PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL (Hansard, 6 May 1954)

HL Deb 06 May 1954 vol 187 cc415-50 415

§ 4.6 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

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

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

§ First Schedule [Wild birds and their eggs protected by special penalties]:

§ Part I: At all times.

§ Part II: During the close season.

§ LORD GIFFORD moved to add to Part I ["Birds protected at all times"] "Peregrine." The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is to include the peregrine in the First Schedule of specially protected birds. In my view the peregrine is one of the most magnificent of our British birds, and I feel that it should be included. It is a bird which does no harm to crops, because it does not eat any vegetable matter. Its main food is many of the birds in the Second Schedule, such as the wood pigeon, the jackdaw and the rook, which are birds that may be taken at any time. I understand that usually it does not attack birds on the ground, so that it is no menace to young birds just leaving their nests. Due to modern conditions, many of its natural habitats have been built over, in many cases by radar establishments, and it may well be in danger of becoming extinct. I think the chief danger is from professional egg collectors and, therefore, that the higher fine for birds specially protected should 416 be applicable to the peregrine. Of course, if it were found later that the peregrine became too numerous, it could be removed from the First Schedule by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of Clause 9. In view of the fact that this is one of our most beautiful birds, I hope that my Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 8, second column, after ("Osprey") insert ("Peregrine").—(Lord Gifford.)

§ EARL JOWITT
I hope that we shall put the peregrine into this Schedule; we did it on the last occasion. I am not foolish enough to deny that the peregrine does a certain amount of harm. He does harm in that he takes carrier pigeons. The pigeon is his favourite form of food, and he will take many more wood pigeons than carriers. I do not believe that the bird is in wide supply. It is anybody's guess how many peregrines there are in this country at the present time. I suppose that I have travelled about as much as most people, and my guess would be that there are not more than 300 pairs in the whole of the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, of all birds the peregrine is the most beautiful. It is the perfect combination of fighter and bomber. It is packed into a comparatively small body of amazing strength and force. Of all the birds that I have watched, I think the peregrine has given me more satisfaction than any other. I know, of course, that it has bad habits. It takes grouse. If there were a large number of peregrines I should not suggest that they should be included in this category, but believing, as I do, that it is a comparatively rare bird, I very much hope that this beautiful bird will be protected. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will extend his mercies towards it.

LORD SALTOUN
May I rise to support the Amendment, on the ground that the peregrine hunts the wood pigeon, which is its proper prey; and anybody who has seen the wood pigeon at its best in flight will realise that any bird which can compete with it in agility deserves certain consideration. The noble and learned Earl is quite right. I do not know whether he has any special information, but I am told that the number of peregrines in the whole country is not 417 more than 500 and probably nearer 300. Anybody who has handled a peregrine must feel outraged at the thought of its being exterminated. As for its taking grouse, the peregrine takes grouse in this way. He waits up above, and when he sees the grouse he flies down as hard as he can for about 100 feet; then he closes his wings, puts his heels together and descends like a bolt on the grouse; and he will take his grouse, I am told, within 10 feet of the ground, and rise into the air afterwards. Any bird that can do that deserves to live, and so I support the plea for the peregrine. I am sure that he does little harm, and he has many enemies who just shoot a hawk because it is a hawk.

§ LORD HURCOMB
I should like to support this Amendment. The larger birds of prey, not only in this country but throughout Europe, are in a precarious position. When this Committee is passing a Bill for the better protection of wild birds, it should give the maximum to a bird of this kind. It is true that on certain parts of our coast one may see the peregrine fairly often, not necessarily a different bird. But in a large part of England, at any rate, there is none at all. The extent to which the bird is persecuted, both by egg-collectors and by keepers, can be well illustrated by recent facts relating to one of our largest counties. In Yorkshire, the raven can breed only on the north-western fringe, and two out of three pairs in that large county lost their eggs in 1952. Both pairs of peregrines which attempted to breed in Yorkshire lost their eggs in 1952, and of two breeding pairs of buzzards, one was robbed. This kind of prolonged and deadly persecution in large areas of the country must imperil the whole status of these birds, whose numbers are certainly not greater than those given by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I should think are probably less. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the peregrine may kill a few carrier pigeons, in addition to the many wood pigeons and stock pigeons that it destroys, I hope your Lordships will move it back into the Schedule, as you did on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Templewood.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
Perhaps in replying to this Amendment, I may be permitted to preface my remarks with a few observations about the First Schedule, 418 and particularly Part I of that Schedule. When I first saw the First Schedule I thought it had glaring omissions. Then I looked at it more closely; I saw that the honey buzzard was in Part I of the Schedule, and I thought: if the honey buzzard, why not the rough-legged buzzard? Then I studied the Bill (this was when it was first printed, some few months ago) and realised that the purpose of Part I of the First Schedule was to protect birds which were breeding species in this country, which either had a tiny foot-hold, which they were trying to maintain, or else were species fighting to establish, or more likely re-establish, themselves in this country. Because those who try to make money out of rare birds make more money out of the eggs than the skins, it is right, I think, to make the provision about protecting their eggs. It is much more important, from our point of view, to protect the potential breeders, than to protect the merely rare wanderers. The object of this Bill is comprehensive protection, enforceable because it is easily intelligible. I want—I think most of your Lordships will agree with me—to try to keep this Schedule within reasonable bounds of length, and of birds which fall much into the same category.
On the subject of the peregrine, I am glad to see that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has put his name to this Amendment. Your Lordships will probably be aware that in the Middle Ages you were allowed to keep a hawk according to your station in society, and no other, and the peregrine was the Earl's hawk. I have had, perhaps, closer contact with peregrines than any noble Lord in the Committee—I was a falconer for a good many years. I do not expect ever to have as much spare time again as falconry calls for. I have kept a number of these proud, aloof and beautiful birds, and have flown them over many years. The relationship between a man and a falcon is certainly that of master and servant, but there is absolutely no doubt who is master—and it is the peregrine.
To my mind, the trouble about this is that the peregrine is not a rare bird in the sense that the other birds in the Schedule are rare, and he can be, as speakers who have spoken in his favour have not hesitated to say, considerably destructive. The noble and learned Earl 419 made a conjecture about the number of breeding pairs and said it was about 300. I will not quarrel about figures, because he is not very far out. The editor of British Birds, Mr. Ferguson Lees, who conducted a survey of peregrine eyries from 1947 to 1949, put the number not much higher, at 400 eyries. That puts the peregrine in a very different category from the other birds in Part I of the First Schedule. The damage to grouse by the peregrine can be drastic—I will argue that with anyone. The damage to carrier pigeons is pretty considerable, because the peregrine, when he nests down in the South, is clever enough to put his eyrie on the line where the carrier pigeons fly. Anyone who has ever looked into the peregrine's nest at the top of Salisbury Cathedral will see a large number of relics of carrier pigeons; and there are in this country something like 300,000 folk who are concerned with owning or running racing pigeons.
I think it would be a pity if the impression were to take hold that the only real protection was the £25 penalty of the First Schedule. I believe that the £5 penalty, properly enforced, is going to be a very great deterrent. I have made my views clear, but my views in a matter like this have only a certain importance. Other noble Lords who have spoken have come out strongly for protecting the peregrine. That, I think, is unmistakably the sense of the Committee to-day, and therefore I will accord the noble Lords their Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I: "Raven." The noble Viscount said: I apologise to your Lordships for having to move this Amendment in place of my noble friend, Lord Haddington. I beg to move this insertion in the First Schedule. I think the raven ought to be in this Schedule, as does my noble friend, Lord Haddington. I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has to say on the matter.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, second column, after ("Quail, common") insert ("Raven").—(Viscount Elibank.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
When the rarity of a single species of birds is discussed, we naturally all give the point of view of the part of the country in which 420 we live, and some may say that the species has increased and some that it has decreased. I have lived in raven country for about four or five years, and I have never thought that any problem existed. But here, as with every clause of this Bill, we have to think of the British Isles as an entity. It is not easy to get statistics about the raven; indeed, the only ones that exist I believe are rather out of date. They are taken from the Handbook of British Birds published the year before the war. That said of Wales that there had been a striking increase in the raven in the previous fifteen to twenty years. I put that to your Lordships merely for what it is worth. Why I think the raven is unlikely to become dangerously rare is that it is a bird of the utmost physical hardihood. I spent the year immediately preceding the war at a Hudson's Bay post in Baffinland, in the sub-Arctic. As your Lordships probably know, that part of the world is a riot of bird life in the short summer months and is almost completely deserted by birds in the winter, but not by the raven, which was the only living thing one saw from day to day for about six months on end.
The raven has a very curious rôole in life. All scavengers, whether bird or animal, come badly out of prose or poetry, but the raven does fulfil a useful function. I personally do not feel any disquiet about his numbers. If I shared the noble Viscount's disquiet I would immediately accept the Amendment. I think the raven is safe as a breeding species—and I would remind your Lordships that if he is not safe the Secretary of State can take power later on to put him in the Schedule. If I felt the raven was not safe I would accept this proposal, but in my judgment the raven's security as a breeding species is such that I would ask the noble Viscount not to press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
The attitude of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is justified. The increase of the raven is still going on and he cannot at the present time be considered as anything resembling a rare bird.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for what he has said, and in view of the fact that he has indicated that if the circumstance arises he will be willing to suggest to the 421 Secretary of State that under Clause 9 the bird should be put in the Schedule, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

§ 4.27 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I: "Flycatcher, pied." The noble Viscount said: Again I apologise to your Lordships for having to move this Amendment in place of my noble friend Lord Haddington, who is unable to be here. We both place considerable importance on this Amendment. The pied flycatcher, with its very lovely markings, the upper parts black with a white frontal band, and a middle band of grey and white across the rump, is one of the regular visitors to the British Isles from the South, between the latter part of April and early or late autumn according to the climatic varieties of the season. The favourite haunts of the pied flycatcher are in the West and the North, and some are seen every year in Wales and on the Scottish borders. So far as I am aware and so far as the researches of my noble friend Lord Haddington have gone, it does not nest in England, except perhaps for an occasional nest on the fringe of the Welsh and the Scottish borders. It feeds principally on insects. It does nothing but good; I cannot imagine for a moment that it does any harm whatsoever. It has these extremely attractive markings and it ought, certainly in my opinion and in the opinion of my noble friend, to be distributed as widely as possible and given every encouragement to breed. For those reasons I think it is entitled to the maximum protection under this Bill, and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 21, first column, after ("Eagle (all species)") insert ("Flycatcher, pied").—(Viscount Elibank.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
May add a little to what the noble Viscount has said? While I entirely agree with what he has said and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will accept the Amendment, I would point out that the position of the pied flycatcher is decidedly a more favourable one than the mover of the Amendment would have us believe. The pied flycatcher at present is rapidly extending its range, and this is due largely not to the inscrutable ways of nature but 422 to the direct influence of a man, and of one man in particular, a friend of mine, Mr. McKenzie, who, starting in the Forest of Dean with large numbers of nesting boxes, is succeeding in getting the pied flycatcher to advance rapidly northwards, until he has crossed the border as a breeding species and has bred as far north as Perthshire. As the noble Viscount has said, it is an admirable bird which does no harm at all; in fact, it does a great deal of good by destroying insects noxious to young trees. Therefore, although I cannot accept the view that the pied flycatcher is entirely a rare bird, in view of its utility and beauty I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to put this point to him. The pied flycatcher is certainly a beautiful bird. My experience is that it is a very common bird in the spring and is becoming a good deal more common. Under the Bill as it stands, apart from this Amendment, the pied flycatcher is protected, as is practically every bird. I should have thought that, in view of the special character of this Schedule, which is intended to deal with a limited number of really uncommon birds that need protection and for which special penalties ought to be applied, it is a mistake to put the pied flycatcher into the Schedule. That does not mean that it is not protected; it is protected; but as soon as we start putting particular species into this Schedule because they are pretty birds, or because they have nice eggs or for some other reason, we are diminishing the value of the Schedule. On this account, whilst not in the least disagreeing with either noble Lord who has spoken that it is an excellent bird which needs protection, I myself think it does not need the special protection of the First Schedule.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Templewood has just said. The pied flycatcher is a delightful bird on any measurement, but he is not a rarity in the sense that the birds named in the first part of the First Schedule are. If the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, reflects for a moment, he will see that if we include a bird like a pied flycatcher, which might he called a comparative rarity, there is an enormous number of other 423 birds who would equally qualify. In fact, a large number would qualify much more strongly. As the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, pointed out, the protection is there in the Bill. It is a penalty of £5 which, I believe, will be effective. But, for the reasons that Lord Templewood has given, I do not see that this bird has a claim to go into the short list of birds which require, by their extreme rarity, the special protection of the stiffest penalty. Therefore I ask the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, but I am sorry he has said it, and for this reason. We are coming to the point at which this Schedule, according to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is really unnecessary. They say that this bird is protected under the Bill and that a lot of other birds are protected under the Bill. This Schedule is, as I have held it to be, designed in order to protect particular birds for particular reasons. Now one of the reasons which I submitted to the Committee, and which was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was that this was one of the birds of exceptional beauty, and it is to these birds of exceptional beauty that I, the noble Lord, Lord Haddington, and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, wish to give the greatest measure of protection, quite apart from the fact that they may be already protected under the general provisions of the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment. In the circumstances I do not propose to ask the House to divide on it, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 4.35 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I: "Goldeneye." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Haddington, seeks to remove this very attractive diving duck—which is often known as the whistler, from the noise which is produced by its flight—from the close season protection given by Part II of the First Schedule into the full-time protection under Part I. The goldeneye is a winter visitor to the British Isles from October to April, and it is rarely known to nest in these islands. Its last 424 recorded nesting, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was in Cheshire, in the year 1932. It is the prettiest of all diving ducks and, as I said just now in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, that is one of the principal reasons why we seek to include it in the First Schedule to this Bill. With its glossy greenish black head and upper neck, and oval white patch under each eye, it is a glory to see and to watch. Seeing that it is a comparatively scarce bird and, so far as I know, is inedible, or certainly not palatable, I submit that it is entitled to protection all the year round under the First Schedule of this Bill. I therefore beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 21, first column, after ("Eagle (all species)") insert ("Goldeneye").—(Viscount Elibank.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
I regret that on this Amendment I cannot agree with the noble Viscount. If the pied flycatcher is not to receive total protection, on the ground that it is not really a rare bird, then exactly the same must apply to the goldeneye. I agree that the goldeneye should have every possible protection on the all too few occasions when it endeavours to breed, but it is quite a common bird at many of our estuaries and large rivers in autumn and winter. Anyone fishing on the Tay for salmon in the winter or early spring will see anything from half a dozen to thirty or forty in the course of the day. If the rarity of the species is to be taken as the criterion of its deserving or not deserving protection, then I am afraid that the goldeneye must not get it.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
When this Amendment was put down, I made such researches as I could into the whole subject of the goldeneye, and I must say that I received a remarkable variety of answers. There are some who hold that it is immensely rare, and some, like the noble Earl who has just sat down, and who has quoted the Valley of the Tay, where it can be seen almost daily at certain times of the year, who hold that it is quite common. The position is this. The goldeneye is a very occasional breeder in Britain, and it is an almost completely inedible bird. It is a migrant and a winter visitor which is not particularly rare in a number of places, and in one or two places, such 425 as the noble Earl has mentioned, it is relatively common. Much as I dislike to refuse the noble Viscount again, I cannot see that a case has been made out for all-the-year-round protection. This is one of the cases where I think one has to trust to the good sense of the Secretary of State. If a violent and prejudicial decline takes place, or some new circumstances of which we are not aware at the moment arise, he can use his discretion to vary the Schedule. Therefore, I must say again to the noble Viscount that I trust he will not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I beg to thank the noble Lord for turning me down the second time. He having done so, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved to add to Part I: "Greenshank." The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment for exactly the same reason as I imagine that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has down next an Amendment concerning the whimbrel—that is to say, that, although the greenshank is not a very rare bird in the autumn, it is one which there is no merit in shooting. It is not very common, and it would be well worth preserving, particularly as it nests only in small numbers, and if those numbers are to be increased it would be as well not to shoot them. It must be recognised that in the case of the greenshank, as in the case of a number of other waders, it will not be easy to enforce this provision, any more than it will be in the case of the whimbrel, because waders resemble each other all too closely when seen at some distance. On the whole, I think that the greenshank merits the protection that I suggest for it.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 24, first column, after ('Grebe, Slavonian") insert ("Greenshank").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the noble Earl's short speech in support of his Amendment. This matter was brought up in another place; it was resisted and negatived, on the ground that sportsmen could only too easily confuse the greenshank with the redshank, and that it would be rather unfair to penalise them 426 —with a very heavy penalty at that—for shooting an occasional greenshank by mistake. The greenshank is not a particularly common bird. It is a regular passage migrant. I need take up the time of the House no longer, but say merely that I think there is force in the contention put forward by the noble Earl. I am content to accept his Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
had given Notice of an Amendment to add to Part I, "Whimbrel." The noble Lord said: I owe the House a rather considerable explanation on this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that I have put down an Amendment to insert the word "whimbrel," and the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, who is unfortunately absent to-day, has signed this Amendment with me. I must say now that, so far as my share in this Amendment goes, I retract my name. The reason is this, and, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to discuss the whimbrel in context with the curlew. The noble Earl was entirely correct when he suggested that, in my mind, the whimbrel and the curlew went together. That is why this Amendment was put down. It was, in fact, consequential on the acceptance, at Report stage in another place, of an Amendment giving specific protection to the curlew.
The curlew had originally been included in the Third Schedule, but such an eloquent array of speakers arose to its defence and to have it struck out from the list of sporting birds—and not only sportsmen, but also those who stressed the agricultural interest and others who stressed merely its charm and beauty, which is very great—that the sponsor of the Bill in another place, my noble relative, went on record as saying that it was her second favourite bird. I differ from her there because it is my favourite. She was naturally strongly attracted to the idea of protecting it, but she did not want to press her own personal views on the Members of another place because she realised that to the wildfowling fraternity of this country it has been a perfectly legitimate sporting bird.
Since the curlew received this protection in another place, she and I have given considerable thought to this matter and posed the question: is the curlew in 427 danger of seriously declining in numbers? All our researches in this matter have led us to the belief and the clear conclusion that, in spite of being what one might call an occasional sporting bird, the curlew is maintaining its numbers. There is not the slightest evidence that it stands in any danger. That being the case, there is a later Amendment on the curlew which I shall have pleasure in accepting when we come to it, but it was the state of the Bill as it left another place that made me venture to put down the whimbrel as a consequential Amendment. I have given my reasons why I did it. The House will now realise why I personally shall not move the Amendment which stands in my name. That is, of course, without the slightest prejudice to what anyone speaking for the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, may have to say. I think he will probably express a somewhat different view. I hope that I have made my position clear on that. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, may have a word to say.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
I do not think there is any need to identify the curlew and the whimbrel together. I have no objection to the Amendment. I know that it is claimed that nobody can tell the difference between the two, but I am surprised to hear that.

§ EARL JOWITT
So am I.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
The whimbrel is a very different bird—

LORD SALTOUN
On a point of order, is the Amendment being moved?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Is the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, prepared to move the Amendment?

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
No. I did not hear all that was said. If the Amendment is not being moved, I do not say anything.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Is any noble Lord prepared to move this Amendment?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I am in a somewhat difficult position over this matter, because it was not until I arrived in the House this afternoon that I saw this Amendment on the Paper. The 428 noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has given some excellent reasons, from his point of view, for making this change. I must confess that I should have found myself in agreement with what the noble Viscount. Lord Templewood, had in mind to say.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Is the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, prepared to move the Amendment?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
No.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Is any noble Lord prepared to move the Amendment?

§ 4.48 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I: "Kingfisher." The noble Viscount said: I hope that with regard to this Amendment I shall be as fortunate as was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, accepted the Amendment he moved a few moments ago. I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Haddington is not here to move this Amendment, because his earnestness, modesty, eloquence and persuasiveness always receive from your Lordships a particularly attentive hearing. He and I feel strongly that the kingfisher should have all-time protection under this Schedule, and I propose to ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few moments to show why those are our views.

§ What is the case for this splendid little, even though somewhat clumsily shaped, bird? Let us remember, so that they may go on record, its principal markings. Its head and wings are a deep shining green spotted with bright light blue. Its back is a most resplendent azure, its tail tipped with rich blue, its throat white and the under part of the body bright orange. I submit that it is, without exception and without any question whatsoever, Britain's most beautiful bird, equalling in brilliance some of the gorgeous birds of the tropical countries. I shall never forget the first kingfisher I saw when in my teens, fishing the Tweed at Elibank. Suddenly this brilliant bird flashed from behind, past me, down the river. That thrill I can feel even to-day, and it certainly gave me any love of birds and desire for knowledge of birdlore that I have possessed since that thrilling day. 429 Having seen the kingfisher fly past me, I then attempted to discover whence it had come, and, to my great joy, I found its hole in the overhanging bank. I mention that for this reason: that if a heavy flood comes down the Tweed, or indeed any other river, at this time of the year, the water will flood these holes and may destroy the young kingfishers in them. I am not sure that that is not in fact happening to-day. I notice that the Kelso races have been put off owing to flooding. That was probably due to the fact that heavy water had come down the river; and very likely it swamped several kingfishers' nests.

§ The kingfisher is not an abundant species; it is becoming more rare, especially in Scotland, and it could become extinct. What are some of the arguments which have been used against all-time protection for the kingfisher in this Schedule? I know of none which could bear any great weight at all, except the argument about the alleged damage it does to trout hatcheries by the consumption of fry and small trout. Incidentally, I may say that a heron can eat its own weight in fish in a day. However that may be, if I may be allowed to carry my mind back for a few years in relation to this particular objection. I recall that I had the privilege to pilot through Parliament a Bill designed to mitigate the cruelties to old horses which were being taken from this country to Holland and Belgium—it was known as the "Exportation of Worn-out Horses Bill." I may say to the noble Lady who so skilfully piloted this Protection of Birds Bill through another place (I am taking no notice of her presence outside this House) that she had a far easier task than I had. Night after night at eleven o'clock I listened to that ominous word "Object!" which meant that I had to put the Bill down on another day. It was not until I obtained a Friday in the ballot that finally I got my Bill through. The same happened in the case of another Bill which I was privileged to introduce and to pass through Parliament—namely, the Plumage Bill. Again came that ominous word "Object!" at eleven o'clock, night after night; but finally, having obtained a place in the ballot, I was able to get the Bill passed.

430

§ What were the objections raised to the Exportation of Horses Bill and to the Plumage Bill? The objections raised against the Exportation of Horses Bill were that it would be detrimental to the persons engaged in the trade of sending old horses to the Continent; the objections in relation to the Plumage Bill were that it would affect detrimentally the trade in feathers in the East End. In both cases, after the Bill had been passed the trades were able to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. If there be any argument at all so far as the kingfisher is concerned, then I suggest that the trades who now object to the giving of all-time protection to the kingfisher will be able to adapt themselves to the new circumstances when it is not allowed to be shot.

§ There is one more thing I wish to say in relation to this Amendment. With the indulgence of the Committee I would quote a passage from a book, written by my noble friend the late Lord Grey of Fallodon, entitled The Charm of Birds—a book which I feel perfectly sure every one of your Lordships knows well and has very much at heart. Lord Grey wrote these words: There is a tendency for bright colour to be inconspicuous in flight. We are not conscious of the gorgeous plumage of a cock pheasant, or even of the incredible splendour of a mandarin drake, when the birds are on the wing. The colours of the kingfisher are an exception to this: the bird flashes like a jewel as it flies. When the sharp note that it utters is heard when it is on the wing, our eyes search for a glimpse of something brilliant. It has to be admitted, however, that this is partly due to the angle of vision. A kingfisher is generally seen from above or on a level with us, as it flies low between the banks of a stream or swiftly over a water-meadow. Yet I think in the matter of brilliance when flying, the kingfisher is an exception to the general rule. I was staying with Lord Grey at Fallodon when he composed those sentences. Let it not be thought for a single moment, however, that in making that quotation I am seeking to invoke Lord Grey's support for the argument which I ant presenting to the Committee. If it were the practice of speakers in either House of Parliament to summon to their aid, except in cases where specific declarations have been made, the alleged opinions of persons who have passed to the next life, then, obviously, we should have a number of quite fanciful and highly imaginative ghosts wandering through the course of our proceedings. But I quote the pas- 431 sage from Lord Grey's book in order to emphasise the brilliance of this little bird and to add weight to the case that I have ventured to present to the Committee, that the kingfisher should receive all-time protection under the First Schedule of this Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 27, first column, after ("Hoopoe") insert ("Kingfisher").—(Viscount Elibank.)

LORD SALTOUN
We are not really trying to transform Britain into a brilliant gallery of singing birds, like the gallery of mechanical birds with which the Emperor astonished the Crusaders: we are trying to prove that man is still fit to live in Britain. My only reason for supporting this Amendment is not because I think that the kingfisher is dying out, but because I want to see provision for a £25 penalty. The kingfisher presents a tremendous temptation and I think that that may be a reason for including him in Part I. From the point of view of brilliance, he is the most tempting of all birds, and it should not be possible for these people to make away with him.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
Speaking as an owner of salmon fishing, I feel very strongly that any small damage that may be done by the kingfisher is outweighed many times by the beauty of the bird. Though on occasions he may make a nuisance of himself at some particular trout hatchery, that is not a consideration which should stand in the way of his being given the protection which it is now proposed he should have under this Bill.

§ EARL JOWITT
I should like to add my plea to that. I think the kingfisher is the most beautiful bird we have. He may not be very rare, but I personally would wish that he was very much more common than he is.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
A most eloquent plea has been made for the kingfisher. No one has tried to suggest that it is a rare bird. Their numbers went very low, as indeed did those of many other species, after the terrible winter of 1946–47, but I am informed that since then they have made good that loss. I do not know whether many of your Lordships chanced to read an article about the kingfisher in the Field last week. The writer described how he 432 watched a kingfisher's nest and saw, in the course of the bringing up of a brood, what he estimated to be about 1,000 minnows being taken there. I do not think anyone minds very much about minnows, but if, instead of being minnows, they had been trout fry, it would have meant that the owner of a trout hatchery, or anyone who was running a fishpond in the area, would have been tremendously prejudiced. Kingfishers cannot be permanently scared off, and it is impossible to protect fishponds against them by nets without quite disproportionate trouble and expense. The damage done in a river may be absolutely negligible, but in the case of a trout stream or a trout hatchery—and there are about two dozen or so trout farms in this country—it is a very different matter.
I feel very strongly that the proprietors of fish farms have the same right to protection of their crops as market gardeners and fruit growers. I want to protect the kingfisher just as much as anyone—but to protect him up to a point. We can protect him, I believe, absolutely adequately without giving him the 100 per cent. protection of the First Schedule. I am second to none, as I said, in my admiration for the kingfisher, but I feel that in the case of a beautiful bird like this, which is alpha-plus in so many things but gamma-minus in so many others, there must be some provision whereby those who are prejudiced have the opportunity of redress. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

LORD KINNAIRD
May I say one word on this Amendment. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred to Scotland particularly. This Amendment refers to the whole country. It seems to me that there is a point here—

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I merely instanced a particular personal experience in Scotland. I quite understood that the Amendment applies to the whole country.

LORD KINNAIRD
It seems to me that there is a point which is not covered in this Bill. Some of the birds mentioned are very rare—the raven for instance. If a pair of ravens should nest in certain parts of the country they would not have a chance of hatching out their young. In my part of Scotland, the 433 kingfisher is very rare. They have been seen, but there are few of them. They may be very plentiful on the banks of the Thames but that is no help to us. I am wondering whether, after the word "kingfisher" it might not be possible to insert the words "in Scotland" so as to apply this protection especially to kingfishers there.

§ EARL JOWITT
I know nothing at all about fishing, so I cannot judge of the harm that kingfishers do to fisheries; but I do think it important to get this bird into the First Schedule where he will be protected by the higher penalty. As I see it, under Clause 4, if the owner of a trout hatchery sees a kingfisher taking his fry—if that is the right word—he is entitled to shoot him. If the bird were in the First Schedule he would not be. So, as an ordinary member of the public, who has no sort of interest in fisheries and knows nothing about them, I would say merely that this is such a beautiful bird, and gives such delight to hundreds of people, that I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would consider the matter again and sec whether he cannot include it in the First Schedule.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
It may interest noble Lords to know that when I was in charge of my Bill I was in some doubt about the kingfisher. I agree with everything that has been said about its beauty, but I had some impressive letters from the owners of trout fisheries emphasising the harm that is done, and the harm that might be done as the result of giving special protection to this bird. I am inclined to think, in view of the fact that we are anxious to stir up as little opposition as we can over a Bill of this kind, that it would be advisable to leave this matter as it is. The kingfisher already gets general protection under the Bill. I think that to take it out of the general protection and put it into the Schedule is going to cause quite considerable resentment and anxiety amongst a not inconsiderable number of people who have trout hatcheries in the country.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)
I should like to reinforce what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said. I entirely associate myself with 434 everything that has been said about the kingfisher. If there were evidence of wholesale destruction of kingfishers, one might take a different view. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested that the kingfisher was a great temptation to people. I must confess that I have never been tempted to shoot a kingfisher, and I should have thought that very few people were tempted to shoot a beautiful bird of that category. In any case, what I feel strongly about the Bill is that it will be a live and workable Act of Parliament only if we can produce a Bill which commends itself as being reasonable and fair to all the various people involved.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has spoken of the correspondence which he received from people who own trout hatcheries and whose livelihood these hatcheries in many cases are. As I see it, if this Amendment is accepted we shall be prejudicing the livelihood of these people, and they are just as much entitled to protection as are fruit growers, farmers and horticulturists. I think that is a serious matter and that in certain circles it would provoke very real and genuine resentment.

§ EARL JOWITT
They can shoot the kingfisher.

LORD LLOYD
If they do they can be brought up in court. They have to prove in court that the kingfisher was, in fact, robbing their trout hatchery: they cannot shoot it just as they like. That is a very real defence for this bird. So I feel that to accept this Amendment would be to provoke resentment on the part of these particular people. I therefore hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
Will the noble Lord explain why the proprietor of a hatchery is not protected by Clause 4 (2) (a), which says that a person shall not be found guilty or an offence against this Act if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the, purpose of preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries. …

LORD LLOYD
If the noble Earl will read the whole of the subsection he will see that it applies to the killing or injuring of, or an attempt to kill, a wild bird other than a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act … 435 It applies in all the other Schedules, but if the kingfisher is put in the First Schedule this provision clearly would not apply to it. That is the only reason why we have this objection.

§ EARL JOWITT
That is why we want it in.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
Can the noble Lord give the House any facts about the history of this matter—whether the owners of hatcheries have found it necessary to shoot kingfishers? On one occasion, I was reduced to a considerable state of indignation, which I think noble Lords would have shared, on hearing that a person known to me had shot a kingfisher taking goldfish out of a pond in his garden. I think most noble Lords would agree with me that in order to get a kingfisher to come to one's garden, one would be ready to provide a supply of goldfish. I can understand that this would not apply to a person who owns a trout hatchery, but I should like to point out that it must be easier to protect fish hatcheries than to protect agriculture. It does not seem a very big job to protect a hatchery with nets. Have owners of hatcheries actually been in the habit of shooting kingfishers and shall we be interfering with that if we include the bird in this Schedule?

§ LORD HURCOMB
I speak as a keen trout fisher and I should regard it as a scandal if kingfishers were shot upon a river. As to the position in trout hatcheries, I am afraid there is no doubt that a kingfisher can heavily punish a pond full of small fry. I should not care to guess within what period of time the birds the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, had under observation or knew of, ate their thousand minnows.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
It was during the time required to bring up a brood of kingfishers.

§ LORD HURCOMB
With eight young mouths to feed, I do not think that number is excessive. When one thinks of the enormous number of fry that never reach maturity, whatever happens, I am not sure that the harm which the kingfisher does is very serious, even in a hatchery. In answer to the question which has just been asked, I am afraid there is no doubt that in certain hatcheries it is the habitual practice to shoot any kingfisher that comes near; the existing fines 436 do not stop that practice. I think it should be possible, before Report stage, to consider whether some kind of exemption could be given to owners of hatcheries within the immediate precincts of their hatcheries. Or it might be possible to meet the economic difficulty by saying that if they shoot a kingfisher the owners will be liable to a £25 fine, and that therefore it would pay them better to put in protective wiring. I admit that the kingfisher has to make a living; when hungry he is clever, and it takes a good deal to keep him out. I cannot think it is impossible to deal with the problem, however, because only small fry can be attacked, and it is only hatcheries with small fry that need to be considered.
Though I deprecate dealing with any of these questions from the point of view of a bird being small or large, or black or white, or very beautiful, or somebody's favourite bird, or somebody else's bête noir, and (I may not be popular in saying this) though I would rather look at it from a biological and scientific point of view, I believe that the kingfisher has this in his favour: he is the only brilliant-plumaged bird which comes so far north as this island. Other countries have the hoopee, the bee-eater and the oriole, and various birds of the same kind. It is only the kingfisher that will stand our climate. I feel, therefore, that this is a case which deserves close consideration before a final decision is taken. I agree that some recognition of the economic consequences will also have to be given. If your Lordships do not come to a final decision this afternoon, it may be looked into, in view of what has been said on behalf of the Home Office. Perhaps that would be some satisfaction to those who are reluctant not to give this bird the fullest measure of protection.

LORD LLOYD
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh asked me a specific question on the facts. All I can tell him is that the owners of hatcheries—and a number of them have been consulted—tell me that in their experience a kingfisher can clear a pond in a very short space of time, and on occasion does so. The owners have had to shoot them, and it would be a serious blow if they were exposed to a situation in which their ponds could be fished by kingfishers with complete impunity. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made a very reasonable speech. There is this difficulty: that my 437 noble friend could not give any undertaking which would definitely prejudice trout hatcheries as against other people; I do not think that would be just. On the other hand, it is clear that we love this bird and should like to do what we can to protect it. Therefore, I hope that in face of what has been said, while my noble friend does not give an undertaking of any kind, he will give an assurance that he will look into this between now and Report stage and see what we can do to find something which will satisfy your Lordships better than the provision at present in the Bill.

§ EARL JOWITT
May I ask the noble Lord the question which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has already asked: Are we to understand that these birds are habitually shot, and, if so, in what numbers?

LORD LLOYD
I did not say they were habitually shot, and I am not prepared to say that. It depends on the construction which the noble and learned Earl puts on the word "habitually." It is my information that kingfishers are shot on occasion, when it is necessary. I cannot give him the numbers. If the noble Lord falls in with my suggestion that we should postpone this matter until Report stage, I will make further efforts to get the facts and figures for your Lordships. At the moment I understand that kingfishers are shot on occasion, and that the right to shoot them is considered by the owners of hatcheries to be very important.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
May I make the final plea, that in all the circumstances the situation could be met by drafting an Amendment giving a specific exception to the owners of fish hatcheries?

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
I am entirely prepared to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and, look at this between now and Report stage. Obviously, your Lordships feel deeply about the kingfisher. If the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment now, I will give him this undertaking.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
May I thank the Committee for the view it has taken on this Amendment? I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord 438 Tweedsmuir, for saying that they will look into the matter. On Report stage I hope that we shall be able to settle it satisfactorily to all concerned. I appreciate the views of the owners of these trout hatcheries and, on the other hand, the views of bird-lovers. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD GIFFORD moved to add to Part I: "Merlin." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the protection of a falcon. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for the gracious way in which he accepted my previous Amendment with regard to the peregrine. When I moved it, I had no idea that, as a mere Baron, I had committed such a frightful gaffe in dealing with the Earl's falcon. I can only thank the noble and learned Earl opposite for regularising the position by supporting my Amendment. This falcon, I believe, is the Lady's falcon—and I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment also, if only in honour of the noble Lady who so ably conducted this Bill through another place. The arguments for the merlin are similar to those for the peregrine, and I need not labour them. The only thing I would say is this. The merlin does little harm to game birds, or larger birds, and its main source of food is the commoner small birds. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page,14, line 29, first column, after ("Marsh-harrier") insert ("Merlin").—(Lord Gifford.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
This is another member of the raptorial family to which I am very devoted. I have made considerable inquiries about the merlin to find out roughly what his distribution is, and whether he was holding his own or getting rarer, and I must say that he is a most difficult bird about which to get accurate figures. But my impression—and I think your Lordships will agree—is that he is a good deal rarer than the peregrine. As a matter of fact, he does much less damage, and I can tell the noble Lord that I will accept his Amendment. However, I should like to add one thing on the acceptance of this Amendment and the earlier Amendment in regard to the peregrine. Those who, like myself, are fond of the ancient sport of falconry, may wonder, when they 439 see these two birds in this Schedule, whether they are prohibited from flying and hunting them again. I am advised that the Secretary of State's licence to a falconer is an overriding permission, and overrides the position of the two birds in the Schedule.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.22 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved to add to Part II "Brambling." The noble Earl said: Of the block of four Amendments which follow in my name three deal with birds whose circumstances are very similar and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to the three together. They concern the brambling, the fieldfare and the redwing. Your Lordships will doubtless be familiar with the fieldfare and the redwing, two pleasant members of the thrush family who visit us from Scandinavia in the winter, and who do no harm at all. It cannot be suggested for a moment that they are rare birds; nor can that be said of the brambling, who is a close relation of the chaffinch, the main difference being that he is rather brighter coloured and his chest is orange instead of pink. The brambling is an intermittent winter visitor, sometimes in large numbers. What these birds have in common is that they have all made attempts to nest at one time or another. While they are certainly not worthy of overall protection, I think a case may be made out for inflicting a severe penalty on anyone who takes, or attempts to take, their nests on the rare occasions when they do nest, and is thereby likely to prevent them from becoming a resident species, instead of merely winter visitors. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 32, before ("Godwit, black-tailed") insert ("Brambling").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
The noble Earl, in speaking to these Amendments, linked them together. What is in his mind, as he has said, is that these birds have endeavoured from time to time to establish themselves here as a breeding species. They are at certain times of the year, as visitors, extremely common. The noble Earl has raised a point which is one on which I should like to advise myself a good deal further before I commit myself. I received the Marshalled List 440 of Amendments only this morning, and I have not had an opportunity to go into these Amendments as I feel they deserve to be gone into. If the noble Earl will not press the Amendments now, I will look into them between now and the Report stage.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
I am grateful to my noble friend, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
The next Amendment is consequential on that already accepted to change the status of the greenshank. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 33, leave out ("Greenshank").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved to add to Part II of the First Schedule, "Garganey teal." The noble Earl said: I admit to a certain amount of trepidation in raising this matter, as the garganey teal, a very polite little bird, is comparatively common in certain parts of East Anglia; but he has now endeavoured to extend his range, and I feel that in this he should be encouraged. It is for that reason that I suggest he should be given special protection in the breeding season. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 36, after ("Common scoter") insert ("Garganey teal").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
So far as I am informed, what the noble Earl has urged is entirely correct. The garganey teal is an established breeder in the Eastern Counties, in a limited way, but one which we hope is becoming less limited. He has still not got to the point of becoming a common bird. He is changing his habitat, and the noble Earl suggests that by placing him in this Schedule we may help him to increase his numbers. I think this, like so many of the other Amendments down to-day to deal with specific birds, is rather a borderline Amendment. But, having studied it and taken some advice on it, I can tell the noble Earl that I am prepared to accept it.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
I am grateful to my noble friend.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

441

§ THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved to add to Part II: "Long-tailed duck." The noble Earl said: The case of the long-tailed duck falls into exactly the same category as that of the scaup, the common scoter and the velvet scoter. It is a beautiful duck, to be seen mainly off the north and north-western coasts of the country, although occasionally in other areas as well, in great numbers. It has made one or two attempts to nest in the far north islands, and I suggest that, like the other three ducks, it is worthy of additional protection. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 37, after ("Goldeneye") insert ("Long-tailed Duck.") — (The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
The effect of this Amendment would be to deprive this duck of protection outside the close season, and, on the other hand, to give it the protection of special penalties during the close season. I think that what the noble Earl has said is correct: that this duck falls into rather the same category as the others. Again, it is a borderline case, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ LORD HURCOMB
Before the Amendment is passed, I should like to say a word or two. Does not this matter require a little further consideration? Looking at it from the point of view of the duck, I should have thought that if he were given the option he would say that he would rather be protected in the months when he is here in some numbers than he the subject of a £25 fine in the rare cases when he might remain to breed in the extreme north of the country. I feel that the status of the bird is more likely to suffer than to benefit by this change, which there has been little time to consider.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
May I reply to that point? The long-tailed duck is an entirely marine duck. Only on very rare occasions does he ever approach the coast. No one goes for him with a punt gun, and the numbers shot with a shoulder gun in the course of a year must be infinitesimal. I do not think his appearance in the list of birds which may be shot in the open season will do him any harm. If I felt it would, I should be prepared to move a consequential Amendment at a later stage.

442

§ LORD HURCOMB
Might it not be better to put it in the first Part of the Schedule and not the second? That would satisfy everybody.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Second Schedule [Wild birds which may be killed or taken at any time by authorised persons]:

§ 5.31 p.m.

§ EARL ST. ALDWYN moved to add to the Schedule: "Little owl." The noble Earl said: May I apologise for my noble friend, Lord Hudson, who has had to leave your Lordships' House on urgent business? The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the little owl can be destroyed. As I see it, the little owl is one of the most destructive birds of prey. It does not belong to this country; it does not migrate to this country; it was imported into this country and, like the grey squirrel, it has turned itself into a very considerable menace. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said earlier, that we did not want to have anything very controversial in this Bill. Unless the little owl is added to the Second Schedule I think there will be considerable controversy. I believe it was said in another place that no flesh had been found in the little owl when dissected. That may be true, for it is the habit of the little owl to kill any chick or fledgling and then, after a reasonable delay, return to feed upon the beetles and grubs which are feeding on its original prey. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 13, first column, after ("Jay") insert ("Little Owl").—(The Earl St. Aldwyn.)

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
My experience of the little owl, which goes back about twenty years, tallies exactly with that of the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment. One of the frightening things about the little owl is the way it is increasing by leaps and bounds at the present time. I do not believe the damage it does can possibly be questioned. I think it is one of the most damaging forms of vermin this country has. I should like to point out in passing, seeing that we have moved to the Second Schedule, that the purpose of the Second Schedule is not the extinction of any single species; it is to be able to 443 reduce those species to within manageable bounds, so that they cannot inflict damage among their neighbours in the bird world or damage to agricultural interests or those various things which go with mankind. After saying that, it is almost unnecessary to say that I accept the Amendment, but I will formally state that I do.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL JOWITT moved to add to the Schedule, "Moorhen." The noble Earl said: I am surprised that, for some reason or another, the moorhen is not named in this Schedule already, because, as everybody knows, the moorhen is one of the most destructive birds there is. Where I live I had only last year on a small pond some Cayuga ducks. I managed to breed eleven little chicks and I found every one was killed. I wondered who the culprit was until I caught the old moorhen in flagrante delicto. They are most destructive birds and very common, and anybody with any corn growing round a field where there is a pond with moorhens knows what frightful damage they do. There cannot be any doubt that of all the birds who ought to be in the "Rogues Gallery," this one has a pre-eminent claim. I beg to move

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, first column, after ("Magpie") insert ("Moorhen").—(Earl Jowitt.)

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
I am surprised that in another place the moorhen was taken out of this Schedule. We had a discussion about it here and no difference of opinion was expressed at all. Everybody said that the moorhen was a great nuisance and was becoming a greater nuisance. There was a general desire to put it into the list of birds that are or may be nuisances. I hope we shall maintain now the position we took up in that discussion. Nothing has happened since to alter it. I hope we shall put the moorhen back into this Schedule.

LORD GIFFORD
I would ask the noble and learned Earl one question, because I was concerned with a similar Amendment on Lord Templewood's Bill. Should not the coot and the moorhen go together? Should not both, or neither, be in the Second Schedule?

§ EARL JOWITT
Very likely there is much to be said for that. I do not know 444 whether the coot causes so much damage as the moorhen. I do not know whether they do comparable damage. I do not mind whether the coot goes in, but I should like to see the moorhen included.

§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD
The coot does damage, but not so much as the moorhen. I was influenced by the fact that the moorhen nuisance was a common nuisance. I do not think anyone says it is not.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
I came here completely neutral on the subject of the moorhen, but, after the damaging indictment levelled at this plentiful bird, I am driven to the conclusion that I must accept the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Third Schedule [Wild birds which may be killed or taken outside the close season]:

§ LORD GIFFORD moved to add to the Schedule: "Curlew (other than stone curlew)." The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has given me a broad hint that he intends to accept this Amendment, so I will not detain your Lordships very long. The curlew is, I think, a traditional wild fowl and has been for many years. It is abundant and very wary. It has from time to time been called "the poor man's grouse" and sometimes in the North of England it provides the only chance that a sportsman gets for a shot. I think the prohibiting of the shooting of the curlew has caused considerable dissatisfaction among wild fowlers, particularly those of the working class. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, after ("Coot") insert ("Curlew (other than stone curlew)").—(Lord Gifford.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
I should like to add a little in support of what my noble friend, Lord Gifford, has said, and also to make it clear that so far from there being any diminution in the numbers of the curlew, it has increased considerably in the last half century. When I was a boy, in my own part of the world it was practically confined to moors. It gradually began to invade rough pastures. Now it is found breeding in arable land and ploughed fields, and it has even appeared 445 in open woods where there are large clearings, something which would have been considered unthinkable only thirty or forty years ago. As Lord Gifford has said, the curlew is par excellence the quarry of the small shore shooter. It is not a bird that is usually shot inland at all. In the whole of my experience I do not think I have seen half a dozen killed. I have killed two myself, when duck fighting. No one is allowed to fire on them on my own moor and I have never been on a moor where the curlew is regarded as other than a song bird. It is different on the estuaries where very often they are the only quarry the small man can bag. They are a worthy quarry. They are much wilder than the wild goose, but they have not the sagacity of that bird. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment; otherwise I feel that a considerable injustice will be done to a large number of small people who do not get very much else to shoot at.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON
In answering, could the noble Lord tell us what has happened to the whimbrel? It is rather lost in the various Amendments.

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
The answer to my noble friend's question with regard to the whimbrel is that the Amendment was not moved. There is no change in his previous status. I made myself plain before on the subject of the curlew, when it was linked to the whimbrel, and also made plain to the Committee my apparent divergence from my noble relative in another place. That, I think, I explained satisfactorily. I am entirely in agreement with the two noble Lords about the curlew, and all the examination of the subject that I have been able to make—which is not inconsiderable—has shown that the curlew, in spite of being a sporting bird for many years, has suffered no diminution in numbers and, on the contrary, has become more numerous. For those reasons, I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

LORD GIFFORD
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment. What he has done will, I am sure, be received with gratitude by wildfowlers throughout the country.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

446

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment already accepted by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 31, leave out ("Garganey teal").—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.47 p.m.

§ LORD GIFFORD moved to add to the Schedule: "Brent goose (in England and Wales only"). The noble Lord said: This Amendment, the last on the Paper, seeks to include the Brent goose among those birds which can be shot outside the close season. It does not seek to make the shooting of the Brent goose permissible throughout the British Isles, but only in England and Wales. I know that there has been much correspondence and much conflicting evidence about the Brent goose, and during the past fortnight I have endeavoured to study all this evidence as carefully and as impartially as possible. I must say that the conclusion to which I have come is that the Brent goose has not decreased. Only in February of this year, large numbers were seen in many parts of England—3,500 at Holy Island, 3,500 in the Tees Bay, 4,000 in the Humber, 2,000 in the Wash and no fewer than 7,000 on the Essex coast.

§ One of the most important pieces of evidence which has been put forward by those who desire the protection of the Brent goose is the fact that vast numbers of these birds have been shot in the past, particularly by punt guns. The outstanding instance which has been put forward is not recent instance but is fourteen years old. I refer to the statement that in 1940 2,000 geese were shot in a day on the South coast and that two tons of geese were shot on the East coast. I have been into this question carefully, and I think that the evidence of this great slaughter is, to say the least of it, questionable.

§ To my mind—and I think this is admitted quite generally—the main factor in the rise and fall of the numbers of Brent geese is not a question of the shooting but the supply of their staple food, the eel grass, or zostera. In another place, it was stated that the Brent goose 447 was completely protected in certain countries on the Continent—and Holland, Denmark, and Germany were instanced. I entirely accept that this is correct of Holland and Denmark, but I have here a letter from the Zonal Wildfowl Committee, the Land Commissioner's Office at Hanover, in Germany, which indicates that the information about Germany is not correct. The reason for this is that there has been a confusion of names. This is what the letter says: The English words 'Brent goose' are very similar to the German word 'Brandgans' sometimes more properly called 'Brandente.' We all know that the Brent goose is the species Branta Bernicla but the Brandgansis none other than our friend the Shelduck (Tadorna Tadorna) and the latter is, of course, completely protected in this country. The Brent only enjoys a close season from April 1 to July 31 inclusive. That, I think, goes to show that the Brent goose is not protected in Germany; nor is it protected in Belgium, Norway, and France. I believe it is on record that the biggest bag of geese and wildfowl of all kinds known in this century on one day was 1,500 with four guns. This is the only instance in the whole century. Therefore, I think it shows that statements about these big bags are open to question.

§ If the noble Lord is not prepared to grant the full season for the Brent goose, it will be possible for the Home Secretary to limit it to a short season, say from December 1 to February 20. I know I shall be told that it has been decided to protect this bird for an experimental period of five years, and then to think again. I would suggest that the shooting should be allowed to continue for five years, and I am sure that little harm would be done. If harm was done, and the Brent goose population was seriously diminished, then complete protection for the bird could be introduced. I have dealt with this bird, which I know is a controversial one, at some length, and I I hope that the arguments which I have put forward will impress the noble Lord and that he will see fit to agree to my Amendment. I should like to have 100 per cent. success with my four Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 39, after ("Bean-goose") insert ("Brent goose (in England and Wales only)").—(Lord Gifford.)

448

§ LORD TWEEDSMUIR
We have been discussing all these other birds in the context of the British Isles alone, but in the case of the Brent goose we must discuss it in the context of the whole of North-Western Europe. There is absolutely no doubt that over the last twenty or thirty years the numbers of the Brent goose have seriously diminished—I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, questions that. There is also now no doubt that that diminution is connected in considerable measure with the disappearance of the zostera grass. The noble Lord was inclined to challenge figures which were put forward in another place of Brent geese seen in this country at Holy Island and about big bags put up. The evidence that was given when this was debated in another place comes from that well-known ornithologist, Mr. Robert Coombes, described by Mr. Peter Scott as a man of "almost excessive caution." I will give your Lordships a much more recent quotation on the observation of Brent geese on Holy Island than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was able to quote.
After consulting Lord William Percy, who is one of the finest field naturalists, and Mr. Temperley, the Recorder for the Northumberland and Durham Natural History Society, and after canvassing the views of various wildfowlers who have visited Holy Island to shoot or who reside there, Mr. Coombes has made the following observations: Lord William Percy wrote me `the average figure for the period at the peak of the season was circa 6,000 Brent;' this was 1905–1914, and he and others have stated that such an average was maintained until the 'thirties. G. W. Temperley's reports from all his observers show the following maxima for each year:

1946—End of December, at least 200, and in January, from 350–400.

1947–11th January, Fenham Flats, 350–400; Mid-February, Fenham Flats, about 500; 3rd April, Fenham Flats, 100.

1948—Wintering flock about 300.

1949—Early January circa 30, the largest number reported.

1950–15th January, 12; 19th March, 32."

I will not go on quoting from this any more but the tapering off of the Brent goose in numbers has been drastic and absolutely unquestionable.

449

§ Then, as regards the very big bags put up, information was obtained by Mr. Christopher Dalgety, as part of the inquiry undertaken by the Wildfowl Inquiry Committee—he could not support it with names because it was confidential. I think that, if the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, reflects, he will come to the conclusion that there is a good deal to be said for the Government's undertaking that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will review the matter of this experimental protection in 1960. I think, and I believe that noble Lords will think with me, that the situation has reached such a pass that it is no longer a question of "Wait and see what happens to the Brent geese." Absolute protection for the period is essential, and the Government have given a firm undertaking to come back to the subject and reopen it in 1960.

§ I was very much interested in all that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, had to say. I think he put forward his arguments with great moderation. He had some question about Germany. The Brent goose is definitely protected in Holland and Denmark, and Monsieur Leon Lippens, who is President of the Commission of Migratory Game Birds of the Conseil International de la Chasse and a very great authority on wildfowl—perhaps one of the leading wildfowl observers in the world—published an article in 1951 in which he said that he had been watching these geese on the Belgian coast for more than twenty years; that the Brent geese used to come in thousands in hard weather, but that in the last ten years they had virtually disappeared from the Belgian coast altogether, even in hard winters. I have gone into this matter at some length and made some lengthy quotations in order to try to make quite clear to your Lordships that a drastic state exists as regards the Brent geese. I believe that the principle of "Wait and see," or "Carry on as we are," is far too dangerous to follow. We must have a period of protection, and I do not think we can do better than have this period of experimental protection which the Bill affords at the moment. 450 For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD GIFFORD
After the eloquent and careful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has put his case, I realise that there is a good deal to be said on both sides. In the circumstances, I feel that I must ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported to the House, with Amendments?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
At this point, may I say a few words. I have had put into my hands a letter for which I would ask the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, between now and Report stage. It is from Mr. H. C. Haldane, a member of the Haldane family, whom the noble Lord probably knows: he has considerable knowledge of birds. I confess that I have not had time to consider this letter carefully, but I will read it to the noble Lord. It says this: May I make one suggestion. In the First Schedule, Part I, page 14, first column, line 15, the stone curlew appears as 'Curlew, stone.' No one who knew anything about birds would look for a stone curlew under "Curlew,' as it is not a curlew and has no affinity with it. In the Handbook of British Birds, the ornithologist' 'Bible,' it comes between the Pratincoles and the Bustards. You may know that it is called in some parts 'thickknee' and in others "Norfolk plover." I know the bird well. The young, when frightened, lie flat on the ground with outstretched neck, as I have heard ostriches do, too. I put that point to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. Perhaps between now and Report stage he will look into the points raised to see whether, in fact, the stone curlew ought to be transferred or renamed in the Schedule.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House resumed.

§ House adjourned at three minutes before six o'clock.