PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 17 June 1965 vol 267 cc224-79

4.40 p.m.

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Extension of protection for eggs of wild birds

1.—(1) The power of the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act") to prescribe common wild birds whose eggs may be taken or destroyed without contravening section 1 of that Act shall cease; and, accordingly, in subsection (4)(a) of the said section 2 the words from "or of any other common wild bird" to the end are hereby repealed.

(2) The protection given by the principal Act to the eggs of lapwings after 14th April in any year shall extend throughout the year: and accordingly the following provisions of that Act, that is to say—

1. (a) sections 2(4)(c) and 3(1)(iv) (taking or destroying eggs) and section 6(1)(iii) (sale of eggs) and in section 7(1)(c) (importation of eggs) the words "on or after the fifteenth day of April in any year" and
2. (b) section 9(4) (which is superseded by this subsection) are hereby repealed.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment would restore the Secretary of State's power to make an order prescribing common wild birds whose eggs may be taken without committing an offence. In so doing, it would restore the flexibility of the principal Act, the Protection of Birds Act, 1954. Of course, the Amendment really stands or falls on whether your Lordships consider the Secretary of State a person competent to decide whether it is in the national interest that the eggs of certain common wild birds should be taken. The Secretary of State would presumably not exercise this power lightly.

Members of the Committee are probably aware that the factor governing the size of our resident common wild bird population is the supply of food. If we get a hard winter, we can lose two-thirds of our common wild birds: if we get a succession of mild winters, we can have what amounts to a plague of certain common species. When we had the debate on Second Reading, one or two noble Lords, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, were against bird's-nesting by small boys. That practice is not so prevalent now as it used to be before the war but, as regards the population of our common birds, bird's-nesting has no effect at all. Personally, I should think that, apart from hard winters, it is chemical farming that does the greatest damage.

If this Bill were to go through in its present form, we could have conditions in which, after one or two mild winters, we found ourselves with a plague of some species, such as bullfinches, which are extremely destructive to fruit. In that event, of course, the Secretary of State would make an order saying that bullfinches' eggs could be taken; and that, as I pointed out on Second Reading, is a far more humane way of keeping down our bird population. It cannot be done, I agree, through voluntary bird's-nesting, but if the farmers pay small boys a halfpenny, or something like that, for each bullfinch's egg they take, as is done by some orchard owners, that is a far more effective and, as I say, far more humane way of keeping an excessive bird population under control. I feel very strongly on this Amendment, and I will only repeat that, if your Lordships do not think the Secretary of State is a competent person, you should not support this Amendment, but if you think he is competent person, then you cannot do anything but support it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1).—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD HURCOMB

I do not want to repeat at too much length what I said on Second Reading. With some of the points which the noble Viscount has just made, of course, everyone will agree. But they are not the real point here. The question is not whether this order will, in fact, seriously affect the population of the birds named in the previous Home Secretary's list. On the point that we ought to leave it to the competence of the Home Secretary, all I would say is that the Home Secretary has a very representative and authoritative advisory committee, presided over by a distinguished scientific man, which has always detested this power to make orders, which has advised against it, which is still against it and which, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, pointed out so clearly during the previous debate, when they were forced to produce a list produced one which (to use Lord Cranbrook's own expression) was a silly one. Any future list which is likely to be produced under this power will also be a very unsatisfactory list—that is, unless you are taking a wider point and saying that no birds' eggs ought to be protected except those in the special schedule of really rare birds, which would be going back to 19th-century practices with a vengeance.

If I may, in a few words, put before the Committee the considerations which are in my mind, they are these. First, I am not against bird's-nesting. Probably all of us have indulged in it in our time. I think the argument that small boys will be made criminals if they take a blackbird's egg or a thrush's egg is really a bogey. Neither the police nor the magistrates are going to take action of that kind. There are three reasons, or perhaps four, why I attach real importance to removing this power. It is quite possible, of course, to argue that the power is not now being exercised. In so far as small boys are being made criminals, they have been made criminals for the last four years without any terrible consequences, and one might say, "Very well; why not leave it in that position?" There are various reasons. I am not going to press one, which was criticised during the debate on Second Reading: that the legal power of this kind is, not the only one but one, and the main obstacle to our joining the International Convention for the Protection of Birds.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that that Convention is not a very satisfactory one, but it is a good deal better than nothing, and it would take us a long time to renegotiate a better International Convention on this subject. Foreign ornithologists, many of them distinguished scientific men in their own countries, have said for years past that it would be a great help to them in getting a better public opinion in their own countries, and in getting their own Governments to take appropriate action, if this country were a party to the Convention. I think they are right in that, and it is only fair to mention that point, although it is not one that I regard as conclusive (and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook), or one on which your Lordships will want to put too much emphasis.

The other argument is that, if you encourage even small boys to make collections of the eggs of six or eight birds, you are really encouraging the habit of forming an egg collection; and that is something which we cannot afford to do. It is no good telling small boys that they may take a skylark's egg but not a woodlark's, or that they may take a yellowhammer's egg but not that of another bird. Once they start to take eggs they will try to make the collection complete, and when they grow up a certain number of them will want to take the rare birds' eggs which even the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, agreed ought to be protected. In my view, that would be a bad, and, I would say, a retrograde step.

But the two principal reasons why I would urge your Lordships not to adopt this Amendment are these. In the first place if children have to be told, "You may take this but not that", it would make it almost impossible for teachers (and we have ample evidence of this from the teachers themselves) to get into the heads of children that they had better leave wild creatures and wild life unmolested. That is my main argument. Parallel with that is the difficulty experienced by the police in enforcing limited restrictions of this sort. They do not know, any more than does the small boy, the difference between one egg and another.

So, far from going back to a 19th century outlook (and I do not regard everything that we thought or did in the 19th century as necessarily obsolete) I believe that taking this wider view is in line with what we are anxious about now, in the 20th century, about which we shall become more and more anxious as time goes on. With the upsurge in the population, with its increased mobility, with all the encroachments on natural habitats in this small island, how are we to get into the heads of children and the population at large a real respect for wild life, for the appearance of the countryside, for the preservation of the coasts and for all those issues which are worrying so many people to-day if we draw these fine distinctions which would lead to a small boy's being told that he may take a robin's egg or a linnet's egg or a skylark's egg but not that of some other bird? It is on those broader grounds that I would appeal to my noble friends not to press this particular Amendment.

4.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I find myself in complete disagreement with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said. Surely laws are made for the good of human beings and not just to persecute them. The noble Lord has produced this Bill; yet out of his own mouth we have heard that nothing in this clause will affect the bird population in this country in the slightest degree. I hope I am not exaggerating; and if the noble Lord wishes to contradict me I will willingly accept it. The birds' eggs which the Minister allowed to be collected under the old Act and the collection of which he forbade after the severe winter of 1962–63 were those of exceedingly common birds. The collecting of their eggs did them no harm at all and the only scientific evidence we have about those birds was a review made of a common type close to London in the year following that severe winter. In that review it was found that the bird population had replaced itself and that the provisions which the Secretary of State had quite erroneously been advised to make had been proved to be entirely unnecessary. So this clause, as far as the protection of individual species of birds is concerned, is quite unnecessary. The noble Lord himself agrees that the international convention need not concern us, and I will not deal with that any more.

What is behind the promotion of this Bill, what is in the noble Lord's mind and in the minds of all those who support this Bill, is this feeling, which I find quite extraordinary, that there is a certain ethical consideration to be applied to birds and to birds alone, and that people must be prevented from interfering with birds and birds alone.

LORD HURCOMB

I do not want to interrupt; but that is a complete travesty of my views or of anything that I have said.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I apologise in that case; but it is the impression one gets. We all know that so far as the training of naturalists is concerned, nine out of ten start by collecting birds' eggs or butterflies or something of that nature. Small boys continue to start to be naturalists (as did the noble Lord and as I did) by collecting birds' eggs; and, by and large, to-day, even more than when we were young, they tend to stop fairly quickly. I believe that the outlet which the last Act provided and which this clause seeks to close was an extremely useful one. It allowed the small boys the latitude that they ought to have, and, fundamentally, did no harm to the birds.

So far as the other objection is concerned, that it is impossible for the police to enforce these limited restrictions, I find that difficult to accept when there is a similar limited restriction in the following clause, Clause 3, which I entirely support, where the policeman or the person trying to prosecute must decide whether or not the bird which is being disturbed comes within the First Schedule of the original Act. Clause 3 contains exactly the same difficulties regarding these uncommon birds as the old Act had. I think the two are on exactly the same lines. There are difficulties. The courts ultimately will decide; and I do not think it is any more difficult for Clause 3 of the Bill than it was in the old Act.

But the fundamental point is that all of us in the country know that small boys will continue to go bird's-nesting, and that they will continue to do it partly for collecting and partly to make omelettes out of water hens' eggs and the like. It seems to me ridiculous to pass an Act which makes illegal something which every country dweller accepts as being perfectly normal, something for which no country policeman will wish to bring people before the courts, and something for which no country magistrate will wish to convict small boys. We are now asked to pass a law which is contrary to the whole sentiments of the people who live in the country and who are most intimately concerned, a law which is unlikely to be enforced, is virtually unenforceable, and which does no good to the birds it is supposed to protect. I hope that the noble Viscount will insist on his Amendment, and if he calls a Division, I shall have great pleasure in following him into the Lobby.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I wish to ask one question of the noble Lord to clear my own mind. In one of the Schedules to the Act there are birds which everyone admits are pests, like the wood pigeon, the starling, the sparrow, and so on. People would be entitled, indeed would be encouraged, almost compelled, to go on killing these great agriccultural pests. But if this clause is passed in the form in which the noble Lord moves it, would it not be an offence to take the eggs of one of these pestilential birds, whereas it would be a virtuous act to kill the birds after the eggs have been hatched?

LORD HURCOMB

No, that point is safeguarded in the principal Act.

LORD SOMERS

I think that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has overlooked one point that was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Hurcomb and which I emphasised in the Second Reading debate, that while it may do no harm for small boys to collect the eggs of, say, sparrows or chaffinches, if the ban is removed there is no saying what eggs they may collect. As my noble friend has pointed out, and as I pointed out before, small boys are incapable of telling the difference between the eggs of sparrows and those of very rare species. Therefore it seems to me essential that we should protect all egg collecting. As for the argument that we all know it will all go on whether we ban it or not, the same may be said of many other things. We all know that motorists will exceed the 30 mile an hour limit, but that is no reason for abolishing the limit in built-up areas.

LORD BURTON

I am sorry to see that there is considerable misunderstanding about this clause. I had hoped it was made clear on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made clear that there was only one Order which has ever been made, and that is now revoked. The position is that, except for those eggs which may be taken because the birds concerned are pests, no eggs may be taken. If the Amendment is not accepted it will mean only that the Secretary of State at no time in the future will be able to make an order for the eggs of a bird to be taken, if the bird becomes a pest.

Surely the object is to protect birds, and where they are a nuisance to be able to do away with them, so that we want the Bill to be as flexible as possible. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the flexibility of this part of the Bill will go. I ask your Lordships strongly to support the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. This will not affect the status quo, and the question of small boys taking eggs is quite irrelevant.

LORD HURCOMB

If I may, I would correct one misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. The Secretary of State will still have power to add to Schedule 2 any bird considered to be a pest. In that event, it will not be an offence to take the eggs of that bird. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I said that that is completely protected by the existing law and is not touched by this Amendment.

LORD BURTON

May I ask the noble Lord to clarify that point? If that is so what is the point of his clause in the Bill?

LORD HURCOMB

It is because I do not suppose that any Home Secretary is ever going to put the robin or the skylark on a list of pests.

LORD BURTON

In the one list that was made, how many birds did he put on the Schedule? Did he put a whole lot on the protected list?

LORD HURCOMB

On which Schedule?

LORD BURTON

When he made an Order, I think it was in 1963. One Order was made, which was revoked, in 1963.

LORD HURCOMB

When the list was made, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, was a silly list, as any such list is bound to be, the birds on it were our national birds, the robin, the skylark, the linnet, the song thrush and three or four others of that kind.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I think it would be right to mention some of the other kinds, the water hen, the blackbird, and a whole number of other birds which have little sentimental attraction, and the taking of their eggs makes no difference.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN)

We all like the blackbird.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It is greatly to be hoped that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and reject this Amendment, the ill-effects of which would be considerable. Nowadays there is no scientific advantage whatever to be gained from the collecting of eggs. Should some scientist desire to do so for proper and justifiable purposes, he would certainly be given leave by one of the two advisory committees. The point, therefore, is completely covered.

Can anything more awful be imagined, from the point of view of certain farmers and land proprietors, than the suggestion by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that a reward of a halfpenny an egg should be offered for the eggs of the bullfinch? Everyone's woods for miles around would be gone through by little boys collecting the eggs, not only of the bullfinch but of every possible species from the size of the blackbird down. Who is to decide which is the bullfinch's egg? I suggest that even many noble Lords present would have considerable difficulty in identifying the eggs of rarer birds. I certainly should.

It would put an intolerable burden on the police if they were asked to differentiate between the egg of the red-shank and the egg of the avocet or, say, the common sedge warbler or the hectorine or melodious warbler which occasionally consent to nest with us. There would be no harm done to anyone if this Amendment were rejected. I submit that it is entirely undesirable at present that small boys be encouraged to go bird's nesting for the purpose of taking the eggs. Many of your Lordships must have seen along the hedgerows not only empty nests, but nests which have been torn out and the eggs smashed. Surely that is not the sort of thing we should encourage; but it would be encouraged if the Amendment were accepted.

LORD AIREDALE

I believe that there is a great deal less to be said in favour of small boys being allowed to go bird's-nesting in these days than was the case when we were small boys because we did not have the benefit of Mr. Peter Scott's marvellous television programmes about wild life. Surely the way to introduce small boys to natural history is not to send them bird's-nesting, but to sit them down in front of a television set, which they would absolutely love, and make them watch Mr. Peter Scott's "Look" programme whenever one is about wild birds. That is the way for them to learn about wild birds.

LORD BOWLES

I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Stonham, who is out of the country. At fairly short notice I have been asked to say something on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. My right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary is well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and other noble Lords and. of course, the advisory committee and protectionists generally would like to see deleted from the Act the power to deprive the eggs of common birds of protection. That power was used in 1955, because it was clear from the debates on that occasion that Parliament intended that it should be used so as to prevent young people from coming within the mischief of the criminal law as a result of harmless bird's-nesting. The 1955 orders were revoked only because it was represented to the Secretaries of State that the species concerned had suffered severe loss during the hard winter of 1962–63. These species have now re-established themselves. Therefore, we are faced once more with the same issue of policy which faced us in the debate on the bird's-nesting provisions in 1954.

Is it still thought that young people should not be placed in peril of criminal proceedings if they engage in harmless bird's-nesting? I say "harmless" because I think that it is generally accepted that none of the species concerned appears to have suffered any significant damage as a result of the removal of protection on eggs in 1955. I do not mean by "harmless" that I discount the more general argument that no harm is done by disrespect for wild life and the other arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has put forward. Maybe there is some basis for arguing that public opinion has grown more sensitive to the national heritage of wild life. On the other hand, a substantial proportion of the prosecutions brought under the Act are against children of school age. Whether or not this indicates a need to inculcate a greater respect for wild life it is difficult to say. Whether the repeal of the bird's-nesting provision would increase respect for wild life or for the Act itself, it is also difficult to say. Her Majesty's Government have no view one way or the other, but will welcome a clear expression of opinion by Parliament.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I was just going to correct one thing the noble Lord said. He said that in most cases and in all areas the species which were largely wiped out in the severe winter of 1962–63 have fully recovered, but there are many areas where many species have by no means done so.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I cannot agree with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I understood him to say that under the principal Act the eggs of common birds can be taken.

LORD HURCOMB

I was asked whether the birds that are put in the Second Schedule as pests could have their eggs taken, and I said that that is so. Any bird that is put into that Schedule would have no protection for its eggs. But that is something quite different from the rights attached to the common bird order which we are debating. I hope that makes it clear.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

From reading Clause 6 of the principle Act, it appears that one can take the eggs of gulls, but only if one is going to eat them.

LORD HURCOMB

If the noble Viscount would look at Section 2 of the Act, he would be looking at the right section.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I still do not agree with the noble Lord. There is this law which bans the taking of eggs, apart from the eggs of certain birds which are called pests; but with a couple of mild winters we can soon get other pests, and I think it is better to leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether or not the eggs of a common wild bird ought to be protected. I am sure that if it becomes law that no eggs are to be taken, apart from those of certain pests, we shall be turning a great number of small boys into criminals. I feel that the noble Lord really ought to yield on this, and that I have to press it.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like a little guidance on this Amendment. We would not really be turning little boys into criminals if they do something contrary to the Act. Surely they are just hauled up and told not to do it again. I think that we are really exaggerating the matter.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

It goes down on their police records.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

So it does if they ride their bicycles without a bicycle lamp.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.17 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment would maintain the law regarding plovers' eggs as it is under the principal Act of 1954. Under that Act, the Secretary of State has power to make an order to give complete protection to plovers' eggs. This Amendment does not alter that power at all. But here again your Lordships have to decide whether the Secretary of State is competent to exercise that power in the interests of the plover population. The arguments were fully deployed on Second Reading and I do not propose to go over them all again.

In that debate, it was thoroughly explained why it is not harmful to take the eggs of the green plover or, as it is called, the lapwing before April 14. This particularly applies to arable land where, owing to mechanised farming, it is impossible for a man on a tractor to see the plovers' eggs, and plovers' eggs on arable land laid before the first weeks in April are always destroyed. If the eggs are laid off arable land, they hatch out, but if they are an early clutch the young birds usually die from the weather and lack of cover.

In my opinion, it would, in fact, help the plover population to take the first clutch, because then the hen bird will lay again and rear her brood. If we do not take them, the brood will die and it will then be too late for her to rear another brood. If the green plover should decrease, the Secretary of State has complete power to protect it. I do not think that if he used this power and protected the plovers' eggs for the whole year round it would stop the decrease of the green plover, which is due far more to mechanised farming. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I hope that my noble friend Lord Hurcomb will give favourable consideration to this Amendment. There is no conflict here between any of us as to what we are seeking to do. We all want to preserve in greater quantity the green plover. This is entirely a question of what is the practical experience of those who live in the countryside and have the interests of this bird at heart. I have no doubt that what has been said about eggs laid on arable land is true. The second clutch is laid after the rolling has taken place.

I should like to speak from my experience of non-arable land in the North. We have in the North of Yorkshire, I am glad to say, in spite of the very hard winter that we had a few years ago, an enormous increase in the plover population. I have not the least doubt that that is because in many cases some of the earlier eggs were taken. Then the bird lays again, and when the second clutch is hatched out, the weather is better, there is more insect life about and the little birds can make a living. I have frequently seen little birds which have been hatched in the first clutch petering out. One sees quanties of healthy broods of young plover all being hatched out as strong as they can be in these Northern climates, because the second clutch is the healthy clutch.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Hurcomb will not be too theoretical about this matter. If he cannot accept a definite day, then let him leave it for the Secretary of State, with his advisory committee, to consider it with people who want to preserve the plover. Every farmer wants to have on his land as many plover as he can. If my noble friend would only let the Secretary of State have a chance of considering this question with his advisory committee, and in consultation with all the agricultural interests in this country, I think he would make his Bill a much better one and probably give it a better chance of going through by general consent.

LORD HURCOMB

I realise that there is a good deal of force in what my noble friend has just said, and I ought, indeed, to have pointed out to your Lordships on Second Reading that the Home Secretary has power to repeal all these provisions about April 15. He has also consulted his advisory committee, and they have already given him advice. I do not want to go at great length into a disquisition on the breeding biology of the plover, but there are two points here. In the first place, I find it impossible to accept the view that the lapwing, in the course of evolution, has discovered the wrong time of year for it to nest. Any living form which insisted on trying to breed at what was biologically the wrong time of year would have been eliminated long ago.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? That is true, of course; but what the noble Lord has not said is that in the course of evolution the type of agriculture has completely altered.

LORD HURCOMB

I was coming to that. Let me give another example. There is another creature in which, probably like some others of your Lordships, I have taken an interest recently, and that is the mayfly. When I was fishing some fortnight or three weeks ago, we had some very cold weather and I found a large proportion of newly hatched mayfly dead in the grass and on the water, not as spent gnat which had duly laid its eggs, but just obliterated. Every now and then this happens. But it has not happened often enough to make the mayfly decide to hatch out in the South of England at the end of June, rather than at the end of May.

A good deal of expert attention has been given to this question, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has said. In general, the conclusion of people who have devoted a great deal of observation to the matter is that in most parts of the country the early laying by the lapwing and, probably for the same reason, by some other wading birds, is to its advantage, because when the young birds are in their early stages they find the ground still soft enough to be able to pick up a living. While it is true, as has been said, that in many cases the late broods are also successful, there are probably many cases when they are not. The feeding conditions are unsuitable. The birds are not sufficiently fledged to fly away to the estuaries or softer ground; and that is why, in the main, the early nesting of the lapwing is to its advantage.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has just said, we cannot ignore the fact that human intervention has to a large extent altered the conditions of the habitat, particularly in agricultural areas, and that there the early eggs, and perhaps the early broods, are doomed to destruction. This it is all the more difficult to avoid because of the growth of mechanisation.

I find it difficult to think that those facts, which I do not dispute, are a sufficient reason for denying the lapwing the protection it can otherwise enjoy in many other parts of the country where is is not exposed to this risk. But I feel that, so long as the eggs of the lapwing can be imported and sold, as they were this spring in my own club at 3s. apiece, it is an invitation for them to be exploited and searched for in many parts of the country where otherwise they would be perfectly safe.

However, if it meets noble Lords who have raised this point, I am quite ready to consider putting down an Amendment on the Report stage to declare that it should not be an offence to take lapwings' eggs before April 15 if it were shown to the satisfaction of the court that this had been necessary in order to avoid their destruction in the course of agricultural operations. I think that would meet substantially and quite fairly the point that has been made. An alternative would be to prohibit importation, and otherwise leave the law as it is at present, which, as I have said, allows the Home Secretary at any time, on the advice of his advisory committee, to revoke this provision about April 15.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I would at once say for myself that, so far as prohibiting importation for sale is concerned, I do not care at all about that; I should not object to it in the least. But on his suggestion that we should make it a criminal offence to take the egg of the lapwing, and that any farmer or landlord (a disgraceful set of people!) should be taken to court for what is a prima facie criminal offence, and should then have to prove, not that he did it because he thought it was a good thing in the interests of preserving the lapwing population, but something which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, admits is entirely unprovable—namely, that by his action he had protected the lapwing population—all I would say is that, that is not good enough. I do not go back on the small boy, with whom I have some sympathy; but to make a criminal offence of that kind is derisory, as I am sure any competent lawyer would agree.

The noble Lord said that it would be possible for the Home Secretary to repeal by an order something that had been put into the Act. That is a very strong thing to do. A Home Secretary—indeed, any Minister—does not like to repeal by order an Act of Parliament or something that Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, has put into an Act as a positive provision. I venture to say that to rely merely on that would be to make quite sure that no lapwing's eggs were taken at all, even in the areas where most people agree that they ought to be taken. Why cannot the noble Lord do what, surely, is the sensible thing, which is to have a provision to say that it will be open to the Home Secretary to decide whether, on further consideration and the fullest consultation, he thinks there ought to be a prohibition of the taking of lapwings' eggs? That would certainly satisfy me and, I believe, would satisfy the Committee. I believe it would be a thoroughly sensible provision.

There are a great many of your Lordships who are anxious to support this Bill but who, I believe, have a genuine anxiety on this point. The noble Lord has no stauncher or better informed supporter than my noble friend Lord Mansfield. If this proposal has the support of my noble friend, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will think again.

LORD SALTOUN

I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of the discussion, but it is something the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has just said which makes me inclined to make this comment. It must be well over fifty years ago that a farm servant was had up before the sheriff for removing a plover's nest from in front of a plough, and fined. I do not think anybody called him a criminal, but he was fined for doing precisely that. I think it was the law long before these protection Acts were passed.

VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN

I have had some experience of this matter, both in another place and in the Scottish Office, but I wish to refer to my experience in the country. My noble friend Lord Swinton has spoken of Yorkshire. In all my experience of over fifty years in various parts of Scotland—and I should like to say this in reply to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hurcomb about people who have watched and studied this problem—I have never, to my recollection or knowledge, met a single gamekeeper or farmer on land where green plovers nest who would agree with the view that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, stated. Looking at it from a purely practical point of view, with a genuine desire to see the plover population increase, all hold the view that in the first nestings the eggs are either destroyed by agricultural implements or frosted, and those of the second laying are the ones which hatch out and survive. That is the view of the practical man on the ground, and I have never met anybody who did not agree with it.

5.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am afraid I cannot accept from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that the lapwing has worked out its evolution satisfactorily from a breeding point of view. I cannot accept that the time at which the first eggs are laid is the most suitable time. In support of that, I will quote a case of another bird, the common wild duck, or mallard. All my life—now, unfortunately, quite a long time—on our property every spring, about April, the ponds become full of little fluffy ducklings. In three or four years out of five, at the end of a week or ten days there are only a handful of them left, and the outlets of the pond are choked with pathetic little bodies. When my keepers have taken those early nests and put them under hens and reared them, the ducks undoubtedly nest again. The difference is that in the early nests they lay perhaps 12 to 15 eggs and come into the pond with a corresponding number of young ones—for their eggs are nearly always fertile—and then, at the end of a week or so, there are perhaps one or two in each brood left alive, and all too often none at all.

We have noticed that when the second broods come in, the offspring of those ducks who have had their first broods removed—there are only perhaps seven or eight of them—they arrive a month later and almost without exception grow to maturity. That is why I ask the noble Lord to accept that there is something valid in the arguments we put forward. I might add that in late years we have had a succession of very dry springs in Scotland. I have known cases of baby lapwings who, as a result, have died because the ground is too hard in April and early May. In my own part of the country the number of snipe have diminished for the same reason, through lack of insect food because of lack of rain.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I do not think we need to discuss the nesting habits of the lapwing. Under the existing legislation, the lapwing has increased in numbers, or it is holding its own, and the existing predation by man before April 16 has done absolutely no harm to it. I fail to see the reason for this proposed subsection, because the essence of a good conservation policy is to make quite certain that man can avail himself of the produce of nature, provided he does no harm. I understand that the wild red deer on the hills produces a larger amount of animal protein than sheep or cattle could on the same ground. The lapwing which lays early is not harmed by the taking away of its first clutch, but taking that clutch away produces quite a nice bit of money for the stockman or the tractor driver whose "perk" it is on most farms to pick them up. It does no harm to the bird which, as I have said, is continuing to flourish, and it seems to me entirely wrong that we should prevent this quite ordinary exploitation of one of the bounties of nature by making it illegal. I regret that the noble Viscount did not press the last Amendment to a Division, but I hope that he will press this one.

LORD HURCOMB

This is a matter of far less importance than the last Amendment we discussed. I agree, of course, that the conditions in Scotland may be somewhat different, though I do not depart from my view that in the course of evolution most wild things have found the right time at which to breed or flower. I think one important step would be to prohibit importation. I think also that if you are going to prevent undue exploitation it is also important to prohibit sale—but importation, at least.

For the rest, the present position is just as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, asked that it should be. When your Lordships last considered this matter, it was with very great doubt that they followed Lord Jowitt's argument and put this provision into the Act allowing eggs to be taken up to April 15. They thought it so doubtful that they made this exceptional provision that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State could repeal that provision on the advice of their advisory committees, if they thought fit at some later stage. But if it is understood that on the Report stage I shall be free to put down Amendments prohibiting importation and sale, then I should be disposed not to resist the noble Viscount's Amendment at this stage. I do not think one need go further. It is possible that there should be separate powers, or different powers, for Scotland and for England and Wales, but I think probably not.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Do not spoil it.

LORD HURCOMB

On that understanding, I will not resist this Amendment any further.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has certainly gone a great deal of the way, but I understood him to say that on Report stage he would put down an Amendment prohibiting the sale and importation. I also understood him early in his speech to say that he would allow the eggs to be taken on arable ground if the farmer could prove—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

That has been withdrawn.

VISOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thank the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I hope the noble Lord does not think that any of us are committing ourselves to support the Amendment. I am pretty certain that I shall be bound to oppose it.

LORD HURCOMB

I am anxious not to quarrel unduly with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, but I thought the general feeling of your Lordships was that importation should be prohibited.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

The sense of the Committee quite clearly is that we want the law to stay as it is as regards taking the egg of the plover—not for sale, but taking it. Is not the simpler thing to do to let this Amendment go through and ask the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, to put down on the Report stage the Amendment which he has suggested and which would prohibit importation and sale? I think that is much more convenient and would express the sense of the Committee after a very full and informed debate.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Could the noble Lord make it quite clear what the position under GATT and these various other laws would be if he starts prohibiting imports?

LORD HURCOMB

I think, without being an expert in this matter, that our discretion to control the import of birds, game or eggs is amply protected by our own legislation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Extension of prohibition of sale of dead wild geese.

2.—(1) The prohibition imposed by section 6(1) of the principal Act on a person's selling, offering for sale or having in his possession for sale a dead wild goose, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section 10 of that Act, shall, instead of being limited to the period in any year commencing with 28th February and ending with 31st August, have effect throughout each year.

5.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert: "Subject to the provisions of this section." The noble Viscount said: I have drawn this Amendment to allow wild geese to be sold by a person if he can prove to the officer appointed by the Secretary of State that the circumstances are exceptional. With the greater protection afforded to wild geese, certain species have increased and are likely to increase further to very great numbers. But wild geese can be destructive to crops, and of course they are usually found in isolated areas. A farmer may have to shoot a great number of geese, and if he is in an isolated area what is he to do with them? Is he going to bury them? Suppose that he shot 100 geese over a period of ten days or a fortnight, in order to protect his crop—has he to drive around the country for hundreds of miles trying to give these birds to friends? This is an extremely wide Amendment, because it is expedient that such authority should be given, but only in exceptional circumstances; and, of course, they would have to be highly exceptional circumstances. It seems extremely wasteful, if a farmer, or anyone else has to shoot geese to protect a crop, that he should have to bury a large number of them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will not be willing to accept this Amendment, on the grounds, first, that it is undesirable and, secondly, that it is unworkable. It is undesirable because it is driving a coach-and-four through the principles of the Bill that I introduced in your Lordships' House two years ago and which your Lordships were kind enough to pass, although it unfortunately had not time to go through another place. That Bill was designed to remove the commercialisation from the shooting of wild geese. If this were to be allowed, it would mean once more that we should get people shooting geese ostensibly to protect their crops, but actually for the sake of the money they would make from the sale of them.

The second reason is that this proposal would be quite unworkable. The noble Viscount has said that the Secretary of State would be asked to give authority only in exceptional circumstances—the exceptional circumstances being, he suggested, where a farmer had to kill a hundred geese over a period of, say, ten days. It would be highly undesirable that any such slaughter should take place, and in any case it would be quite unnecessary, because the best way to keep geese off crops is not to shoot them but, as I said during the Second Reading debate, by the putting up of garish barrels and hides, from which, if an odd shot or two is fired at the geese, they will shy away in future.

Suppose that a man in a remote part of the country has shot his 100 geese over the ten days, is he going to telephone or write to the Secretary of State in Scotland—where it will normally be—saying, "Please, I have 100 geese that I want to sell"? I think that, before the mills of the Government Departments had ground out the answer to that one, most of the geese would be in such a state that they would not find a purchaser, except possibly for manure. The Amendment is neither desirable nor workable, and I hope that it will not prove acceptable to your Lordships.

LORD BOWLES

There is a recognisable class of purpose, because noble Lords will remember that the only licence granted in these cases for dead wild geese is for educational or scientific research. Otherwise, they are not allowed to be sold. But if the Committee conclude that there are grounds, other than educational or scientific, for which a sale in certain cases should be permitted under licence, it might be appropriate to amend Clause 7 so as to extend the licensing provisions in Section 10 of the principal Act. So far as the Government are concerned, there is no evidence of a need for relaxation of the restrictions imposed under the clause.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I read in The Times about five years ago something which I expect most of your Lordships probably read, about a gentleman in Northern Canada who turned some radar apparatus on to geese on the shore. I do not know how he did it, but he was a scientist, so I suppose he did it properly; and he discovered that there were very few of the birds in front of him that had not got shot somewhere in their bodies. I think I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, to the report at the time. That shows what geese are having to endure at the present time, and I very much hope that this Amendment will not be accepted.

LORD HURCOMB

The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, convinced your Lordships on this matter some two or three years ago and I hope he has convinced you again this afternoon. I entirely support him.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

In regard to geese that are ringed, Mr. Peter Scott, when he was catching geese by rocket net for the purpose of ringing, put all geese through a fluoroscope to see how many were carrying pellets, and I believe it was found that some 70 per cent. did carry them. So what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said is absolutely justified, and that is another reason for resisting the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My only object in suggesting this Amendment was that the geese, if they were shot, should not be wasted from the point of view of food. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that the farmer would have to telephone Edinburgh, but of course the Secretary of State would appoint the local authority, the magistrate or the chairman of the bench of the area. But I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Disturbance of nesting birds

3.—(1) Subject to this section, if any person wilfully disturbs any wild bird included in Schedule 1 to the principal Act (wild birds protected by special penalties) while it is on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young of any such bird he shall be guilty of an offence against that Act and liable to a special penalty under that Act.

5.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

The point of this Amendment is to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 3, which relates only to the Schedule 1 birds in the principal Act—that is, the rare birds. If we strike out this subsection it leaves the rest of the clause to apply to bird sanctuaries where wilful disturbance of all wild birds will be an offence. I do not see that it is practicable to leave subsection (1) in the Bill. It would be very difficult to enforce. There might be opportunity to enforce it in a bird sanctuary, which is a comparatively small area, but it would be quite impossible to enforce over the whole country, and that would merely bring the law into disrepute. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (1).—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD HURCOMB

I think that I might, without any breach of confidence, tell your Lordships the substance of the advisory committee's view on this proposal. They gave it very careful consideration, and they thought, on the whole, that the creation of an offence of disturbance should play an important part in publicity and education on the grave ill-effects of disturbance to breeding birds. From my own experience, I would say that that is a very sensible view. If your Lordships look at the list of birds in the First Schedule you will see that many of them are birds of prey which are becoming rarer and rarer, while many others are birds that only occasionally nest in this country. The presence of these birds is largely known to ornithologists, and a great many people and organisations, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, take special action, often at great expense, to watch the area in which they are nesting.

Though I think there is an undoubted point in what the noble Viscount has said about the difficulty of detecting this offence up and down the country, I do not think we should exaggerate that difficulty, for the reasons I have given. The birds are rare. Many of them appear very rarely and very infrequently, and there are a great many competent organisations which make it a special business to look after them. Some of your Lordships who may live in Sussex or thereabouts may remember that a few years ago some bee-eaters turned up and nested in a sandpit. They were, in fact, a good deal disturbed in spite of all the precautions taken; but unless very special precautions had been taken they would all have failed to nest successfully. If it had been an offence to disturb them it would have been the greatest help to the landowner who wanted to keep people away, and to the local authority, who wanted to stop people standing about the roadside, and so on.

I do not think your Lordships should exaggerate the difficulties of this subsection or underestimate its value, about which, as I have said, I think the advisory committee came to a very sensible conclusion. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount's apprehensions that this provision may be a dead letter will be ill-founded. It will certainly have a good educational effect and strengthen the hands of those trying to give some protection to these rare birds.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment, although I found it fascinating to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. It is rather like Satan rebuking sin for him to accept specific birds for protection when he was not prepared to accept a proposal that other specific birds should have their eggs protected. The same plea that the noble Viscount has made on this clause is the plea that was made by Lord Hurcomb on Clause 1 earlier. I have known of birds being disturbed by photographers and driven off their nests. I think this is of real importance, and I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My only reason for putting this Amendment down was, as I think I said on Second Reading, that this appears to be a rather untidy clause, rather fussy—perhaps that it not quite the correct description: at any rate, it appears very difficult to enforce. But of course I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and all of your Lordships, am extremely anxious to preserve these birds. I hope that perhaps on the Report stage the drafting of this clause may be improved, because at present it is rather untidy. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

This Amendment deals with the special penalty for an offence. Under Section 12(2) of the principal Act a special penalty is a fine not exceeding £25, or imprisonment not exceeding one month for a first offence and three months for subsequent offences. It really seems rather absurd to send a man to prison for disturbing a bird. To-day we have some extremely violent crimes, and frequently those people involved in them are not sent to prison. If people are going to be sent to prison for disturbing a bird, it seems to me completely illogical. If we leave these words out we still have the penalty of £5, which I think is ample. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 22.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD HURCOMB

I do not think that these Amendments raise any great question of principle. I confess that it is the draftsman rather than myself who is responsible for the wording. But it seems to me that he has been logical in saying that an offence against a First Schedule bird should carry the First Schedule penalty; and what convinces me that he was right to leave it in that form was the particular argument that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, urged with a good deal of force on Second Reading, that the Act ought to be as uncomplicated as possible, and should not propose in different places different ways of treating more or less the same subject.

Apart from that, these penalties are maxima; and is it not better, and more in accordance with what your Lordships generally wish to do, to leave it to the courts to apportion the blame or the penalty according to the gravity of the offence, rather than for us to try to tell them in too much detail what they are to do. Though, as I say, I do not think that these words are of fundamental importance, on these grounds I should hope that the noble Viscount would be content to leave the Bill as it is.

LORD SALTOUN

Is not the operative word in this clause "wilfully"? If a man is protecting a bird—say a bittern—and says to a stray couple, "Please do not go along there. There is a bittern nesting there", and they treat that with contempt and go on and disturb the bird, surely a £5 penalty is rather a light one, especially when one thinks how little £5 means in these days?

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It might be borne in mind that the people who are committing these offences are likely to be professional photographers and film men who make substantial amounts out of the resulting photographs or films. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, these are maximum penalties; and as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, it will be a question of applying the word "wilfully". Therefore, I think that these heavier penalties are absolutely justified; they certainly would not be implemented unless the bench or sheriff was convinced that the offence was a gross one.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

In view of what your Lordships have said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Use of poisonous substances, electrical devices &c.

5.—

(2) In section 10(1)(d) of the principal Act (under which a licence may be granted authorising the use of poisoned or stupefying bait for the purpose of killing wild birds included in Schedule 2 to that Act) for the reference to poisoned or stupefying bait there shall be substituted a reference to any poisoned, poisonous or stupefying substance; and that paragraph shall have effect as if it contained a reference to gas.

(3) In section 5(4) of the principal Act (which permits the use of nets, other than rocket-propelled nets, for certain purposes) and in section 10(1)(e) of that Act (under which a licence may be granted authorising the use of rocket-propelled nets for certain purposes) the reference to rocket-propelled nets shall include a reference to cannon nets and mist nets.

(4) In the last foregoing subsection "mist nets" means any net made from thread of 250 denier or less which is designed to catch birds in flight.

6.5 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB moved to add to subsection (2): and to the use of any net for taking birds in flight and a cannon net for taking birds on the ground.

The noble Lord said: It may be convenient if I take the next two Amendments together. They are closely allied. The second one gives effect to the undertaking I gave your Lordships on Second Reading, to substitute for the words which then appeared in the Bill a more satisfactory way of defining a mist net. For various technical reasons, it seems better not to try to define it at all but to deal with the matter in this alternative way, which prohibits the use of nets of all sorts except under licence.

The other Amendment I have put down at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture, in order that they may continue to have the right to use nets to deal with birds which are named in the Second Schedule as pests. Many of the bodies which I represent, and I myself, would have great qualms about that if it meant that the Ministry of Agriculture would be free to license anybody up and down the country to hang up nets, on the ground that they were going to catch a pest species—and, of course, interfere with a great many other creatures, not only birds but perhaps bats, in the process of doing so. But that is not the intention, and I am assured by the Ministry of Agriculture that they will be most careful in the way they issue these licences, that they will be given only to people who are specially experienced and skilled, and that the operations will indeed often be conducted under the supervision of Ministry officials themselves. In addition to all that, the Minister of Agriculture is bound to consult the advisory committees from time to time as to the way in which this licensing power is used. Therefore, I feel that this is a useful way of facilitating what is the necessary control of birds which are harmful to agriculture and fisheries. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hurcomb.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

May I ask the noble Lord one question on this? I entirely agree with him on this Amendment, but is "in flight" intended to exclude the sort of net which is used for catching roosting sparrows and the like, and which is still used to a considerable extent on farms which are plagued with sparrows?

LORD HURCOMB

I think the words "in flight" are used in contradistinction to birds on the ground. The noble Earl is thinking of something that is in a roost?

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Yes. It is common practice in some places to hold a net up, the birds fly into the net, and you pick them out and wring their necks.

LORD HURCOMB

I will ask the legal experts what they think about that. I should have thought that if they are not on the ground, they are fairly held to be or to have been in flight. I should have thought they were covered. But there may be a point here, which I will gladly look into.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HURCOMB

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("purposes)") to end of line 45 and insert ("for the reference to the use of a rocket-propelled net there shall be substituted a reference to the use of any net for taking birds in fight and the use of any rocket-propelled or cannon net for taking birds on the ground").—(Lord Hurcomb.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like a little clarification on this. I have no objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, as it stands, but I should like to ask him whether it covers the fascinating sport which has not yet become acclimatised here, but which takes place in Japan. One has very cunningly contrived leads for ducks. One takes one's friends to cunningly constructed "hides" close to the water and gives them all very large nets, like landing nets, with very small handles. The birds are then put into flight and the guests try to capture the ducks as they rise from the water. I am told that very few ducks are taken in this way, but that the sport is very exciting. I imagine that this Amendment would rule out any possibility of our adopting the Japanese method of taking ducks in this way.

LORD HURCOMB

If the noble Lord will come and attempt this process on the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens, will go to watch him. I shall probably organise a demonstration against it. It does not seem to me to be a very good form of sport, and would appear to be one which might lend itself to great abuse. I should have thought that it was in fact "taking a bird in flight" and would be prohibited by the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

This Amendment seeks to delay this clause from becoming law until six months has expired from the passing of this Bill. The reason is that Clause 5 proposes to substitute for the words "poisoned or stupefying bait", used in the principal Act, the words "poisoned, poisonous or stupefying substance", in this Bill. This, of course, is a wider expression and may consequently permit a wider range of substances. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture are engaged in experiments on substances of this nature for pest control. Accordingly, I should have thought that legislation in this matter is premature. Therefore, I feel that it would be advisable to delay the operation of the clause for six months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 45, at end add— ("( ) This section shall come into force on such day (not being earlier than six months from the passing of this Act) as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD BOWLES

The effect of the second part of subsection (1) of the clause is to extend the definition of "stupefying or poisoned bait" to include poisonous substances or gas, so as to make subject to licensing newly developed techniques of controlling harmful birds by thermal fogging inside buildings. These techniques are not at present regulated by the Act. The Agricultural Department see no reason why they should not be brought under control immediately. The Amendment would also postpone bringing under control nets such as cannon nets and mist nets used to catch birds in flight. The risks of inflicting suffering on birds by the use of these nets are already known, and there is no reason why these methods should not also be brought under control without delay. The position is that when the Bill becomes an Act it becomes operative six months after its passing. This Amendment, proposed by the noble Viscount, suggests that it should be done by the Secretary of State on a day appointed by him. It is a delaying tactic, and the Government feel that the delay in this particular regard is unwarranted.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Special protection in severe weather

6.—

(4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult— (c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of wildfowl.

6.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved in subsection (4)(c), to leave out "wildfowl" and insert: birds of the species proposed to be protected under the order

The noble Viscount said: Clause 6 deals with the special orders to protect wildfowl in severe weather. I have put down this Amendment because under Schedule 3 to the principal Act one finds other birds apart from wildfowl—for instance, the capercaillie, the woodcock, the snipe and many others. I consider that my wording, "birds of the species proposed to be protected under the order" is an improvement. "Wildfowl" does not cover all the birds described in Schedule 3 to the prinicpal Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, leave out ("wildfowl") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD HURCOMB

Here again, I do not think that this is a point of great importance or great substance. Again I have been influenced by the arguments adduced by the noble Lord himself on Second Reading for keeping everything as simple as possible. I feel that if, as I hope, the representative appointed under this clause to represent those interested in wildfowl will be a member of the Wild-fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, he will have a simple, clear view of the general conditions affecting all the classes of birds included in the Schedule.

On the other hand, I must admit that the noble Lord has hit on a special case in the capercaillie, and possibly also the woodcock. I should have thought that any experienced wildfowler would know enough about the conditions affecting woodcock to be able to give sensible advice, or to know whom to go to for such advice. It is perhaps a matter on which the views of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, would be more valuable than my own, because I suspect that upon him will fall the burden of selecting this representative. But if there is any substance in the point I do not wish to resist some alteration in the wording. Whether the precise wording of the noble Viscount is right would be a matter for the draftsmen. If the noble Viscount feels that the matter is of sufficient substance for it to be pressed, then, subject to any views Lord Mansfield may express, I shall not resist the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It had not been my intention to say anything on this Amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I do not think that it is of great importance. I do not think it is likely to affect many birds outside wildfowl themselves, certainly not the capercaillie. There may be a certain amount of substance in the Amendment in regard to birds like woodcock and snipe, which on occasions are badly affected by wintry conditions. One might take as an example a small stream which is the only unfrozen water in a neighbourhood and where snipe congregate, often in a very weak condition. Therefore, although, as I have said, I do not regard the matter as of very great importance, on the whole I should be rather inclined to come down in favour of the Amendment.

LORD BOWLES

I am advised that there is no real objection to this Amendment, but it seems unlikely that it will make any difference in practice. The weather conditions in which the making of an order under Clause 6 would be justified, are likely to be such as would make it inappropriate to select a few species only for protection. Since nearly all the species of birds in Schedule 3 to the 1954 Act are, in common parlance, wildfowl, any proposal to make an order under the clause would be of major interest to wildfowlers and it is appropriate that a representative of this sport should be consulted. This representative would probably be the Chairman of the Wild-fowlers' Association.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

The only danger that I can foresee, is that with a bird like a woodcock, which inhabits woodland, a protection order might be made, and then when a pheasant shoot was going on somebody might shoot a woodcock without realising he was committing an offence. But in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, have said, about rewording this; and I understood the noble Lord to say that he would perhaps take it into consideration—

LORD BOWLES

No, I did not take any responsibility for that, or, I hope, say so. This is not a Government Bill. It is a Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and he said that he was going to consult the draftsmen on this Amendment. Any Amendment would probably come from him.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

The point is that the Bill authorises the making of orders for a special part of the country. I agree that usually it would be inappropriate to do that, so far as the woodcock is concerned inside the country, but I understand that sometimes at places like Spurn Point, during storms and very severe weather, large numbers of woodcock—many hundreds, or even thousands—come in and lie exhausted in the sand dunes for some time before being able to proceed with their journey. It might well be that an order to cover them for such areas would be justifiable.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I hope that the noble Viscount will press this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, could put down something else on Report stage, but certainly I am inclined to think that the Amendment is better than the Bill.

LORD HURCOMB

If the noble Viscount's Amendment were accepted, then its drafting might require looking at and might require some further Amendment on Report. I ought perhaps to have reminded him that, when we are thinking about the expert knowledge which will be brought to bear on this subject, apart from the representative of the wildfowlers, the two other representatives will be a member of the advisory committee—which has a very wide knowledge of the way in which weather conditions affect wildfowl—and a representative of the Nature Conservancy, who no doubt will be equally expert. So that, as the noble Lord speaking for the Government said, the Amendment is very unlikely to make any difference in practice. But if the noble Viscount prefers to amend the Bill, I shall not resist him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

6.24 p.m.

LORD MARAGADALE

I said a little on Second Reading in regard to the content of this clause. I hope, that I shall claim the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, when I say that I am not very happy about this compulsory temporary close season in the course of hard weather. Our climate throughout Great Britain varies vastly. It is very different from Cornwall to Inverness, or back again to Cumberland and to the East Coast; and, as I see it, there are going to be a great many muddles and difficulties, if we are not careful in the course of framing this Bill, which is additional to the 1954 Act.

I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps consider excluding this clause from his Bill, because I believe that it will be increasingly easy to educate the sportsman of various sorts, through his associations, to see that there are no slaughters. We all want to stop those slaughters in every way possible, but by voluntary agreement, for in the end that will do more good than a compulsory order. I know that it is possible to quote here and now unfortunate instances of the thoughtless person who has unfairly taken advantage of hard weather, and produced a ridiculously large bag, but I think that is only a very small exception. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will consider my Amendment to leave out the clause and see if he cannot put the Bill on a voluntary basis, which in the end will, I believe, do more good.

LORD SALTOUN

May I say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Margadale? All my life my home has been in a part of the country where woodcock always land. As your Lordships all know, they land quite exhausted after a long flight, as they still do around my house, and of course we never touch them. Then they go up-country, where they feed and get fat; then, when hard weather comes up-country, a good many of them come back and we have our woodcock shoot. That is all right and that is perfectly fair and proper, especially as one does not kill an enormous number of woodcock. I rather feel that, if a sudden spell of hard weather is going to make illegal all the woodcock shooting on coastlands, you will find that people who are more unscrupulous than I hope we shall ever be will be very apt, before the hard weather comes, to massacre the woodcock on landing; and that would be worse than anything.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will retain this clause. To leave it out, I believe, would be highly undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Margadale, appears to have overlooked subsection (2): An order under this section may be made with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain. As Lord Margadale has said, the climate of Britain varies enormously, sometimes even within the confines of a few miles. It would obviously be ridiculous to make an order prohibiting the shooting of wildfowl over the whole country just because, say, the North-East coast had been frost-ridden and frostbound for many weeks, whereas the South-West might still be enjoying quite mild conditions.

The people who are most enthusiastic about supporting this clause are the wild-fowlers themselves, and I should like to point out to your Lordships—though think it is hardly necessary—what the procedure would be. Of the members forming the committee there is, first, a person appointed for the purposes of this section by the appropriate advisory committee "— that is the one for Scotland or England, as the case may be— the Nature Conservancy"— which again, presumably, means one from each of the countries—and, third, a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of wildfowl. I think it can be taken as pretty well axiomatic, that the last representative would be a representative of the Wild-fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, of which I have the honour to be President, because we have nearly 200 associations in the country, and there are only a handful of reputable clubs who do not belong to us.

We are in a completely unique position so far as obtaining information is concerned, and we work very closely with the Nature Conservancy and, when required, with the advisory committees. During the last bad winter of 1962–63, the time came when the Wildfowlers' Association, off their own bat, issued a request to all their clients that their members should refrain from shooting wildfowl unless they were certain that they were in good condition and, therefore, both fit objects for sport and fit objects to eat. We can get in touch at a few hours' notice—often immediately—with the secretaries or chairmen of most of these organisations throughout the country. The result is that we should be in a position to get in touch with the Nature Conservancy and the advisory committees, and say to them, "Conditions in this or that area are getting so bad that we think action ought to be taken". And that is undoubtedly what would be done.

I do not think that we ought to leave it to the voluntary principle, because although, if everyone behaved like sportsmen, there would admittedly be no need for it, there have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, himself admits, incidents where unscrupulous persons have killed vast numbers of wildfowl, which are in some cases quite unable to fly, purely for the sake of making money. Unless we have this clause included in the Bill, such reprehensible behaviour cannot be hindered at all, let alone prevented. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will resist the deletion of this clause, and that the Committee will support him.

LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON

I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, a question about this clause. In hard weather, and on the advice of these bodies, will the Secretary of State be able to prohibit in respect of certain birds in that list, or will be have to preserve the whole list? If he wishes merely to preserve wildfowl—ducks and geese—it is perfectly arguable that this is a good clause, but conditions in regard to some of the other birds are quite different. The noble Lord talked about snipe. Snipe might possibly come into it, although it is very doubtful; but woodcock and capercaillie are in quite a different position. If wording could be added so that the Secretary of State can, on the advice of these learned bodies, schedule or cover certain of these birds, and not the whole list together, I think it would be much more desirable.

LORD HURCOMB

I will check that point. I would have said, offhand, that the wording of the clause, which says, … any wild birds included in Schedule 3 … should be protected would mean that the birds could be specified. It is possible, as I think the noble Viscount said, that the capercaillie and the woodcock may be in a special position; but, generally speaking, these severe conditions in which not only the lakes and the rivers but the estuarial mud is frozen affect nearly all wildfowl and all waders. But I will certainly make sure that there is power to make an exception in the order, although I cannot myself think that there is much doubt that there is such power.

On the other point, I need not really add to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, except that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, to this extent, that it is very important that the power should be used with discretion, and particularly with regard to the parts of the country to which it is applied. Another point is that, remembering the experiences of the last hard winter, I should like members of the Committee to bear in mind the actual conditions which prevailed around London or within reach of the Midlands. It is very different if one is thinking of the Outer Hebrides, or of great areas in the centre of Scotland; but, now, anybody can get a gun and anybody can jump into a motor car and be down on the coast within an hour and a half, and they do it and blaze away at anything they see. I myself, though I am not a wildfowler, agree entirely with the wildfowlers themselves, that it would be wise to take this power. It may be possible, if we have a winter of only little severity, for them to say, "We will give the voluntary system yet another trial." That can be discussed and considered by this group and the advisory committees; but I do feel, with the wildfowlers themselves, that it would be a very good thing to arm the Secretaries of State with this power now, before we are in another crisis. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

May I just add to what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said? I was informed last week by the secretary of one of the Solway wildfowl associations that it was no uncommon thing during the winter for a 30 or 40-seater charabanc to come to the Solway from the industrial area South of the Border and disgorge an equivalent number of, I will not call them sportsmen but gunners, who immediately spread out over the moors and shot at practically anything, in or out of range.

LORD BOWIES

I wonder whether I might point out that Clause 10(2) of this Bill disapplies the provisions of Section 13, subsection (2) to subsection (5), of the principal Act, which prescribes a more protracted procedure for consultation preceding the making of the orders under the Act. I rather had the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Margadale, thought there would be too much delay. Might I say that, under the simplified procedure in subsection (4) of the clause, there would be no undue administrative delays of the kind suggested by the noble Lord.

The timetable envisaged would be as follows. If severe weather conditions occur, the proposal to ban shooting will be considered as soon as seawater freezes in the estuaries and inter-tidal zones. At the end of the fourteen days, the aim would be to complete, within three days of the necessary consultations, submission to the Secretary of State, and the preparation and publication of an order banning shooting for a period not exceeding fourteen days. Publicity would be given by broadcast and announcement in the Press, and the wildfowl associations would informally co-operate by sending notifications to the wildfowlers' clubs. During the ban, the position would be kept under review, and if there was no improvement a further ban would be considered to run consecutively from the end of the first.

LORD BURTON

I do hope that my noble friend Lord Margadale will not press for the deletion of this clause, for, even though the Wildfowlers' Association circulated their members, this certainly did not seem to diminish the amount of shooting going on round the coast in my area in early 1963. Furthermore, long after we had stopped shooting woodcock because they were too weak and thin, I heard of other people making very large bags of woodcock in early 1963, which was a great pity. I do feel that the Bill as it stands is what should be.

LORD MARGADALE

I shall not press for the omission of this clause. In doing so, may I say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, will look at the schedule of the birds with webbed feet and the ones without webbed feet which I think are applicable, as he kindly said he would.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Additional matters for which licences may be granted]:

6.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved to add to subsection (1): (c) in the course of falconry, within any area specified in the licence to kill wild birds of any description so specified by flying birds of prey of any description so specified".

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to amend the 1954 Act to permit falconers to fly their hawks at quarry natural to them. The 1954 Act empowered the Home Secretary to grant licences so that falconers could catch birds of prey—birds of prey, of course, already protected under that Act—for the purpose of falconry. However, the Act, by limiting the quarry that the falcons can be flown at, has resulted in a severe limitation of falconry.

There are four basic birds of prey used in this country for falconry. We have the long-winged falcons, which comprise the peregrine and the goshawk and the short-winged falcons, which are the merlin and the sparrow hawk. Falconers with the two larger birds, the peregrine and the goshawk, can still find plenty of legal quarry, because they can go and hawk game birds. They can hawk rooks and rabbits, and even squirrels. But in the case of the smaller hawks, the sparrow hawk and the merlin, they cannot any longer fly them at their natural quarry. The natural quarry of the sparrow hawk is chiefly the blackbird and the finch, and that of the merlin, the lark. Somewhat naturally, falcons are no respecters of man-made laws, and a falconer may take his merlin out and, in trying to abide by the law, may put it at a starling; but the hawk may have other ideas and probably will not go for the starling but will career off and kill, perhaps, a lark a mile away. Of course the falconer has broken the law; but you cannot blame him, because, obviously, falcons are no respecters of our laws.

The other point is this. A rich man may enjoy his sport because he can buy the peregrine and the goshawk, which are extremely expensive large hawks, and he can also, if he wishes, take a grouse moor on a big estate and can indulge in his sport to his heart's content; but we now have a great number of artisan and poorer falconers. If they are not allowed to fly their hawks at their natural quarry it will spoil their sport. It seems rather unjust. Of course, there are certain things, such as a Rolls-Royce, which the rich man will always have and the poor man never. But it seems wrong, by legislation, to make the man who cannot afford to hawk game birds have his sport spoiled by not being allowed to fly his hawks at their natural quarry. I understand that the advisory committee to the Home Secretary were unanimous in their advice to remove this anomaly by a suggested Amendment in the 1954 Act, but apparently it did not come to pass.

The number of birds killed by the falcon is small, because falconers, as a band, are comparatively few in number; but they are increasing, and particularly among the poorer type. Also, they usually indulge in their sport only at the week-ends, so the number of birds they kill is extremely small compared to the number killed by the wild falcon. The trained falcon will perhaps kill only 10 per cent. of the number killed by the wild falcon. Therefore, from an ornithological point of view, it cannot have any effect on the common wild bird population. It is also rather absurd that while a falconer can obtain a licence from the Home Secretary to take a very uncommon bird like a falcon for training, he is, at the same time, denied the right to fly his hawk at the right quarry, lark or blackbird, which comes within the list of common wild birds. In the hope that this may be rectified in this Bill, I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 35 at end insert— ("(c) in the course of falconry, within any area specified in the licence to kill wild birds of any description so specified by flying birds of prey of any description so specified").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

LORD SALTOUN

When I was a young man I spent a lot of time learning about this sport, although I was never able to practise it. I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. If you keep a merlin and hawk a lot, the effect on the lark population will not be very great, however successful you may be. Suppose, however, that in Spring you say: "I am in such danger of breaking the law that I will release my haggard falcon merlin and let it free." You could not release a bird you had had from an eyas, for it would probably kill itself; but a wild-caught bird would survive, and the effect on the lark population would probably be ten times as much in the course of a season as would be the effect of the most successful hawking season. So, in mercy to the lark, it might be a good thing to accept this Amendment.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

As one who was a practising falconer and hopes to have the leisure to be one again, I would support my noble friend, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on this particular Amendment. The larger hawks have a very wide range of quarry, but you cannot teach a bird to chase a particular quarry. It is the intricate checks and balances of nature which decide what they will go after. The smaller native hawk, like the merlin and the sparrow hawk, have in fact a very small choice of quarry, and if you deny this Amendment you will be denying the use of these two hawks to falconry, and they are the ones which are becoming more and more popular in the hands of a new class of person who is taking up hawking. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about what might be the proportion of larks or blackbirds killed by the trained hawk in human hands as compared with those killed by the hawk in the wild state. He said it would be something like 10 to 1; but I think the proportion is more likely to be 50 to 1.

LORD AIREDALE

Since this Amendment appears to have support, I hope the noble Viscount who moved it will not press it in its present form. The wording is extremely defective, and it ought to be withdrawn at this stage and reintroduced with different wording at the next stage. I cannot help feeling that were the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, here he would be horrified at the actual wording of the Amendment. What this Amendment begins to say is: that a licence may be granted "in the course of falconry,". I cannot think that that is really what is intended. Then the Amendment, having specified an area, uses the expression "so specified" later on. But that does not refer to the area at all; it refers to the kind of birds that may be killed. Further on the expression "so specified" is again used, but it refers this time neither to the area specified nor to the birds which may be killed and have been specified, but to the birds which may be killed by the birds which have been specified. I hope the noble Viscount will look at the wording again. No doubt the spirit of the Amendment is excellent, but it should not be introduced into the Bill in its present form.

LORD HURCOMB

This is not my drafting. I will certainly ask the Parliamentary draftsmen to have a look at it. I do not want to argue at length the merits of this Amendment. It is true that it was recommended by the advisory com mittee, although I think it would be going too far to say they were unanimous. The reason why I did not include it myself in the Bill was, in the first place, because a great many people, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have very great doubts whether this is the appropriate moment at which to do anything to encourage the taking of merlins for falconry. As I said in another connection this afternoon, all birds of prey in the whole of Western Europe are in extreme danger of becoming very rare or even extinct. I do not think I could go the whole way with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and suggest that flying the kestrel and the merlin is going to become a sort of democratic sport. The other point is that the practice of falconry with these small hawks needs special care.

What induces me to accept the Amendment is the fact that the licences can be confined to specified areas. I think that is important, because if falconers were to go out on to common land—common land around London, for example—and fly their hawks at skylarks, a great many people would feel outraged. Others would say; "If he is allowed to go and kill the skylark for amusement in that way, why should I not be allowed to trap it and put it in a cage?"

Once or twice when driving through Richmond Park recently I have been struck by the sight of a number of London people and London children who had got out of their cars to see and hear a skylark singing in the sky. They were absolutely thrilled, and if someone had flown a hawk at the bird and killed it I think that there would have been a popular outcry. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Viscount that this is a traditional sport. It is practised by responsible falconers, many of whom are excellent naturalists and conservationists themselves. If great care is exercised in the use of the licensing power, I do not think it will give rise to any serious abuse, and it will certainly not cause any serious diminution of the lark or pipit populations. I think the Amendment may very well be accepted.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for the generous way he has received this Amendment. It is, of course, quite true that if someone flew a merlin at a skylark in Hyde Park, or somewhere like that, it would probably cause a riot. But while we have falconry and it is perfectly legal, we cannot differentiate between the two types of falconers. That was the point of my Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move:

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraphs (a) and (c)").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

6.52 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:

Amendment of Section 12 of principal Act

". In subsection (1) of section 12 of the principal Act for the words from A constable may' to 'may then be' there shall be substituted the words If a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a person is committing or has committed on any land an offence against this Act, he may enter that land and without warrant stop and search any such person and any vehicle, boat or pack-animal which that person may be'".

The noble Lord said: I shall spend only a short time on moving this Amendment. I think it is appropriate and very clear. Before I do so, may I say how sorry I was that I could not take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, as I had myself to take wings and fly to Aberdeen. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for the kind things he said about the earlier Act of 1954 which was largely undertaken by myself and my noble relative in another place. It took a long time—nineteen Parliamentary days—to get it through. For interest, I counted the number of words, and discovered that nearly 200,000 words were uttered in the course of the proceedings on the Bill before it became an Act. Several noble Lords who took part are taking part in our debate to-day and going back over a lot of old and interesting ground which is strongly reminiscent of those days.

A great advantage of the Act, as I think anyone who listened to the discussion will agree, is that it has shown the sportsmen and protectionists that their interests are mutual. The Act has worked well, and I think that it could be made to work better—which, of course, is the object of this Bill. There is one singular stumbling block to the enforcement of its provisions, and that is the point of my Amendment. It relates to the whole question of the extension of the powers of search, powers which are given extremely sparingly in this country—and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, went so far as to say, during the debate on Second Reading, that a police power to search on suspicion would appear to many people as an unacceptable encroachment on fundamental civil liberty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 78), col. 592, May 20, 1965.]

But would it? I can understand that that was his first reaction, but I trust that the Government will have a second reaction and think about this further.

We have written into the Amendment that a constable, before he sets out on his search, must show reasonable cause. If he brings a case later, he will have to stand up in court and show that the cause is reasonable. He will not do this lightly. This is not a thing that will affect the generality of the people in the country: it will affect only a tiny section, that tiny anti-social section of absolutely ruthless collectors who will stop at nothing, because rare birds are valuable. These people generally have fairly long purses and can travel to where the rare birds are. As has been said, the whereabouts of the rarest birds is pretty well known. Everyone knows that the kites live in the Towy Valley, in Wales; while the osprey lives in Scotland, and the avocet on Havergate Island, in East Anglia.

A stumbling block to the enforcement of the law as it now stands is that under the existing law a person may be arrested without a warrant when found committing an offence: but if he has climbed down the tree from the osprey's nest, or the kite's nest and was not seen taking the eggs, he cannot be approached and searched. Men like that, who ruthlessly pursue their objective, are not going to take those eggs or molest the birds when they know that people are watching. They are going to do so under cover of darkness and will never be caught within the ambit of the present law. I hope that your Lordships will give sympathetic consideration to this important Amendment, which I think would remove the last stumbling block to the better enforcement of the measure.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9, insert the said clause.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)

LORD HURCOMB

May I say how much I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir? This is the most important Amendment that we have considered this afternoon, and its acceptance would do much to enable effect to be given to the clear intention of the existing Act. As he has said, if this were a proposal affecting the mass of the people, or a great number of people, I should share all the dislike which most of your Lordships have for any apparent encroachment on the rights of the subject. In this case that is not so. The Amendment affects a very limited number of people who are determined to break the law, and who quite knowingly, break the law. They are well equipped with money and get about to the remote haunts of many of these birds in order to complete their collections.

I feel that there would be no real infringement of the general principles of the law, or the protection of ordinary individuals, and there would undoubtedly be an immense encouragement to those who want to protect our wild life if this principle were accepted in this case. In the course of the Second Reading, I suggested that if it would make the position of the Government any easier we might consider limiting the right of search to suspected offences in connection with the taking of eggs, because that is what really matters. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord who speaks for the Government will not reject this Amendment, and if he and his colleagues wish to give it further consideration they will take into consideration the limited application which I have just suggested.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

As my noble friend has said, this Amendment is of prime importance, because in almost every case nowadays the offender who is on someone's land for the purpose of taking eggs is doing so not for his own collection but for the purpose of sale. Unfortunately, there is still a large sale in this country for rare British birds' eggs, even though in many cases they are still common in many parts of the Continent. No, your collector wants to have British birds' eggs and does not care in the least if it is the last pair breeding in Britain. Therefore I hope that the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment.

LORD BURTON

I agree with my noble friend Lord Mansfield and I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, though perhaps not quite as it is worded. I agree that eggs are the main thing, but what worries me is that the Amendment says: … has committed on any land an offence against this Act, he may enter that land … The offender is probably using a car not on that land but on a road some distance away. It is most important that the police should be able to stop and search when they have reasonable suspicion that the offender has taken one of these rare birds' eggs. Consequently, I suggest that this Amendment should be looked at again and more satisfactory wording given to it.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

I will look into the matter which the noble Lord has raised, and if the present wording does not cover the point, then suitable wording will be added.

7.4 p.m.

LORD BOWLES

We have heard some realistic criticism of the present powers of the police under the Act to search persons, cars and property on suspicion. We have also heard some illustrations of the circumstances where the absence of wider powers means that offenders go unchecked and even undetected. The Government accept that, in the nature of things, the enforcement of the protection of wild birds and their eggs is difficult. The number of persons who commit offences on private land without being observed is considerable. Because of other demands on their efforts, the attention of the police to this challenge has had to be limited. Voluntary organisations have played a very considerable part in securing effective compliance with the Act, and we are glad to acknowledge this.

When the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds argue that the police should be given wider powers, their views must be heard with respect. Nevertheless, the Government have left considerable doubt about the seriousness of this problem and I should like to underline the reasons for this. We should all, I think, accept, and perhaps more sensitively in the shadow of the recent celebration of Magna Carta, that freedom from arbitary powers of search is a fundamental civil liberty. We have to face the fact that most wild birds and their eggs are protected and there is an enormous number of wild birds around us. I would suggest that the Amendment would involve, in theory at any rate, an enormous encroachment on civil liberty. Is this justified by consideration of the actual damage to wild life?

Noble Lords, I thought, might have referred to the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1951, and the Deer (Scotland) Act, 1959. These are directed at preventing poaching. The earlier legislation was enacted when poaching involved bloodshed and murder. The more recent Acts were passed when there were indications of large-scale commercial poaching. I do not want to argue that a distinction should be brought between the protection of game and the protection of wild life, but where powers of search on suspicion are in issue it is relevant to consider whether there is evidence of large-scale depredations similar to commercial poaching, and whether there is a risk of associated offences—for example, involving armed resistance and assault. It does not seem to me that the evidence of damage put before the House to-day has been shown to be unduly serious. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, himself said during the Second Reading I think that in most respects it has been effective—for example, in stopping any extensive commercial dealing in wild birds' eggs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 78), col. 579, May 20, 1965.] He went on to say: … but the misguided, selfish and quite unscientific trophy hunters are still a menace to many of our rare and marginal species. If that is the problem, it is much less general than would seem to justify the very wide extension of powers of search proposed in the Amendment.

I have listened attentively to the views expressed and I will, of course, bring them to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I feel bound to advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment, because in the Government's view it involves an unacceptable encroachment on civil liberty and is not justified by any wider-shown need to protect the eggs of wild birds against serious depredations.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Surely this is a contradiction in terms. How can there be large-scale activities against very rare birds? That does not add up.

LORD BOWLES

Then the need for the power of search by the police seems much less necessary than was suggested in the earlier part of the debate.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I would only say that by stealing a couple of eggs someone can make a species extinct.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

So far as I can make out, the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench was reading from a prepared brief without any reference to what has been said this afternoon. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Stonehaven has just said. It does not require wholesale depredation to wipe out a species. To take the best example, it would be very easy completely to wipe out the osprey nesting in the North of Scotland, and it would be almost as easy to wipe out the kite in Wales, if protection were not given.

Leaving out the question of search on public land and on roads, I would say that this power of search means that a constable may enter land for the purpose of searching a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of an offence. That person would be found only on private land and without any justification whatever. While I entirely agree with what has been said about the liberty of the subject and unauthorised search, unless some powers of this sort are given, we shall have the continuance of this steady robbery of our rare birds which is likely to imperil the existence of more of our rarer and most valuable species. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will accept the Amendment and leave it to the Government, if they think fit, to remove it on Report stage.

LORD BOWLES

May I intervene again? It is true that I had some notes before I came to this debate. I have noticed that, quite naturally, the noble Lords who remained behind for this debate are those particularly interested in this subject, but I think that if the House was properly manned a great number of noble Lords would take on this Amendment the view of the Government that I have expressed this afternoon. I am not suggesting that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, has any desire other than to do exactly the right thing, and have this Bill enforceable and enforced—I accept that. But this House and another place would, I feel sure, be very angry if the police force were extended in this way.

I have said that I shall refer the whole of this debate to my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I feel sure that on another occasion I should have had, and the Government, too, a great deal more support than we have received from noble Lords, who, of course, are keen on seeing these birds preserved, and possibly more keen on seeing the protection of the birds—

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Than the protection of the poacher.

LORD BOWLES

—than on being concerned with the powers of the police against a person who is committing an offence.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Perhaps I may speak as one who has been somewhat critical of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and who has wished to protect the man in the street against what I look upon as the onerous demands of the ornithologists. Nevertheless, on this matter I support the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, wholeheartedly. I must confess to have been rather surprised at some of the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite. The fundamental thing about this is that he cannot expect to find a large number of offences causing a demand for powers of this sort. The very essence of our trouble here is that it is a small number of offences, and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said, three successful takings of clutches might exterminate the bird in this country. That is the real crux of the question here. We all know that the interference with the bird is not likely to be great. There are few people involved in this, and, unfortunately, there are few birds with which they can be involved. I find the arguments of the noble Lord opposite wholly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their point of view and accept the Amendment. I feel fairly certain that even the most pedantic of lawyers would be prepared to accept this.

LORD BURTON

May I suggest a compromise that might meet the Government and those who wish to introduce this Amendment—namely, that the eggs should be confined to those of the birds listed in Schedule 1, which would mean that there would be a limited need for search and it would protect only those birds that are really needed.

LORD BOWLES

I do not pretend to know anything about these birds, but I imagine that they all live a long way from large centres of population. Many noble Lords know Scotland well and have estates there. Listening to this debate, and having read what I could beforehand about this, I have the picture that these are outlying places.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Not all, by any means.

LORD BOWLES

Perhaps not all. These people are able to steal on other people's grounds, and at night we know that they would not be spotted. I do not think it is a feasible proposition to have this country manned by a police force where wild birds might be found, or only those mentioned in Schedule 1. I may be wrong, but my feeling all through this debate—I have heard a great deal, and perhaps I have learned more from this final debate than anything else—is that these areas are miles away from civilised centres, and the police would not be effective. The idea that you can have a police force in these areas, with powers of search of the individual, the car and so on, strikes me as asking for much more than is ever likely to be granted by any Government, whichever Government may be in power.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am in your Lordships' House this evening not because I have a particular interest in birds; I know very little about them. I am here because I am interested in some later business. I must say, however, that I think the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has now completely changed his ground. He started off by saying that he was afraid of the powers in this Amendment because of the large scale on which they would be used. He now says he thinks that these matters will occur only in outlying districts where the police forces will not be effective in using their powers. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. I should have thought that in the outlying districts, where it may be that the majority of these birds nest, the village policeman would know exactly where the nest is. He is the person who is likely to catch the thief at night, because probably he will know where the car has been left and will be able to discover which way the man has gone. There will be very few cases involved, and he is just the person who ought to be armed with the powers which he has not got at the moment. Either we are dealing with a small number of cases in isolated areas, with a few rare birds, or we are dealing with a widespread invasion of the liberties of the subject. The noble Lord has put forward both arguments. I think he should choose.

LORD BOWLES

If I may say so, so have noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, contradicted me when I said these were outlying places by saying, "Not all, by any means".

LORD HURCOMB

I hesitate to intervene at this late stage, but may I suggest that the Government should consider whether they cannot accept this Amendment now, and if they feel on reflection that it cannot ultimately be accepted, or perhaps should be reduced in scope, then they can put forward their points in a fuller House on the Report stage. I would urge the noble Lord, meanwhile, not to misdirect or misadvise himself. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, said, this is a problem of some magnitude, not because it is going to affect thousands of people and thousands of birds in populated areas, because it is only a very few people operating against the small population of birds.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD HURCOMB

That is the true way to measure the size of the thing, and it is quite unfair to apply the kind of yardstick which the noble Lord sought to apply.

On the other matter, may I say that, as regards these remote areas and distant counties, it has been from the chief constables of such counties that we have had the greatest help and co-operation, because they have said, and quite rightly, that their local authorities feel that the presence of a particularly interesting bird is a local asset. We have had the utmost support in defence of the osprey from the police authorities of that area. And I could quote other cases. Therefore, I do not think the Government should be deterred from considering this because occasionally the action that we shall want taken will be by a force of constables which may not be very thick on the ground. If the noble Lord would allow this Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill now, and reconsider these points and discuss them with his advisers, we can all face up to the problem again on the Report stage, when, as I say, the possibility of restricting the Amendment to smaller dimensions might be considered.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

If I may make a final contribution, I should like to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, what usually happens. Whether the area is close to a large town, or whether it is in a remote valley of Wales or Scotland, the place where the nest is found is usually in some fairly quiet spot. Usually someone appears in the neighbourhood who is recognised as one of the only two well-known egg thieves and, so far as possible, he is watched by the local authorities and gamekeepers. But, as has already been pointed out, nothing can be done with that man unless he is caught actually in the act of robbing the nest. Let him get away from the nest, and he is completely safe. What would usually happen would be this. Once the local watchers—be they wardens, keepers or ornithologists—realised that that man was there, they would then approach the local police and ask that a policeman should be detailed for one or two nights, or possibly days (it does happen in the day-time as well), so that the man could be intercepted and searched on the way back to his car. This has happened again and again all over the country.

I received a letter only a few days ago from one of the best known ornithologists in Scotland, who said that either this year or last year in two cases golden eagles' nests were robbed and the miscreants could have been apprehended if this power of search had existed. As it was, they got away, almost openly laughing, because nothing could be done. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, even if he finds it necessary to make drastic Amendments on the Report stage.

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I had no intention of intervening in this discussion, but I honestly think that the noble Lords who are pressing this are really making a mountain out of a molehill. Having lived in the country all my life, and realising the value of many of the birds we have in mind, I too should like to see them preserved. But this is not the problem that we are led to believe by some speakers who have taken part in this debate. I should like to support my noble friend Lord Bowles on this. In fact, I think that at the present time the police already have sufficient powers in this respect, and to give them additional powers to search people suspected of taking eggs would be quite wrong. Let us remember that our police are already overworked. There is a grave shortage of police all over the country, and to put an additional burden on them at this time, for what I regard as a trivial thing, would not be at all in the interests of what we are discussing, or in the national interest.

LORD BURTON

I am afraid I must rise again, because this is entirely a misconception. This would ease the work of the police substantially. They know the numbers of these cars, and instead of having to watch these egg thieves day after day, they would be able to get them straight away. It would be an enormous asset, and I know that the Inverness police, who cover one of the largest areas, would be very pleased to have these powers.

LORD AIREDALE

T am in agreement with noble Lords on this side of the Committee, but I have a certain sympathy with the Minister, because he appears to have the whole world against him at the moment. Perhaps he does not mind about that. But in one respect I certainly agreed with him, and that was when he indicated in his first speech that this proposed new clause is rather widely drawn. I think it is, and in particular in relation to the expression If a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a person is committing or has committed on any land an offence …' Surely the expression used should be "has recently committed an offence on any land", because under this proposed new clause as it now stands, I suppose that once a poacher for the first time in his life has committed an offence on a particular piece of land, the police would be entitled—I do not say they would do it—for the rest of that man's life, whenever they chose, to apprehend him on that land. I feel that that would be rather unfair. I am perhaps in danger of being labelled by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, as being the most pedantic of pendantic lawyers in raising this point, but I think it is a good one. By all means let us pass this Amendment and introduce this new clause as it stands on the Marshalled List now, but let us at the next stage amend it again by changing the expression "has committed an offence" to "has recently committed an offence".

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Such egg collectors are very seldom local men. It would not arise.

LORD BOWLES

It is not really for the Government to accept this Amendment it is for the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, because it is his Bill. I was just asked to say that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland are not keen on having these wider powers for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has worked in fairly closely, I believe, with the Home Office on this matter, and it is for the Committee to decide whether or not it is going to pass this Amendment. It is nothing to do with me I have been asked to give only a warning of the present view of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has been closely in touch with the Home Office, and on whether this new clause is withdrawn or passed I cannot express a preference at all. But whatever happens, perhaps the noble Lord might care to discuss some slightly less wide powers in this respect.

LORD HURCOMB

On that, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment, on the understanding that I will carefully consider with the Home Office whether its scope can be narrowed before it comes up again for consideration.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.