HL Deb 11 May 1954 vol 187 cc520-38

6.3 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

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— (b) by reason of the taking for the purpose of human consumption or of use as food for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans, otherwise than from any area which the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this paragraph, of an egg of a black-headed gull or common gull.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), after "Except," to insert: "in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Haddington, who desires me to apologise to your Lordships for being unable to be present to-day. This Amendment is one which the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has very much at heart. Its purpose is to insert the words "in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or" at the prescribed place in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will be able to accept the Amendment, which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 19, after ("Except") insert ("in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or").—(Viscount Elibank.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, when the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, moved this and the three following Amendments in Committee, they ranged a good deal wider, and I would address the first part of my answer briefly to Amendments 1 and 2. The effect of these Amendments, with the consequential Amendment at page 2, line 24, is as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has already sketched. As this proposition is very different from the one moved in Committee, which would have applied the provision uniformly to Britain, I can say as regards these two Amendments that I have much pleasure in accepting them. As we are considering all these four Amendments together, however, may I now address myself to Amendments Numbers 3 and 4. There is a little more to be said under this heading. These Amendments would make it an offence to do in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day any of the things which are permitted at present by subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2—in other words, bird's-nesting or destroying the nest or eggs of Schedule II birds, or taking the eggs of ducks, geese or swans for hatching, or gulls' eggs for human consumption or food for poultry or ornamental water fowl.

The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, put forward his views very clearly on the Committee stage. To give your Lordships an idea of the present position in this country, I may say that the taking or destroying of eggs of any wild birds on Sundays is prohibited by local order in twenty-eight Scottish counties and is permissible only in five. When we debated this matter before, I said that wherever the Sabbath was concerned I leaned strongly towards the view that local option should always be exercised. As the law now stands, however, it is a case of twenty-eight Scottish counties prohibiting and only five permitting; therefore it is virtually a matter of the status quo. There is, of course, a case on the other side: that there is a clear distinction between shooting and taking eggs, and this might be regarded as one more vexatious restriction. However, in view of the arguments which I have just put forward and of those we heard at an earlier stage, and also having regard to what the noble Viscount has just said, I am prepared to accede to these two Amendments as well.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, will be also. I understand that the noble Lord has accepted all four Amendments, and I express to him my gratitude for having met us so generously on this point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 25, after ("Except") insert ("in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day or").—(Viscount Elibank.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day,").—(Viscount Elibank.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, at beginning insert ("Except in Scotland on Sundays and on Christmas Day,").—(Viscount Elibank.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.9 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD 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 Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 standing in his name. My noble and learned friend has asked me to convey to the House his sincere regret for absence. He is concerned to-night with some public function in London, and he has found it impossible to avoid the appointment. I hope your Lordships will accept his regrets. On the Committee stage of the Bill my noble and learned friend expressed great concern for the lapwing, which he said was gradually disappearing, or at any rate was being reduced in numbers. He was also somewhat concerned about the proposal that the eggs of the lapwing should be sacrosanct during the whole of the year instead of a portion of the year. He suggested that protection should be given only from April 15 which would leave the eggs available for gathering in the earlier part of the year. My noble and learned friend made a suggestion to the noble Lord opposite that inquiries should be made as to the position in Holland. He was under the impression that the Dutch Government had resisted proposals to bring the eggs of the lapwing under full protection for the whole of the year, but had decided to grant them protection from, I think, April 19 in any given year. The noble Lord opposite kindly undertook to make those inquiries, but suggested that, in view of the circumstances, it would be well if my noble and learned friend were to withdraw the Amendment at that stage and put it down at this stage. I understand that, in the meantime, there have been discussions and that the Amendments now standing in the name of my noble and learned friend will be accepted. I want to express on his behalf, and on behalf of noble Lords sitting on the Benches behind me, grateful thanks for the way in which we have been met. With regard to the subsequent Amendments I will move them briefly. 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.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

6.10 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, anyone who was present during the Committee stage when we discussed the lapwing must have realised how strongly Members of the House feel about the disappearance of this splendid bird. I had a considerable discussion with the noble and learned Earl on the subject. I took a different view from that which he took. There was a considerable clash of material evidence, and I undertook to the House and to the noble and learned Earl that I would ascertain facts from Holland. I felt that I could do no more—and certainly I could do no less—in fairness to the noble and learned Earl and to the whole House. I received back from the learned Dutch ornithologists a good deal of evidence with which I will not trouble your Lordships this evening. I will only say that I considered that evidence carefully, and I came to the conclusion that there is a certain area in the study of any bird which will defy the most accurate human analysis. One can take percentages, and one can take all kinds of observations and have them tabulated, but there is always a certain area of the unknown. Therefore I am prepared to accede to the noble and learned Earl's Amendment and to agree that we should give this a five-year experimental run. My noble friend, Lord Lloyd, at an appropriate stage later will give a Government undertaking on that particular head. I trust that that will satisfy the noble Lord.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has just said, but I hope the Government will consider whether five years is long enough for a test. I think there is a great deal to be said for a ten-year test. I agreed with every word that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said when he moved his Amendment on this matter in Committee. I remember at the time the original Act was passed an old keeper in the country prophesying exactly what would happen, and for the reasons which Lord Jowitt gave. I believe we are now dealing with a most unfortunate piece of legislation which was thoroughly beneficent and well-meaning in its intention but had a diametrically opposite effect to that which was intended. I only ask my noble friends to consider whether five years is long enough to give what I agree ought to be an experiment a sufficient trial. After all, the plover has been reduced in numbers, we have already lost the Spring of 1954, and I shall be surprised if we see any appreciable difference for at least three or four years. If once we got the birds breeding again we might then get a real increase So I hope that my noble friend will consider whether some longer period for experiment cannot be given.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I should like to support that plea, and for this reason. To my mind there ought to be a testing period sufficiently long to contain at least one or two, and if possible more, favourable years. For that reason I think the period should be at least ten years.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I wonder how the period of five years was decided upon. Surely a little longer would be helpful.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, perhaps it would be useful if I gave the Government's views at this stage of your discussion. If your Lordships will look at the Amendment to an Amendment which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is moving you will see that the noble and learned Earl there has tried to put a date to the period. My view is that we should be very unwise to put a specific date to the period either way. The Government feel that this should be a five-year experiment in the first instance; but if the experiment were shown to be disastrously wrong it would be unfortunate to be tied completely and not be able to protect birds any earlier in the way that they are at present protected. The general opinion is that this particular provision will increase the number of plovers. As my noble friend, Lord Tweedsmuir, has said, there is an area of doubt which is not susceptible to analysis. Therefore, my view is that we should initially set out to have a five-year experimental period, but that we should not tie ourselves rigidly by putting a specific date in the Bill. I give an assurance that we will have a five-year experimental period. If that is later considered not to have been enough we are not tied; it will be possible to have longer if my right honourable friend, after having consulted his Advisory Committees—as he will be bound to do—comes to the conclusion that a longer period will be necessary. But, as I have said, I think that in the first instance a five-year period would be about right and it would be a pity to put a specific date in the Bill. I think the matter should be left to my right honourable friend in conjunction with the Advisory Committees.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I gather from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that he is personally of the opinion that it would be wrong to put in the Bill a period of five years. I did not gather that the undertaking he gave was an undertaking on the part of the Minister. I should like to know whether the undertaking which he is now offering is a firm undertaking from the Minister and not merely an expression of his own opinion.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I meant to say quite clearly that this is an undertaking on behalf of the Government. We will give this a five-year experimental period, but I think it would be a pity, for the reasons I have given, to put a specific date in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, leave out ("(a) Scotland; and").—(Viscount Elibank.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Power to establish bird sanctuaries]:

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the next five Amendments are all consequential and I beg to move them on behalf of my noble friend, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 26, leave out ("(i)").

Page 3, line 27, after ("offence") insert ("(i)").

Page 3, line 31, after first ("or") insert ("(ii)").

Page 3, line 32, after ("or") insert ("(iii)").

Page 3, line 36, leave out ("(ii)") and insert ("or (iv) by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a lapwing before the fifteenth day of April in any year; and").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments 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 he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:

6.20 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out all words after "shot-gun" down to and including the word "or," where that word next appears. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment, on the last occasion when the Bill was before you, largely as a question of principle. The Bill seeks to forbid the killing of any wild bird with a gun which can fire more than two cartridges without reloading. What I seek to delete from this subsection is just that particular provision. My Amendment retains the provision which limits the diameter of the muzzle of any gun. I do that because it is, as I say, a matter of principle. This Bill is a measure for the protection of birds, and it is quite right to limit the size of the gun with which birds are shot, but not, I think, right to limit their shooting to one kind of 12-bore gun rather than another. The Bill leaves it possible to shoot birds of any kind with three double-barrelled guns and with two loaders to help. That gives a very effective fire, especially if one is trained. The provision is not covered by the Title of the Bill and is not really for the protection of birds. One reason why I wish to retain the power to use this re-loading gun is because a third barrel is of the greatest possible value in saving a shot from sending birds away wounded. I do not think I am different from other noble Lords, and sending away a wounded animal on a day's shoot is a nightmare to me. That third barrel saves me in many cases, especially when I am not shooting so well as I might. It saves perhaps two-thirds of the birds which otherwise might be wounded. Another reason is that many of us are very shorthanded and have the duty of killing vermin like rabbits and pigeons, and I do not know of any better weapon for the purpose than this kind of gun. But the principal reason for my Amendment is that the prohibition which I seek to omit is not covered by the Title of the Bill and, therefore, ought not to find a place in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("shot-gun") to ("of") in line 37.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved his Amendment on Committee stage, it covered the punt gun too. He has now altered his Amendment to limit it to the repeating shot-gun. He has developed his case to-day and his horror of wounding birds is something which we all share—I think all true sportsmen do. He has stressed the need of killing vermin and that in this he finds this gun a useful instrument. The noble Lord will realise that a certain number of people have great apprehension about what is done with these guns when in the hands of unscrupulous men, instead of in the hands of men of high principle and high sporting code. To some extent I share that apprehension. In the discussion on Committee stage there were noble Lords who supported the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I have taken a second look at this Amendment, as I promised, and so far as I can discover there are not many of these repeating shotguns in this country. By accepting this Amendment the status quo is maintained, and although I have some slight misgivings as to what may be done about these guns in unscrupulous hands, I will accede to his Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment. Perhaps I may quiet his apprehension by saying that the late Duke of Rutland, a good shot, who could fire a gun as quickly as any man I have known, could never do one half the things which in story can supposedly be done by this gun.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on one moved by the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on Committee stage. The noble Earl's Amendment inserted a new subsection (2) in Clause 5 enabling the Secretary of State to make local orders prohibiting or restricting the use of decoys for the shooting of geese. Owing to an oversight, this subsection does not provide any penalty, and this Amendment makes good that omission by providing that the penalty for offences under any such order, like the penalties for any other offences under Clause 5, shall be the special penalty, provided by Clause 12 (2) (a). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 7, at end insert ("and any person who contravenes any such order shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty.").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 25, at end insert— ("(iii) in the case of an egg of a lapwing, at any time before the fifteenth day of April in any year").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs]:

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 45, after ("or") insert ("on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Power to vary Schedules by Order]:

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved to add to the clause: (4) The Secretary of State may by order declare that as from such date as may be specified in the order the following provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect, that is to say—

  1. (a) paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section two;
  2. (b) paragraph (iv) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section three;
  3. (c) paragraph (iii) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section six; and
  4. (d) in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section seven, the words 'on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter of the importation of lapwing's eggs before April 15 being considered under the question of the experimental period. This further Amendment will allow the Secretary of State to bring the provision in question to an end if the experiment shows that the taking of the first clutch of lapwing's eggs is harmful to them. Without the Amendment, the provision can be brought to an end only by a further Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State's order for this purpose will, of course, be subject to the procedure required under Clause 13, which lays down that before making an order he shall consult the Advisory Committee and give the public an opportunity for objection. The Amendment allows the Secretary of State to make an order at any time. It does not seem desirable to prevent him from making an order until some fixed period of years has elapsed, because it might become clear in as short a period of time as a year or two that the results of the experiment were disastrous. In the absence of anything unexpected happening in this way, however, the intention is that the experiments will continue, at any rate for five years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt had down an Amendment to this Amendment, but in view of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, earlier on, I do not propose to move it. Perhaps I ought to say this, however. The reason why my noble and learned friend put down this Amendment was because of the demand frequently made by noble Lords opposite when they were in Opposition. Frequently we objected to the inclusion of a date in a Bill, only to be met by the demand, "Put it in the Bill."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Interpretation]:

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, the House will remember that in Committee an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, was inserted in Clause 14, defining a game bird. In the absence of the noble Lord, I moved the Amendment, the effect of which was to apply Clause 5, and consequently Clause 10, to game birds. On consideration, it seems that Clause 12 should also be applied consequentially. Subsection 1 (b) of that clause allows the police to seize and detain for the purpose of proceedings any wild bird in the possession of a person found committing an offence under the Bill. Since it may be necessary to produce the bird in evidence, it is desirable that the police should have this power in respect of game birds which are the subject of an offence under Clause 5. This Amendment is designed to meet the point.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 1, leave out ("and ten") and insert ("ten and twelve").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

Part I: At all times.

Part II: During close season.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, this Amendment and the next meet a grammatical point raised by my noble friend Lord Elibank. They merely instance that handsome bird under the name of "stone curlew," instead of "curlew, stone." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 16, first column, leave out ("Curlew, stone").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having acceded to the request I made to him at the very last moment. Although he seemed to treat it lightly, it is, as he knows, a point of great substance. I am grateful to him for having accepted my suggestion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, second column, after ("Stint, Temminck's") insert ("Stone curlew").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I, "Kingfisher." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships that a discussion took place in Committee when I moved this Amendment. During the debate quite a number of your Lordships gave expression to your views, and I think I can fairly say that the consensus of opinion was that the Amendment should be accepted. At the end of the discussion the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made a suggestion, which was acceded to by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, that between the Committee and Report stages the matter should be reconsidered, in order to ascertain whether an Amendment could be accepted on the Report stage to include the kingfisher in the First Schedule. I said that I hoped that a satisfactory settlement would be arrived at on the Report stage. I appreciate the views of the owners of trout hatcheries and, on the other hand, the views of those of us who have the interests of our feathered friends at heart. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will give us the benefit of his reflections since the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, first column, after ("Hoopoe") insert ("Kingfisher").—(Viscount Elibank.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the Committee, I have looked carefully into the question of the kingfisher. I believe that one of the reasons why there was a strong sentiment towards putting the kingfisher in the First Schedule was disgust at the idea that anyone should wantonly shoot any of these beautiful birds, and a wish to penalise him as heavily as possible. That is not really the canon for inclusion in the First Schedule. The canon is rarity, and by no standards can the kingfisher, beautiful as he is—which is not really relevant—be regarded as a rare bird in England, though when you get far north in Scotland he becomes very rare, and finally disappears.

I have looked carefully into the whole question of the damage done by this bird, and there is nothing mutually exclusive about a bird being of great beauty and at the same time in certain circumstances extremely harmful. There are about twenty-four proprietors of trout and other fish hatcheries in this country. They make their livelihood by this means. So far as protecting their stock from birds is concerned, they think they should receive protection in the same sort of equation as the market gardener and the fruit grower. We have taken steps to see that the market gardener and fruit grower shall not be prejudiced by the depredations of any bird, however beautiful. I took the trouble to acquire figures from one of these farms to show the damage that the kingfisher can do. I am informed that last year there was a case in Hertfordshire where kingfishers cleaned out a pond containing 20,000 rainbow trout fry. That represented quite a lot of money, the loss of which would have a prejudicial effect upon the owner of that farm.

Trout farms are not easily netted in to keep the kingfishers out: in fact, they vary from about half an acre to anything up to ten acres. The fish are not safe until they have achieved the length they achieve after about a year's growth, and the ponds in which they are kept may be anything from twenty to 100 yards long. It was suggested during the Committee stage that, rather than give the owners of such places the right to protect their stock against the kingfisher, the kingfisher might be inserted in the First Schedule and a special system of licensing established for trout farmers to protect themselves. If we license trout farmers to protect themselves, just where do we stop? There are a great many trout streams in the South of England—I can think of one or two chalk streams—which are very shallow in places, and where, it may be, the kingfisher does a great deal of harm at certain times and seasons. Also, it may be that that particular piece of fishing has a considerable capital value, so the damage done in terms of money is by no means negligible. I strongly urge on the noble Viscount, who moved the Amendment with such force and such sympathy, to consider what I have said, and I would ask him not to press the Amendment, but rather to leave the kingfisher where he is, receiving, as I esteem it, the ample protection of the Bill in the part where he now resides, and allow those whose livelihoods are prejudiced by the occasional depredations of the kingfisher to protect themselves under the provisions of the Bill as they stand.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, as I supported the Amendment on the Committee stage, I feel that I ought to tell your Lordships that the debate on that occasion convinced me that I was wrong, and I am now on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. I would only add this. This Bill has one disadvantage which I hate about all legislation—namely, that it will be operative only in so far as it has the good will of the people who have to make it effective. I think it would be a bad way to try to obtain this good will if we arouse the hostility of people who have legitimate business with trout farms.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. Since the Committee stage I, too, have been in touch with a number of trout farms. I should like to quote to your Lordships one story from a big hatchery on a well-known river in the south of England where there were a large number of small fry which were disappearing at an alarming rate. The water bailiff failed to find any holes in the net which he had put over the pond, but eventually he got there one morning at half-past three, and he found forty kingfishers inside the net. They had burrowed in—so that he had not found a hole—and had cleared the pond. This First Schedule, as I understand it, is for the purpose of protecting rare birds; if we are going to be sentimental—which is what we shall be, if we add the kingfisher to this Schedule—and add a bird merely because it happens to be the most beautiful bird in England, I feel that we shall be making a great mistake. The kingfisher has survived quite satisfactorily without any form of protection and, from the information that I can gather, is on the increase. With the additional protection that he will get, in any event, under this Bill, I am sure he will survive quite well.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I am glad that I put down the Amendment, because it has had some illuminating results. We have now had from the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, a number of facts of which I feel sure some noble Lords were not previously aware. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has appealed to me to withdraw the Amendment. It is clear that if this Amendment were passed and the kingfisher were included in the First Schedule it would open up in another place an entirely new situation. It might have the result of imperilling the passage of this Bill, which we all desire to see on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment, both because of its excellence and because of the skilful manner in which the noble Lady, Lady Tweedsmuir piloted it through another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, has piloted it through this House. In view of all those facts, and in view of the new facts which have been submitted to us to-day, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.41 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to Part I, "Whimbrel." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Haddington. When this Amendment came before the Committee I was somewhat at a disadvantage, in that I had seen the Amendment on the Order Paper for the first time only a few minutes before. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in withdrawing his name from the Amendment, said that the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, was entirely correct when he suggested that the whimbrel and the curlew went together. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, certainly did not think the two went together; and neither did I. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, did not think that there was any need to identify the whimbrel and the curlew together, and he went on to say that the suggestion that nobody could tell the difference between the two very much surprised him. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, also said that it surprised him, and I think it would surprise anyone who knows the curlew and the whimbrel to say that they are the same bird and have identical looks. As the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, believes (I am not sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, would not have taken the same view, although I do not wish to bind him) the whimbrel is a rarer bird than the curlew, he thinks it ought to have full protection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, second column, after ("Warbler, marsh") insert ("Whimbrel").—(Viscount Elibank.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, I find myself in some slight disagreement with the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment. I see as an objection the fact that the whimbrel so closely resembles the curlew. The noble Viscount has cited a number of authorities in this House to show that there is no real danger of a clash. If you are wildfowling, you are generally shooting birds in a poor light. You are doing exactly what we did in the war with enemy aircraft—identifying them by silhouette. I do not say that a great ornithologist could not tell the difference a considerable way off, but what I am saying is that the average man who has a gun in his hand, and who is in a place where he may see a curlew or a whimbrel, has not the knowledge to tell them apart immediately. We do not try to make laws merely for experts; we usually try to make laws which are enforceable, and which the ordinary man can understand and obey. I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the noble Viscount on that point, but I would ask him if he can see his way not to press this Amendment.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, as one who on the Committee stage spoke on an Amendment with regard to the curlew, which was accepted, I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, because I think it would put the wildfowler in a very difficult position; and if the curlew can be shot the whimbrel should be in the same category.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, have said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not able to be here to-day, and he asked me to move the three Amendments standing in his name. I have not had an opportunity of considering the subject very carefully, but to my mind the rarer of the three birds dealt with is the brambling. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, will accept the inclusion of that bird in the First Schedule, even if he cannot accept all three birds mentioned in this series of Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 33, before ("Godwit, black-tailed") insert ("Brambling").—(Lord Gifford.)

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, the purpose of this series of Amendments is to seek protection and encouragement for these three birds who, at different times over the last twenty years, have made attempts to nest in Scotland. As your Lordships probably know, the brambling is a good deal less common than the redwing and the fieldfare. Perhaps I am rather biased on the subject of the fieldfare, because I happen to live in that part of Scotland which is the point of departure for a great myriad of fieldfare who cross that stretch of salt water to the Northern countries once a year. There is no doubt that the fieldfare and redwing at that season of the year are in this country in great abundance. Again, there is a good deal of clash of evidence on their having bred. But they have attempted occasionally to breed, and we wish, if it is possible, to encourage them.

I have a certain amount of misgiving on the Amendments generally, and for this reason. These birds, under the provisions in which they appeared in the Bill before, had complete protection, albeit the penalty was only one of £5. By moving into the ambit of Part II of the First Schedule, they now receive what one might call five times the protection in the close season and no protection at all in the open season, which is the season when they are here in good numbers and become a bird which may be shot. This is rather a recondite ornithological point. We all wish to encourage these birds to breed here if they will. They cannot be described as really rare, but the brambling is a good deal less common than the others and requires every possible encouragement and protection that we can give it. Therefore, if the noble Lord would see his way not to move the Amendments regarding the fieldfare and redwing, I should be happy to accept the brambling.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I will not move my Amendments, Nos. 23 and 24, with regard to the fieldfare and the redwing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Since the moorhen, as a result of the debate we had last week, graduated to the "rogues' gallery," it is reasonable and consequential that he should be removed from the Third Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 24, leave out ("Moorhen").— (Lord Tweedsmuir.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.