I rose really to make the correction about the Ilchester Committee Report, but I thought I would add that it is difficult to find a better boundary than that which we have.

EARL JOWITT

All I can say is that the ordinary one-inch Ordnance map has on it "H.W.M."—high water mark. I believe that Lord Gifford is right in saying that the Admiralty charts have on them "H.W.O.S.," but I should have thought it unreasonable to expect a shooter to have with him some old-fashioned Admiralty chart. However, I like to think of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, going out, armed with his gun in one hand and his Ordnance map in the other. In that way, he might be able to avoid a breach of the law, and that would be a desirable state of affairs for the noble Viscount.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, has expressed his disquiet about this wording. I am not worried about it. However, if the noble Earl can find a form of words which he feels is more expressive and more readily understandable than this, we should be prepared to look at it at a later stage. But, quite frankly, we have threshed this slightly recondite subject now, and I do not think we shall get a clearer definition.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. But, surely, the definition is there. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has pointed out, that is the definition on the Ordnance map. We do not want anything further, so far as I can see. As I pointed out to the Committee, this may make a difference of two miles. It does not matter to me in the least, because I own all the land and nobody can get on to it, but I am sure there are many cases all over the country where the same thing is happening. It is curious that it has never been cleared up. I do not want any more than anybody else to press this Amendment to a Division, but I do believe it is most important. It is the noble Lord's Bill, and he takes the responsibility. I have no responsibility. I cannot understand how that got in, because that was not in my head at all.

LORD LLOYD

The noble Earl was Chairman of this Committee, and this is their Report. I cannot help it. This is quite clearly what they say. They say "ordinary spring tides," and that is the provision we are making.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

If the Government were to look into this question and find that the word "spring" was not necessary, would they take it out on Report stage? If they think it is necessary, they can leave it in.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

We are getting confused. Does it mean that you can shoot up to February 23 up to high tide, right up the Solway Firth and the rivers coming into it? This deals with an area more inland than that dealt with in the Amendment for which I was asking.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The expression "ordinary spring tides" means the line reached by the monthly normal high tide. It is quite different from the line reached by exceptional flood tides which, buffeted by the wind, may go higher.

LORD GIFFORD

The obvious line on the shore is the black line where the seaweed is—H.W.O.S., which everybody can see.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I have a short statement to make upon the considerable change that has taken place between my Bill and the present Bill. It concerns shore shooting. I approach the question of shore shooting not as a bird fanatic but as one who has shot a good many ducks in his lifetime and hopes to shoot a great many more. Now what do I find? I find, speaking of my own part of the world, that the number of ducks, taken over a period of years, has been steadily decreasing. I find also that the kind of conditions that are favourable to ducks is changing. On that account, I am certain that in the interests of sport it is necessary to place more restrictions on the shooting of ducks than has been the case in the past. That is applicable not only to this country; other countries are going through exactly the same experience. Take a country like the United States. The United States have been so much impressed by the diminution of the duck population that they have now restricted shooting of ducks to a single month in the year. I am told that in one State last year it was not even allowed for the single month. That emphasises the point I am trying to make—that we want more and not fewer restrictions.

I do not wish to exaggerate the effect of this shore shooting too much. Not a very large number of ducks are shot on the shore, but the serious thing is that in the month of February—if the shooting season is allowed up to February 20—the ducks along the coasts are disturbed. They are an early breeding bird, and that has a bad effect upon the breeding of the ducks. When I sponsored the first of these limitation Bills in 1939, I made February 1 the date of the close time for shore shooting. It eventually became February 20, but with the power of the local bodies to extend the close time. The result is that to-day no fewer than twelve of the coastal counties have dates better from the point of view of protection than February 1.

Noble Lords will remember that when we discussed this question here these facts were criticised, as far as I remember, by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I said at once, "We cannot make protection worse in a Bill that is intended to make protection better." On that account, with the unanimous wish of the House, I put in a proviso saving that no area should be worse off than it is at present. Unfortunately, in another place that change has not been accepted, and the normal date for shore shooting will be February 20. That will make the situation in these twelve coastal counties definitely worse than it is now. I very much regret this change; it is definitely a retrograde change. I am certain that, from the point of view of the duck shooter, quite apart from the point of view of the ornithologist, it is an unwise change. It will only have the effect of still further reducing the duck population. Having made my own position clear, I say frankly to the Committee that I am not going to run the risk of losing this Bill upon this particular issue. On that account, I have not put down an Amendment. On that account, with great regret, I am going to accept this proposal. But I say to noble Lords that it is a bad proposal, and I very much regret that it has been made.

EARL JOWITT

That, to my mind, is one of the most cogent speeches I have ever heard, and it makes me exceedingly sorry that this matter is to be left in this way. I am not quite sure that it is a good move. After all, we have a great expertise and knowledge in this House and, as we all know, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, knows a great deal about this matter. His observations need serious thought. It is all very well for him to say that he is not going to do anything more about it, but we have to make certain as a House that we are doing the right thing. I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he had better have serious regard to what the noble Viscount has said. If this Bill is in the same position at the next stage, and nothing is done about this matter, some of us may think that we ought to insist on what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, suggested—that no area should be worse, from the point of view of protection, than it is at the present time. I think that point ought to be seriously considered. I hope the noble Lord will bear it in mind when he is considering what Amendments he himself will move at the next stage of the Bill.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for what he said. I know he has strong feelings in this matter; therefore, I am obliged to him for the attitude he has taken up. Most people hold their views pretty strongly on one side or the other in this particular case. I am 100 per cent. in favour of the course we have taken here. I am obliged to the noble Viscount and agree with the noble and learned Earl that his was one of the most cogent short speeches we have ever listened to.

On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Power to establish bird sanctuaries

3.—(1) With a view to the creation of bird sanctuaries, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to any area specified in the order providing for all or any of the following matters that is to say—

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section with respect to any area except with the consent of every person who owns or occupies any land included in that area.

6.21 p.m.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) to insert: (c) that any person who, save as may be provided in the order, enters into that area during any period specified in the order shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;

The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down to try to stop disturbance in a bird's-nesting sanctuary. My Committee put this proposal forward, but the Home Office would not allow the word "disturbance" to be used in the sense in which we wished to use it. I do not think that the Home Office have ever really realised the difference between a nesting sanctuary, which is for three months in a year, and an ordinary sanctuary, which goes on for the whole year. I think Lord Templewood's standstill order, to which he has just been referring, covers this, but we were told at the time that this could be done under the Act which sets up National Parks and nature reserves.

There are quite a number of places, however, where neither of those things exists, and those places will be left out except for my noble friend's standstill order. What I have in mind is that a man can go into a bird's-nesting sanctuary; he can sit there all day, disturb the whole of the ternery and we cannot get him out. It is most important that we should have some power. If we can catch him with eggs on him, well and good; but of course he throws them away. I had hoped that the noble Lord would see his way to agree to the Amendment which I have put down, because I think it is important. It was drafted by a friend in the Home Office who felt that it would get over the difficulty. On an earlier occasion the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, put down an even stronger Amendment, to which I should be perfectly happy to agree, but as he did not put it down with the Amendments to-day, I thought I had better put down my own. If the noble and learned Earl would prefer to move his Amendment on Report stage, I should be only too pleased to agree to it. We have had much trouble with these people coming into the sanctuary which my people look after on behalf of the county council—it is a county council sanctuary. For forty years we have had no trouble; we pay for everything and the system has worked splendidly. Now this is all to be upset under this Bill. It would be a great pity if something of this sort could not be agreed to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support the noble Earl and make one observation. I do not know how this will apply in Scotland, because as the noble Earl probably knows, in Scotland there is no law of trespass except that created by Mr. Lloyd George in the Access to the Mountains Act when he "set the people free." Therefore, I am not at all sure how the Bill stands in its present form in Scotland. He might have to get an interdict in every case.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to include in an order establishing a bird sanctuary a provision restricting access during part of the year. It seems fairly clear that, if it is desired to restrict access to a sanctuary, this ought to be done by declaring it a nature reserve and making appropriate by-laws under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. This can be done by means of a voluntary agreement between the Nature Conservancy, or the county council and the owner or occupier of the land, to secure that the land shall be managed (not necessarily by the Conservancy or the county council) as a nature reserve—that is, for the purpose of preserving fauna of special interest. Once this has been done—and it is a flexible provision of wide application—the Conservancy or the county council can make by-laws which, amongst other things, may prohibit or restrict entry into the reserve, either at all times or at certain seasons only, and the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures of any description. The nature and extent of the restrictions can be varied to meet the circumstances of the particular case.

I know there is a feeling among certain sections that Clause 3 duplicates the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. There are two justifications for putting it in this Bill. The first is to keep alive existing orders setting up bird sanctuaries; and the second is to provide a simpler and more appropriate means of setting up sanctuaries which involve merely the protection of birds or eggs, perhaps only at some time of the year—like the ternery to which the noble Earl referred—rather than the more comprehensive protection of all forms of life for which the comprehensive powers in the National Parks Act were mainly designed.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I was speaking only of nesting sanctuaries.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

They are fairly amply covered by what I have just said. If, however, there is to be control of access to a sanctuary, which is important and which involves patrolling by wardens and so on, this must mean that the land is to be virtually managed as a nature reserve. It would be hard to justify the restrictions unless the sanctuary or reserve was in some degree under the supervision of a public authority. Accordingly, it seems more appropriate and not unreasonable that the owner of the land should be expected to make an agreement under the 1949 Act.

EARL JOWITT

The noble Lord in charge of this Bill is carrying out his duties in a most charming way. He smiles sweetly at us and makes polite remarks about us, but, as he goes through the Bill, he makes absolutely no concession. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and I have had more experience than most of your Lordships in conducting Bills through the House, and the best way of doing so is to try to find some concessions to make. Here was an obvious concession which the noble Lord could give. I believe (I am not sure) that I was responsible for moving this sanctuary provision into this Bill, but what I had in mind was this. There are certain quite small areas, not great national parks but particular areas, sometimes particular woods, where an especially rare bird habitually breeds. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, that the right way to cope with that situation is to let the owner, who is the knowledgeable person, go and tell the facts to the Home Secretary and get him to make an order, and then let the Home Secretary have power to say to people: "You keep out." The man who goes into a sanctuary, even if he does not take eggs, often disturbs the whole place and prevents the birds from breeding there.

I would point out to the noble Lord that we are not putting any mandatory power upon the Home Secretary. As I understand it, we are simply saying that he may, if he is so minded, make an order, the effect of which will be that people shall keep out. Why on earth not? Why should the noble Lord not give way on this? What harm does it do to anybody, to give the Home Secretary this power? I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that, if there is a sanctuary—I visualise quite a small place; I know a number of woods where rare birds have nested year after year—it is the sort of place we want to see included here. Why not? The noble Lord is bound to agree with me that the right thing to do is to keep people out of a particular wood for the particular month or so that matters. Why not do it in a perfectly simple way, by giving the Home Secretary, not an obligation but a power, if he is so minded, to make an order saying that people shall keep out? Surely, here is a clause upon which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might give way to the very moderate suggestion of Lord Ilchester.

I have been reminded that my earlier proposal was even more drastic than this. I am perfectly prepared to accept this drafting, which seems to me sensible and good, but I am very keen on these sanctuaries. I believe that this is a most important feature of this Bill, and I urge upon the noble Lord to give the Home Secretary power to make these sanctuaries really effective. Let them really be sanctuaries. If you have people wandering through they will do a lot of damage, even if they do not take eggs—and one never knows what they are going to do with regard to taking eggs. Let us keep them out.

6.33 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

I cannot help feeling that the noble and learned Earl is making rather heavy weather of this matter. After all, I do not think there is a great deal between us. We all wish to achieve the same object; we wish to keep people out of these places. But we already have perfectly good machinery in our National Parks Act. Are we going to duplicate indefinitely all these provisions? Has the noble Earl considered the question of enforcement? He kept saying that he knew a little wood here and a little copse there where such-and-such a bird nested. But have the owners rows of gamekeepers to patrol their land? How is enforcement to be achieved? The whole point about the National Parks Act is that the authorities concerned have people who can do the job: the small landowner has not. Therefore, I am not at all sure, despite the suggestion that my noble friend is unreasonable, that this is a major issue; I do think that the noble and learned Earl is making very heavy weather of it.

It seems to me that we already have machinery for doing this under the National Parks Act and in the provisions of this Bill. The main reason why the provision was put into the Bill was to preserve sanctuaries that had been created under previous Wild Bird Protection Acts which are now to be repealed. I cannot help feeling that if we wish to have protection to this degree the sensible thing to do is to use the machinery available and to make the area into a nature reserve. Frankly, I was not greatly impressed by the noble and learned Earl's argument; but I agree that it is an important matter, and my suggestion to my noble friend is that he should have a look at it again before Report. I do not think, however, that there is a great deal of substance in the case.

LORD MATHERS

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the National Parks legislation that he has referred to applies to Scotland? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised a most important point, and I should like to know the position there.

LORD LLOYD

I think I am right in saying that it does—I am virtually certain that it does. But I will check that and tell the noble Lord for certain.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not want to take up time, but there is a point about Scotland which I should like the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to consider. There might be quite small areas which it is desired to protect. As the noble Lord knows, the only way to stop trespass in Scotland is by way of interdict; that interdict is taken cut against an individual, and it is quite an expensive matter. If you go to the county council you will meet opposition particularly from the burghs. Obviously, in the county councils where the burghs all act together they are anxious to obtain as wide liberty for the inhabitants of the burghs as possible. I do not know that the ordinary man or woman in Scotland pays very much attention to a county council notice, but I am pretty sure that they will pay attention to a notice signed by the Secretary of State. I think that is important, and in view of the difficulties about trespass in Scotland, I hope it will be considered.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I hope that we shall not delay further upon this Amendment. It seems to me that we are all agreed as to what we want. I should have thought that it would have been better had we accepted the Amendment—Lord Ilchester is a great authority upon these matters; he probably knows more about bird sanctuaries than almost anybody—and that the promoter of the Bill would have said that he would check on the matter between now and the Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the Planning Act would cover it—

LORD LLOYD

The National Parks Act.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I was told exactly the opposite when I was dealing with a similar cause. The Director of the Nature Conservancy came to me and said, "Oh, no, the Planning Act is not any good; it is much too big."

LORD LLOYD

It is not the Planning Act, it is the National Parks Act.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

Then I must correct myself again. The National Parks Act was what the Director of the Nature Conservancy said was no good for this purpose. Be that as it may, we want to get on with the discussion of this Bill; we have not unlimited time. I should have thought that this was a completely harmless Amendment. I would have accepted it, making the proviso that if the drafting was inaccurate, I would correct it before Report.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. But I do not see how we can agree to this Amendment until we are clear on the point raised by Lord Saltoun and Lord Mathers—namely, if this Amendment is accepted, where does Scotland come in? I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was going to answer that question.

LORD LLOYD

The noble Lord asked me whether the National Parks Act applied to Scotland. The answer is, Yes.

EARL JOWITT

Does the power under the National Parks Act apply outside the area of the national park?

LORD LLOYD

As I understand it, there is a provision whereby the Nature Conservancy can create a nature reserve out of any part of land, and various things flow from that. It is the Nature Conservancy which is set up under that Act.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

We have had a considerable debate on this particular point. The noble and learned Earl is a little hasty in saying that I am hardhearted in regard to giving things away—

EARL JOWITT

Hard-hearted up to a point.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

If he will bide his soul in peace, he will find that I shall allow a trickle of concessions. I should like to deal with one point raised by Lord Saltoun—that the by-laws under the National Parks Act may prevent entry into a nature reserve in Scotland. Exactly as in England, the law of trespass makes no difference in this respect. I came into the House with one view on this, but I must admit that I have been impressed by the arguments raised. The noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, speaks with immense authority on the subject, and I will therefore surprise the noble and learned Earl opposite by accepting this Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.38 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert: (2) Before making any order under this section with respect to any area, the Secretary of State shall give particulars of the intended order either by notice in writing to each person who owns or occupies any land included in that area or, where the giving of such notice is in his opinion impracticable, by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the district in which that area is situated, and he shall not make the order unless either—

1. (a) all the persons aforesaid have consented thereto; or
2. (b) at the expiration of a period of three months from the date of the giving of the notice of the publication of the advertisement none of these persons have objected thereto."

The noble Lord said: Clause 3 (2) provides that the Secretary of State shall not make an order establishing a bird sanctuary except with the consent of every owner or occupier concerned. On further examination of this clause, it seems clear that in some instances it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to comply with this requirement, or it would raise such obstacles as to render the making of an order virtually impossible. In the case of ordinary private land owned by one individual no difficulty would, of course, arise; but it may well happen that it is desirable to establish a sanctuary on open land where questions of ownership and other rights may be extremely complicated. There may be rights in the land going back for centuries, and the deeds or other documents creating those rights may well have been lost; and all sorts and conditions of people may have rights as commoners and so on which, having regard to the definition of "occupier" in Clause 14, would make them technically occupiers. It may therefore be practically impossible either to discover exhaustively who has rights of ownership or occupation in the land, or to trace all the people with these rights. The result might easily be an immense amount of possibly fruitless work in trying to trace people who have little or no practical interest in the land but whose consent would be essential before the order could be made. I am told that these difficulties are by no means imaginary but are met with in practice more often than some noble Lords might suppose. This is shown by the experience of the Nature Conservancy in negotiating agreements for the establishment of nature reserves, and it is understood that the Forestry Commission have had similar experience

The Amendment is designed to enable these difficulties to be avoided, while, at the same time, effectively safeguarding the rights of owners and occupiers. The effect is that the Secretary of State must notify every owner or occupier of an intended order by individual notice in writing or, if this is not practicable, by public notice in a local newspaper; and the Secretary of State is not to make an order unless all owners and occupiers have consented, or unless none of them has objected within three months. In other words, every owner and occupier will have a complete right of veto on any proposal to make a sanctuary order in respect of his land; but where questions of ownership and occupancy are obscure, the Secretary of State will be able to avoid undue administrative difficulty by the device of public notice. That seems to me to be a point which we should all agree needs meeting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

6.42 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "with respect to any area, the Secretary of State" and to insert: the Secretary of State shall consult with any local authority within whose area the area with respect to which the order is to be made or any part thereof is situated and

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I suppose that as this and the following three Amendments are moved at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations it is only right for me to declare an interest. Like other noble Lords in your Lordships' House, I have the honour of being one of the Vice-Presidents of the Association. My noble and learned Leader ventured to give, out of the wealth of his experience, some advice to the noble Lord who is so charmingly dealing with this Bill. I hope that I am going also to be one of the lucky ones in moving this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is helpful: it is to put at the disposal of the Secretary of State the experience which many local authorities have in regard to areas for bird sanctuaries. I think the Committee will agree that it would be as well that all the information possible in regard to the siting of proposed sanctuaries should be at the disposal of the Home Secretary. With those few words I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 1 of the Amendment, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") in line 2, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The noble Lord has just moved an Amendment to my Amendment. I think that the shortest and easiest thing I can say is that the change which he proposes to make is a sensible one, as I see it, and I have much pleasure in accepting his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURDEN

This Amendment and the two which follow it are formal Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 3 of the Amendment, leave out from ("to") to second ("or") in line 4, and insert ("every owner and every occupier of any land included in the area with respect to which the order is to be made").—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURDEN

I beg to move the next Amendment to Lord Tweedsmuir's Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 8 of the Amendment, leave out ("persons") and insert ("owners and occupiers").—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURDEN

I beg to move the next Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 11 of the Amendment, leave out ("persons") and insert ("owners and occupiers").—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [General Exceptions]:

6.47 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This is virtually a drafting Amendment. Clause 4 (1) (c) allows the taking of any wild bird solely for the purpose of ringing or marking and then releasing it. Strictly speaking, this would apply only if every individual bird taken were ringed or marked. This, however, does not correspond with the actual practice of ringing stations; a good many individuals of common species that enter the traps are often released without being ringed, and birds which have already been ringed are quite often caught either accidentally or for the purpose of examining the ring. It is clearly desirable that the exemption for catching birds for ringing should be expressed in terms appropriate to the actual practice of ringing stations, and this Amendment is designed to effect that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, after ("marking") insert (", or examining any ring or mark on, that or some other bird").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds

5.—(1) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section ten of this Act, any person— (d) uses for the purpose of killing any wild bird a shot-gun capable in the condition in which it is used of firing more than two cartridges without re-loading, or of which the barrel has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches; or

6.48 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (d). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I have not been looking forward to moving very much, because I am afraid that I am going to throw the apple of discord into this Chamber. The Amendment is, I think, a matter of principle. This is a Bill for the protection of birds, and the whole of the Bill, so far as I can see, except this paragraph (d) deals with matters for the protection of birds. But this paragraph is not covered by the Title of the Bill or by anything in it. I think it is a very important principle that a Bill of this kind, framed for a purpose which we all applaud, should not have provisions of this kind tacked on to it just because someone or other thinks them a good thing.

I know that the way a gentleman shoots is very fine. He goes out with a gun, he has a loader behind him with another gun, and, if he is properly trained, he can pour a stream of shot into any bird or animal he sees. The gun that is sought to be prohibited is a gun which I have shot with myself for over thirty years. It holds five cartridges, of which four are contained in a magazine under the barrel. I have never seen anyone who could succeed in firing the five cartridges at any bird. My gunmaker cannot get them off quickly enough for that, even when firing the gun for test purposes from behind an armoured screen. But the gun is of the greatest importance and use to people in my position who have to keep down vermin. For example, I have to shoot a great many pigeons each year. I must shoot pigeons because they do so much damage to the crops. It is difficult for me to get people to help in the work. I go into a covert and perhaps a covey of pigeons comes over or flies out. I shoot the first one, let us say, and I wound the second, and, if I have not got a third shot to finish it, I send away a bird wounded. It is the third shot in these guns which is really important

To anybody who shoots like I do this is most important. For nearly thirty years I have done my best never to send away any animal wounded. I cannot succeed entirely, of course, but I have adopted a kind of technique which rather leads me either to hit or miss completely. If I send away badly wounded any animal or bird, however noxious, it worries me extremely. For that reason I think it is silly to try and prohibit this gun. Moreover, if you have three dummies and put them in, with one live cartridge in the magazine and one in the barrel, you have a gun in the same condition as that provided for in the Bill. It is very useful for people killing rabbits, pigeons and hoodie crows. I have seen a good many in use and I have never yet seen one misused. Apart from that, I feel strongly that as this Bill is for the protection of birds and as this point is not covered in the Title, it ought not to be allowed to pass. If any noble Lord will act as Teller with me, I shall feel bound to divide the House on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Saltoun.)

EARL JOWITT

The noble Lord in charge of the Bill is now in such a good humour that I am sure he is going to accept this Amendment. I should like to give him one added reason why he should do so. I have not shot with a gun of this sort and I am never going to do so. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, I have reached the age at which I do not anticipate that I shall shoot much more, but during the war I did shoot with a good many American Air Force officers and found that they shot with this kind of gun. I do not suppose the bird minds very much whether it is shot with one gun or another. But if I understand the Bill aright, I should be allowed to use a gun of this sort to shoot grouse, pheasants and partridges, but not to shoot wood pigeon. Why? If there is something inherently cruel in the gun, I can understand the Bill saying that we must not use it. But am I right in thinking, that although there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from being used for partridges, pheasants and grouse there is something to prevent its use for pigeons?

LORD GIFFORD

I believe that Amendment No. 33 by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, covers this very point. As the Bill stands, one can use this gun for game birds, but if Lord Glyn's Amendment is accepted, that not be possible.

EARL JOWITT

The clause is for the "Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds" and in the definition Clause "wild birds" are defined so as not to include any game birds. As the Bill stands, therefore, one is allowed to use a gun of this sort for pheasants, grouse and partridges, but not for pigeons. That seems to me to be an added reason for taking the view that there is a great deal to be said for Lord Saltoun's Amendment.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

Before the noble Lord replies, I hope he will make a distinction between the two parts of this clause. I admit that I do not attach so much importance to the prohibition of these American guns, horrible weapons as I think they are. Incidentally, let me congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for being so accurate with them. When I have seen them used, I have seen some of the worst shooting I have ever seen. But he implied that with the third barrel he always made sure of right and left with his first two. The second part of paragraph (d) prohibits a gun with a muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches. I attach great importance to this provision. It is intended to meet the big guns which are used on punts and which not only kill a great many duck but wound a great many more. Whatever the noble Lord may do about the American multi-barrel gun, I hope he will be absolutely firm upon the prohibition of guns with muzzles of more than one and three-quarter inches.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I respect the arguments of my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I am sure he must be aware that many people are strongly opposed to both these weapons that are capable of the wholesale slaughter of birds. In the hands of a man of principle, obviously they will never be used for that purpose; but legislation is not entirely to cover men of principle. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that in this paragraph we have two immensely separated issues. I should like to underline what he said about the punt gun. It can do immense damage to flocks of duck and geese, and many people would like to prohibit it altogether. But we have had to compromise. After all, this is a traditional weapon in many parts of the country, though in most parts where it is used it is dying out. The men who live by it are dying out, so the punt gun dies with them.

On the question of the pump gun or rapid shooting gun, the use of guns capable of firing not more than two cartridges without reloading is enforced in Canada where rapid shotguns are much more the rule than the exception. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has told us that he can take valuable toll of pigeons and other pests by the use of this weapon. Originally the Bill prohibited its use altogether, but it was amended in another place to allow the use of pump guns adapted to fire not more than two shots without reloading. My attitude is absolutely adamant on the subject of the punt gun, but let me put it to my noble friend Lord Saltoun that, between now and Report stage, I will confer with him and have a further look at that half of the paragraph which deals with the pump gun. If he will not press his Amendment now, I will give him that assurance.

LORD SALTOUN

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that I spoke as if I shot down everything I fired at, but the gun itself is accurate enough, and I am afraid that I claimed too much. As to the fact that the gun is illegal in Canada, I submit that that is not necessarily a rule for us. I have never seen the gun used in the way the noble Lord said, and I should think it very difficult to use it so. We must not be guided by the laws of other people. There are countries where a man may have three wives, but I am sure the noble Lord would never urge that as a reason for extending the marriage laws here. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) The Secretary of State may by order prohibit or restrict the use of any form of decoy specified in the order within any area so specified for the purpose of killing or taking wild geese.

The noble Earl said: Those of us who live in North Lincolnshire have noticed a marked decline in the numbers of pinked-footed geese. We believe that this decline is being caused largely by excessive shooting by a few persons with decoys. For this reason, 530 persons, landowners and farmers, signed a paper refusing to let this practice continue on their land. I hope your Lordships will give credit to some of us for some intelligence. But even if that cannot be conceded, our diagnosis of the decline is endorsed by someone who is perhaps the greatest living authority on geese. If, as has been said, this Bill goes down to history as a code of sporting ethics, and now that the case has been ventilated in this House and in another place, I am hopeful that these powers may never be needed; but it is good to know that they are there, if needs be. I should like to say that I—and I think most, if not all, of those 530 persons—wish to do all I can to encourage ordinary wildfowlers, few of whom have any shooting of their own and many of whom are in a fairly small way. I can think of no better way to help them than by ensuring that there should always be an adequate number of geese. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Yarborough.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This Amendment fills what I have good reason to believe is a great need. I therefore have the greatest pleasure in accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 6, after ("marking") insert (", or examining any ring or mark on, that or some other bird.")—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that nothing in this subsection shall make lawful the use of a rocket-propelled net.

The noble Lord said: It was suggested on the Report stage in the other place that the use of rocket nets for catching birds for ringing should be restricted. As a matter of fact, to say that they are in little use is to exaggerate. I have heard of only one person who had one, and that was the well-known ornithologist, Mr. Peter Scott. But, clearly, there is a risk of a good deal of damage being done by them in the wrong hands. Accordingly, it seems reasonable that their use should be permitted only under licence. This Amendment, therefore, excludes them from the provision permitting the use of nets without a licence for catching birds for various purposes, and the later Amendment to Clause 10, line 14, will enable the Secretary of State or the Nature Conservancy to license the use of rocket nets for catching birds for ringing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

EARL JOWITT

I should like to come back to the point we discussed on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said that he would be good enough to look into the first part of the clause. I agree absolutely with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in his views about the punt gun. I do not like that sort of gun at all. I think it is cruel, and I should like to see it banned altogether. But with regard to the other weapon, if you are going to prohibit it in the case of pigeons, then you ought also to prohibit it in the case of partridges. That would mean an Amendment, and I mention this to the noble Lord, so that when he is considering what to do about this matter he will bear it in mind. Personally, I should not prohibit it at all; I do not regard it as being so effective a weapon as the ordinary double-barrelled shotgun.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Restrictions on sale of live and dead wild birds, eggs, etc.]:

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This is really a drafting Amendment. Clause 6 (1) (b), which prohibits the sale of eggs of wild birds of any species which has nested in the British Isles in a wild state, is ambiguous. The words "which has nested" could refer either, as was intended, to "species"—if, indeed, a species can properly be said to nest—or to "a wild bird"—that is, the individual bird. This Amendment makes it clear that the prohibition applies if any bird of the species in question has nested wild in Britain. If imported eggs of British species could be sold, clearly the prohibition of the sale of native eggs would be unenforceable, because of the impossibility of telling where a particular egg was laid. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, leave out ("which") and insert (", if any bird of that species").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Protection of captive birds]:

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

Clause 8 (1) makes it an offence to confine a bird in a cage in which it has not room to stretch its wings freely. Anyone who has ever found himself in the position of having to doctor a sick or injured bird knows that it may have to be confined in a very small space. It is to meet this point that the Amendment is put forward. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 4, at end insert— ("or (c) while that bird is undergoing treatment by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.")—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Power to grant licences

10.—(1) A licence may be granted to any person by the appropriate authority specified in the next following subsection authorising that person, notwithstanding anything in, or in any order made under, the foregoing provisions of this Act and notwithstanding anything in section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, or section seven of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912 (which relate to the placing on land of poisonous matter), but subject to compliance with any conditions specified in the licence— (d) for the purposes of killing or taking such wild birds included in the Second Schedule to this Act as may be specified in the licence, to use a trap of any description so specified or poisoned or stupefying bait of any description so specified.

(2) The appropriate authority for the grant of a licence under the foregoing subsection shall be—

1. (a) in the case of a licence under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection, the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate advisory committee;
2. (b) in the case of a licence under the said paragraph (a) which is required for the purposes of scientific or educational work carried out by, or on behalf of, or with the aid of grants from, the Nature Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy;

7.8 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) to leave out "a trap of any description so specified or." The noble Lord said: Clause 10 (1) (d) enables the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland to license the use of traps, as well as of poisoned or stupefying bait, for catching Second Schedule birds. Objection has been raised to this, because it would enable the Minister or Secretary of State to license the use of such things as pole traps for catching birds, a practice which has been illegal for many years. The pole trap is a dastardly instrument which catches ten harmless birds for every harmful one that it catches. The Agricultural Departments say that they are concerned only with cage traps and net, the use of which for catching Second Schedule birds is permitted without a licence by Clause 5 (3) (a). They would not, therefore, contemplate using in practice a power to license the use of any other kind of trap. This Amendment, therefore, would omit the reference to traps in this particular provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 12, leave out from ("use") to ("poisoned") in line 13.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

EARL JOWITT

What is the position about using a poisoned egg to catch magpies? I believe that one of the best services you can render to birds in this country is to reduce the number of magpies. In practice I know that a large number of keepers—whether rightly or wrongly I do not know—still use the system of poisoning eggs. Whether it is illegal to-day, or whether we are going to make it illegal in the future, I should rather like to know. Could the noble Lord give me any help about this? I do not believe you car reduce the number of magpies effectively in any other way.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

When we were discussing my Bill, I understood that the poisoning of magpies would be legalised and I think it is important that it should be. It is the only way to kill magpies, and they are one of the great plagues of the country at the moment.

LORD LLOYD

Perhaps I can clear up this matter for the noble and learned Earl. As I understand it, at the present time it is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act to use poison in a form which can be taken by animals.

EARL JOWITT

A poisoned egg for instance?

LORD LLOYD

Presumably that would be covered under the Protection of Animals Act.

EARL JOWITT

Is this Bill going to help in that regard? When this Bill is passed, will it be possible to put down a poisoned egg to kill magpies? I do not believe there is any other effective way of getting rid of magpies. If it will not be legal after this Bill is passed—I do not expect an answer now, if it is inconvenient—will the noble Lord look at it and see whether he cannot put in a clause making it legal to use poison by means of an egg for magpies? It is a safe way of doing it, because only birds such as crows and magpies would open up an egg and eat it.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

I think it is quite clear as it is. If I read the Bill aright, it would mean that in order to poison any kind of bird, magpie or carrion crow, it would be necessary to have a licence. Originally, as my Bill was drafted, the licence would be given only by the Secretary of State. I pointed out that that was a very cumbrous procedure for dealing with what is likely to happen fairly often in the country. On that account, during the discussions we made the local authority the authority to issue the licences and to issue them through the pest committee and the pest officer, who would be the appropriate body and the appropriate person to do it. I think that is so.

LORD LLOYD

I think the situation is that under this Bill it will be possible to use poisonous or stupifying bait under licence. If the noble and learned Earl would look at Clause 10 (1) (d), he will see that that is so.

EARL JOWITT

If you get a licence?

LORD LLOYD

Yes. The present situation is governed by the Protection of Animals Act. If this Bill is passed, under Clause 10 (1) (d) you will be able to get a licence from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

EARL JOWITT

The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, reminded me of what took place last time. Would it not be rather convenient to have a clause such as we had in that Bill? It is like taking a hammer to crack a nut for the Secretary of State to give this licence. Could it not be given by the local authority through the pest officer or something of that sort?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The point which the noble and learned Earl has raised is an interesting one. It is rather a cumbrous procedure, and we will look at that between now and the Report stage.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

Before we leave this point, may I say that I think that these licences should come from a high authority, because poison is a dangerous thing. You will not by any means be sure that the animal you wish to poison is going to take it, and a great many other things do take it. The other point is about stupefying. I wonder whether anybody has thought of this. Tame pheasants, for instance, could be stupified and poached perfectly easily because you could put them in a bag and take them away. I am going to make one very odd suggestion about reducing the number of magpies. I firmly believe that in my part of the world the number of magpies has gone down enormously owing to grey squirrels. I believe the squirrels eat the magpies. It is the one good thing I have heard of a grey squirrel. May I ask one other question? Are we to be allowed to use jackdaw traps, for instance?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

That will come under the heading of "gate trap," I think.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

Should we have to get a licence for that? Because it is the only way of doing it. On my farm we caught forty or fifty in one trap in one day.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

It will not be necessary to get a licence.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.16 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved in subsection (1), after paragraph (d) to insert: (e) for the purpose of taking wild birds in order to ring or mark, or examine any ring or mark on, all or any of the birds taken and then release them, to use within any area specified in the licence any form of artificial light or a rocket-propelled net.

The noble Lord said: I should like to move this Amendment and the next two together, because the second and third are consequential. The first Amendment provides for the grant of licences for the use of artificial light or rocket nets for catching birds for ringing. The other two Amendments are consequential and have the effect that the licensing authority for this purpose will be the Secretary of State, or the Nature Conservancy in the case of scientific work carried out under their auspices. As regards rocket nets, we have already had some mention of them before and, as I say, the only person I know of who owns one is Mr. Peter Scott, and it is put to thoroughly legitimate use. Some people may wonder whether this Amendment is necessary, because Clause 10 (1) (a) already gives power to grant licences to catch birds by any specified means for scientific purposes. A licence under that paragraph, however, must specify the number and description of birds to be taken. This would be inappropriate for a ringing station, which clearly needs an open licence to catch any number of birds of any species that may come along. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 17, leave out ("or paragraph (b)") and insert ("(b) or (e)").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9 line 21, leave out ("the said paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraph (a) or (e) of that subsection").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Enforcement, penalties, etc.

(4) In England or Wales, the council of a county or county borough shall have power to institute proceedings for any offence against this Act committed within the area of that county or county borough.

LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (4): and where an order has been made under section three of this Act, any local authority shall have power to institute proceedings for an offence under that order committed within the area of that authority. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Subsection (4) of the Bill as it stands provides for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by county councils and county borough councils. I submit to your Lordships that it would be advisable to empower the county district councils in those areas where there are bird sanctuaries to institute proceedings for any offence under the Bill. If the noble Lord will reflect for a moment, he will readily see that the headquarters, for example, of many of the county councils are a considerable distance from the points where the bird sanctuaries exist. In those circumstances, I think the county districts would be the appropriate authorities to watch that there are no infringements of the provisions of the Act. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I have had the opportunity of studying Lord Burden's Amendment, and I have much pleasure in accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Interpretation

"authorised person" means— (c) any person authorised in writing by any of the following bodies, that is to say, the Nature Conservancy, a river board constituted under the River Boards Act, 1948, a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, the Conservators of the River Thames, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, the Commissioners appointed under the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, and the district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862; so, however, that the authorisation of any person for the purposes of this definition shall not confer any right of entry upon any land; occupier" includes any person having any right of hunting, shooting, fishing or taking game or fish; wild bird" does not include pheasant, partridge, grouse (or moor game), black (or heath) game, or, in Scotland, ptarmigan.

LORD BURDEN moved, in the definition of "authorised person," in paragraph (c), after "Catchment Board," to insert: any statutory water undertakers within the meaning of the Water Act, 1945, any local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946,

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I do not know whether my luck will hold out so far as this particular Amendment is concerned, but I feel that statutory water undertakings within the meaning of the Water Act, 1945, and the similar Act for Scotland, 1946, should be authorities to take action as provided in this clause. I need not illustrate some of the circumstances in which these water undertakings would suffer from any of the things which this clause covers.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 26, after ("Board") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The noble Lord has sought a modest form of power on behalf of the water undertakings which I have no intention of restraining him from getting. I accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.22 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, in the definition of "occupier," after "occupier," to insert: in relation to any land other than the foreshore.

The noble Lord said: This is a slightly lengthier Amendment than the last few we have had. As your Lordships see, it relates to "any land other than the foreshore." This Amendment relates to Clause 3, about bird sanctuaries. There are several existing bird sanctuaries which include part of the foreshore. The orders establishing them will be continued in force by Clause 3 (3) as if they had been made under that clause. Under the Bill as it stands, however, it would be virtually impossible to make new sanctuary orders for areas of foreshore. I submit that this Amendment puts that right.

To run briefly through the reasons why the Bill as it stands makes such orders virtually impossible, the second proviso to Clause 3 (1) provides that an order shall not affect the exercise of the rights of occupiers, and Clause 3 (2) gives every occupier the right to veto any proposal of a new order. Clause 14 (1) defines "occupier" as including any person having any right of shooting or fishing. In Scotland the general public probably have a right to shoot wildfowl on the foreshore, and in England there is a public right of fishing on the foreshore except where it belongs to a subject—in nearly every case, of course, it belongs to the Crown. Thus, as regards the foreshore, the general public come within the definition of "occupier" in Clause 14, both in Scotland and in England. The result is that every individual member of the public would have the right to veto the making of any fresh order under Clause 3. This is plainly absurd. Further, an order under Clause 3 probably would not operate to prevent the public shooting on the foreshore in Scotland, and in this respect the position is rather obscure in England. The Amendment would put this right by excluding members of the public with uncovenanted rights of shooting, fishing and so forth, on the foreshore, from the definition of "occupier." An order under Clause 3, however, will still not operate against a person who has individual shooting rights on the foreshore under a licence or agreement, or who owns or occupies in the ordinary sense a part of the foreshore; and such an owner or occupier will still have the right to veto the making of any new order.

I do not think that any noble Lord would seriously suggest that sanctuaries were never to be created on the foreshore. On the other hand, there is no suggestion that the power to create sanctuaries on the foreshore should be freely used. On the contrary, shore shooters have rights which ought to be respected. It seems proper, however, that there should be some power to create a sanctuary on the foreshore where there is a really good case for doing so. The existing Wild Birds Protection Acts allow this on the application of the local authority, and, as was said before, a number of existing sanctuaries include part of the foreshore. The part so included may in some instances be private property, but not always. For instance, two complete islands off the Scottish coast have been made sanctuaries, and the greater part of each of them is public foreshore. Other cases are likely to occur of making foreshore sanctuaries—for instance, to protect terneries, about which the noble Earl spoke, or colonies of breeding waders, or to provide a refuge for rare migrants at some point where they are likely to hit our coast. The Bill includes the substantial safeguards against the unreasonable use of the power to create sanctuaries in a way that would deprive shore shooters of their legitimate rights. Thus, before making an order the Secretary of State is required by Clause 13 to consult the advisory committee and to give a public opportunity for objections or representations. In addition, there is the powerful safeguard that the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for what he does. It has taken me some little time to move this Amendment, but I believe that it is one that is germane to the working of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 42, after ("occupier") insert the said words.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

LORD MATHERS

May I ask the noble Lord what impact this will have upon the Aberlady Bay position, which will be known to him? How will that stand now? Has the noble Lord taken one side or another in connection with the controversy that has been going on there for some time?

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I cannot help the noble Lord because, although I have often heard of Aberlady Bay as a great place for wading birds and ducks, I have never been there. I cannot declare allegiance to one side or the other from any real knowledge of how the controversy is progressing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, in the definition of "wild bird," after "wild bird" to insert: in sections five and ten of this Act means any wild bird, but in any other provision of this Act. The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Glyn, who is unavoidably absent. I put this Amendment for- ward. The definition of "wild bird" in Clause 14 has the effect that the Bill will not apply to game birds. The reason is that the Game Acts already contain provisions protecting them, fixing close seasons and controlling sales. It has, however, been pointed out that the Wild Birds Protection Acts of 1904 and 1908, which make it an offence to place gin traps and similar instruments where they are likely to injure wild birds, or to use hooks for catching wild birds, apparently apply to game birds; but that Clause 5 of the Bill, which re-enacts and adds to those provisions, like the rest of the Bill does not apply to game birds. In consequence, it would not be an offence to use any of the methods prohibited by Clause 5 for catching game birds, except that the Game Act, 1831, prohibits the use of poison for taking game. This Amendment, which may seem rather obscure, will put this right by extending Clauses 5 and 10 to game birds. Clause 10 is mentioned as well as Clause 5, so that licences to use some of the methods prohibited by Clause 5 for special purposes may be granted in respect of game birds as well as of other wild birds. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 46, after ("wild bird") insert the said words.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

LORD BURDEN

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for moving this Amendment, which I feel will commend itself to your Lordships.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

The effect of this Amendment is to give the Council of the Isles of Scilly the functions of a county council under the Bill. The general provisions of the Bill will, of course, apply to the Scillies, but the Council of the Isles would not have any powers under the Bill as it stands. This is because the Council is a unique body which does not possess all the powers of an ordinary local authority, but only those expressly conferred on it either by Statute or by orders under the Local Government Act, 1933. The Council have been given the functions of a county council under existing Wild Birds Protection Acts by such an Order. They wish to have the same functions under the Bill, and it seems appropriate and desirable that they should have them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 16, at end insert— ("(2) This Act shall apply to the Isles of Scilly as if the Isles were a county and as if the council of the Isles were a county council.").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I rise to move that the House be now resumed.

Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Motion agreed to; House resumed accordingly.