HL Deb 15 May 1963 vol 249 cc1352-61

5.25 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, the object of this little Bill is pretty clearly set out in its context, and I do not think that I need detain your Lordships for many minutes in explaining why these objects should be put into effect. Although the position of wild geese visiting this country at the present time, together with the species that nest in it, cannot be considered exactly precarious, it is still one which causes a certain amount of anxiety for the future; and it must always be remembered that once any species of wild life really gets into a decline it is extremely difficult to halt that decline, let alone reverse it. Frantic efforts are now being made by the Government of the United States, for example, to preserve the samphill crane and the trumpeter swan, both of which are reduced to fewer than 100 in existence; and if adequate attention is not given to them now the same might well happen to some of the birds dealt with in this Bill.

There are at the present time some six species of geese which can be considered common, or relatively common, in this country in a wild state, together with one, the Canada goose, which is an introduced species but, to all intents and purposes, wild. There are four geese coming under the category of grey geese; the grey-lag, the pinkfoot, the bean goose and the white-fronted goose. Of these, only the grey-lag at the present time nests in Britain, or has done in historic times. It is now confined mainly to some of the Hebridean Islands, with a few in the North-West of Scotland, although at one time it used to nest in the Eastern Counties of England probably up to the end of the eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries.

There are two varieties of geese called black geese, the Brent and the barnacle, together with this introduced Canada goose. We need not worry about the Brent and the barnacle because they are entirely protected at the present time and have been so for some years past. But in regard to the grey geese, particularly to the two most common species, the grey-lag and the pinkfoot, there are occasions on which lamentably great slaughter is made among their numbers. On occasion, over 100 are killed in the course of one shoot, sometimes when they are coming in to feed, and at other times in the morning or evening flight when they are coming into their roosting places. I should like to make it clear that nothing in this Bill makes it impossible to shoot these geese. All that is being done is to take the profit out of shooting. In certain areas of Britain—unfortunately, in my own county of Perthshire, together, to a certain lesser extent, with Fife and Angus and certain parts of the Eastern Counties of England—we find these massacres taking place, and certainly they would not take place if there were no sale for the victims of them.

It may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that the Wild-fowling Association are just as enthusiastic as protectionist bodies in backing this Bill. Only ten days ago, at the annual general meeting of the Wild-fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, of which I have the privilege to be President, the support for this Bill was unanimously and enthusiastically endorsed by the delegates present, over 60 in number, representing wildfowling clubs from all over the country. Although not strictly relevant to this Bill, I think I should add that the Wild-fowling Association are now most enthusiastic conservators, inasmuch as they are setting up complete sanctuaries in many areas of the country, either by themselves acquiring by purchase or lease, or by persuading landowners to co-operate in making various lakes, ponds, and particularly gravel pits, complete sanctuaries. At the same time, many of the wildfowling associations are themselves rearing large numbers of ducks, and also of geese. It is hoped that the grey-lag may be re-established as a breeding species in England, whence it has been absent for at least 150 years.

I have only heard of one person who has objected to this Bill. He was a so-called wildfowler who said, "Why should not anyone shoot as many geese as he can and then sell them?" That is exactly the attitude which the wildfowling associations condemn at the present time. The goose is the greatest quarry of the wildfowler, but no responsible wildfowler to-day wants to shoot more than a very few of them, the reason being that they are regarded as such noble prey that they should not be massacred, particularly since, when these great slaughters do take place, it is in conditions which make the shooting very far removed from sport. The birds are usually coming in at night to a sheet of water, or at dawn to a stubble field, and about to alight where they offer very easy targets, so that the shooting of them cannot be considered as sport at all. As I have said, there is nothing whatever in this Bill to prevent anyone from shooting geese, nor to prevent any farmer from protecting his crops. All the Bill does is to attempt to stop the shooting of geese for profit; and if this is brought into effect there is little doubt that it will be of the greatest possible benefit to the goose population as a whole.

I have been supplied by the Wildfowl Trust, who are also a strong supporter of this Bill, with the number of wild geese which are at present to be found in this country during the winter. I have been rather surprised to see that they are now putting down the numbers of the bean-goose at 170, which is, of course, negligible. But one need not worry much about that, because in its few haunts it is pretty well protected. The pinkfoot is by far the most numerous, with something over 53,000; the two kinds of white-fronted goose number about 10,000; the grey-lag, 34,000; the barnacle over 12,000 and the Brent over 14,000. We need not worry about those last two species. In addition, there are perhaps 4,000 Canada geese resident in the country, mostly in a wild state, although that species was introduced about a couple of centuries ago.

As I have said, both the wildfowling bodies and conservationist bodies are unanimously in favour of this Bill, and so far as I know there has been no protest from the agriculturists. It is true that on occasion the grey geese can do a certain amount of damage to crops, almost entirely to clover in the spring after the legal shooting season has ended. But the possibility of dealing with such geese is not affected by the Bill. If, in any area in spring, serious damage is being done, it is perfectly open to the agricultural organisations to approach the Government and endeavour to get the close season protection lifted. This has been done on one or two occasions, but I am glad to say that up to date the attempt has not been successful, because I do not think the amount of damage done is sufficient to justify shooting them down wholesale. Furthermore, shooting geese on their feeding grounds is not the way to keep them off. There are much more efficient methods, like putting out particular kind of scarecrows or barrels in which the geese imagine there is a gunner awaiting to ambush them, truly or falsely, and in other ways.

I do not think it is necessary for me, particularly on a day when there is so much Business on the Order Paper, to go further into the Bill, other than to make one or two observations on its provisions. It will be seen that by Clause 1 the penalties are, for a first offence, a fine of £5 for each goose the culprit has or has had in his possession for sale. The penalty for the second and subsequent convictions is a fine of £10, or imprisonment not exceeding two months. In either case, there may be forfeiture of all geese in his possession. The last-named provision is not so much for the protection of the ordinary wild geese as for the other very rare species I have not mentioned, such as the snow geese and the red-breasted goose. The reason is that if any victim were not confiscated, it might well be a source of profit to the person who had shot it, because although the fine might be the full amount of £5, he could probably get more than that by selling the goose.

Clause 2 possibly needs a word of explanation. It means, in short, that it will be possible for licences or permits to be issued to scientific bodies to pay for dead wild geese if required for scientific purposes. This will enable bodies like the South Kensington Museum or the British Trust for Ornithology to purchase dead wild geese from abroad for scientific studies. If this provision were not included, that would be illegal, even for them. With those few remarks I venture to commend this little Bill for your Lordships' approbation, and I shall, of course, be glad to answer any comments or criticisms when I come to reply. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

5.39 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend. I believe that this Bill is desirable; and if it is desirable, and approved by all Parties, I think there is every reason why it should pass into law. As the noble Earl has said, it is fair, first of all, to the wild-fowler (the genuine wildfowler whom, I am sure, we all respect) who can still go out and shoot his geese for sport. At the same time, it gives a little more protection to one of our most delightful species of wildfowl by preventing undue exploitation of the market.

I think that, to a lesser or greater degree, we are all fond of wild birds; and particularly anyone who lives on an estuary on the East Coast of Scotland, as I have the good fortune to do, cannot fail to be impressed and fascinated by all the various kinds of wildfowl that come in and inhabit it. Of all the species, I think that perhaps the wild goose is probably the most romantic of them all, and one that we are eager to protect. Everything about them is romantic—their formation in flight, which of course is nature's way of using the slipstream of the bird in front, so that their strength can be conserved for the long overseas flights. Wary and alert to danger, they are not easily killed—indeed, on the East Coast of Scotland, which is frequented by hundred of pinkfoot geese, I do not think a great number are shot. I always have the feeling that a far greater menace to the wild geese than the wildfowler's gun is the over-crowded islands and the spread of population which is gradually going further to the coast and pushing the frontiers of nature further and further back.

Of course, as the noble Earl has pointed out, in certain parts excessive shooting takes place, and I think it would be a tragedy if these majestic birds were eventually to visit our shores no more. I shall never forget an occasion, some years ago, when a lecture was given by Mr. Peter Scott to the Royal Geographical Society in Edinburgh. That great champion of our wildfowl was introduced to an audience of about 3,000 people. After he had been introduced there was a silence during which one could have heard a pin drop. We were all waiting for him to come forward and speak, but instead he drew a wonderful picture of a dodo on the blackboard. He stood back from it and said, This is a bird which is now extinct, and it is extinct just through the awful lust of men wanting to destroy, kill and shoot everything—the insatiable desire of human beings to kill. That bird would have been alive today if it had not been for that. We must not let that happen to the goose". I mention that because Mr. Peter Scott is a wonderful friend of the wild geese and he is in great fear that they may eventually become, if not extinct, then driven away from these islands altogether.

The alternative to the noble Earl's Bill might have been to place the grey-lag goose, which is now protected during the close season only, under Part I of the First Schedule to the Bill, thus protecting it at all times, but I think we must be fair to the genuine wild fowler. In my opinion, this Bill strikes a happy medium between protection on the one hand, because it gives a little further protection to the wild geese, and fair legitimate sport on the other hand.

There is one other point in this Bill which appeals to me in particular. In this case I feel that the law will be easily enforceable. It is always difficult to catch someone in the act of shooting a protected bird, or taking the eggs of a protected bird. These things often take place in half light or at night or early morning, when it is difficult to catch people. The only person who has power to arrest is a constable, and in these sparse and desoltae places where wild birds, particularly wild geese, inhabit there are not many people about; therefore it is difficult to catch people in the act. I think it would be far easier for the law to keep its eye on premises where poultry and game and wild geese, for example, might be sold. Finally, I repeat that I think this is a most desirable Bill, and I earnestly hope it will receive a Second Reading.

5.44 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends, as I think many Members of your Lordships' House will be. My noble friend has given us a full and fascinating account of the wild goose, its habits and its history, and I am sure that it was a relief to many of us to be translated from the earthy matters of audit in London to the romance which lies behind this Bill. My noble friend has also made an informed plea for an alteration in the law. In view of that plea, I feel that I owe it to your Lordships to give a brief account of the law on this matter as it stands.

The law that is contained in the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, generally speaking allows wild geese of almost all species to be killed or taken outside the close season. There is, of course, a penalty for the contravention of this provision if the goose which is the subject of such a contravention is a grey-lag. Then the offender, on conviction, is liable to one of the special penalties provided for in the Act, although there are special exceptions in favour of the farmer. So much for the killing of the wild goose. The 1954 Act—and this is where we come closer to the proposal in my noble friend's Bill—also contains prohibitions on the sale of wild geese between February 28 and August 31, doubtless with a view to discouraging the shooting of wild geese during the close season.

So much for the law as it stands. The effect of this new Bill will be to make it illegal to sell or to possess for sale a dead wild goose at any time of the year. In other words, the prohibited season would be extended from its present duration to the full twelve months of the year. I feel that the arguments for making this extention have been fully and ably presented to your Lordships by my noble friend, and I imagine that noble Lords will not wish me to go over that ground again. I would merely add, I hope not in any way by way of contradiction of what my noble friend has said, that I understand there may be certain objections from some agricultural interests in Scotland, in particular from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, to his proposal, but I do not know how serious those objections are.

That said, I would make it clear that the Bill is one to which the Government see no objection whatsoever in principle. It might be argued that there are more important measures which could take up Parliamentary time at present. It may also be said that there is something to be said for not dealing piecemeal and in isolation with one of a number of proposals for amending the Act of 1954, in view of the fact that there are a number of proposals which we expect fairly shortly to have presented to the Government for consideration. Apart from that, there are one or two relatively minor matters of drafting on which the Parliamentary draftsman might have something to say, and I would also venture the opinion that the penalties clause would in any event require further consideration.

Having said that, I hope in no spirit of cribbing my noble friend's proposal, I would only add that, as this Bill has been moved with such intimate knowledge by my noble friend, I am happy to leave it to the judgment of your Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I must thank your Lordships for the favourable reception this little Bill has received. Particularly I thank my noble friend Lord Haddington for his support. In regard to the observations made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the possibility of the amendment of the 1954 Act, the fact remains that there is no apparent intention to introduce an amending Act in the near future, and it may be a number of years before this is done. Those of us who are instrumental in pushing this Bill feel that it would be a pity to jeopardise the future of wild geese by waiting for a measure which may not come for some ten years.

The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke of the possibility of objections by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. I have not had any communication from them at all on the subject, and I have already pointed out that there is nothing whatever in the Bill that precludes any farmer, or anyone else, from shooting geese. All that it does is to attempt to take profit out of such shooting.

There is one other point that I might perhaps be permitted to mention. The fact that the geese have not declined further in number is largely due to the fact that on a great many of the larger estates, and on some of the smaller ones, they are given virtually complete protection. For example, during last winter on a property in my own county belonging to a Member of your Lordships' House, the normal winter population of some 2,000 grey-lags went up to something like 5,000. That was owing to the hard weather; and they were on such short spread that it was possible to walk right in among them, within gunshot distance, before they took wing. During that hard weather period only four geese were shot, and they were deliberately shot because they were piners which had obviously been earlier wounded or had suffered some other injury. Were many of these larger estates to be broken up, as is always a possibility, or to fall into less sympathetic hands, then it might v; ell he that the numbers of geese visiting this country would be brought down by 20 or 50 per cent. within a few years owing to indiscriminate shooting. This Bill is a definite attempt to lock the door while the horse is still inside the stable.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until the Royal Commission at 6 o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.