Lords Sitting of 21 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

URBAN AID GRANTS
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will clarify the specific conditions which they intend to attach to capital and revenue grants to all voluntary bodies in receipt of urban aid funds; and whether they will consult with the bodies concerned beforehand.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, grants under the Urban Programme are payable in the first instance to local authorities. Local authorities may apply for grant aid either on expenditure on their own schemes or on assistance which they give to voluntary schemes. In both cases the condition of grant aid is that the project concerned should be carried out as described in the original application. Guidance is given in the relevant Home Office circulars inviting local authorities to submit applications.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. May I ask whether there are not many occasions when the situation is rather more complicated than that; for instance, where a voluntary body wants to help in obtaining a freehold and does not necessarily want any particular restrictions on how that freehold may be used for the good of the Urban Aid Programme in the future? Cannot occasions like this, and other cases more complicated than those which the noble Viscount seems to envisage, be dealt with rather more speedily as to consultation;
1184
or is the Minister satisfied that the present machinery is satisfactory for that?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the details of that sort of case sound to me as though they could involve a substantial amount of consultation and discussion. I have no particulars of instances of that sort. I would think that the answer is, "No, they are not as simple as what I have just said, and they would need a good deal of resolution." If the noble Lord has particular problems and difficulties in mind, I hope that he will bring them to my attention.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very much for that invitation, and I will do so. May I ask the Government whether they are aware that even in these most complex matters the work of voluntary agencies in the Urban Aid Programme responds very well and needs a great deal of speed in the way it is implemented? May I ask whether the Government will bear that point in mind?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, my Lords.

E.E.C. OPINION POLL ON U.K. MEMBERSHIP
2.38 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have studied the recent opinion poll organised by the E.E.C. which showed that 31 per cent. of those questioned in Great Britain thought that belonging to the E.E.C. was a good thing for the country.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have seen reports of this and other polls on aspects of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Communities.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, if the noble Baroness and the Government have

1185
seen this opinion poll which was organised by the Commission of the E.E.C., did they also observe that only 34 per cent, of those polled in this country were actively opposed to our membership of she E.E.C? Since there is such a small percentage between those who are for and those who are against our membership, would she take this as an indication that the Government should make a much more vigorous effort to explain the advantages of our membership to the people of this country?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought it was a very interesting comment on the value, or otherwise, of opinion polls. We are very conscious of the importance of putting across the case for European membership, but it is a fact that many people sometimes attribute to our entry into the Community difficulties which arise from matters quite outside the Community.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, recommends, would the noble Baroness consider explaining to the less well informed members of the electorate what would be the appalling consequences, political, economic and social, of any attempted withdrawal on our part from the European Economic Community; and the still more appalling effect of any collapse of the European Economic Community itself, involving no doubt, a reversion to the conditions of 1931?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Now that we are a member of the Community, whatever the difficulties, it would be disastrous if we sought to withdraw.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the majority of people in England are against the Market? Is she further aware that the imbalance of trade between the Common Market and ourselves is becoming some-
1186
what colossal, and is now over 100 per cent. worse than it was before we joined? Does not the noble Baroness feel that we ought to think of Britain rather than the vague idea of a United Europe?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, we hope of course to do both. But the fact remains that a recent survey showed that 84 per cent. of leading companies considered that membership of the Community would be helpful in the long term, and we always knew that there would be difficulties to start with.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that one of the difficulties for the uneducated section of the general public is the uncertainty about what the E.E.C. is up to? Does she remember that she reported that the Council of Ministers had rejected the French claim for an immediate increase of 10 per cent. in the price of beef and yet a few days later we had the Commission making a recommendation to the effect that there should be this 10 per cent. increase? Can the noble Baroness make the uneducated section of the public aware of the situation: that Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the present high prices of meat, will still reject any suggestion of any further increases by the Commission?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, it would not be for me to comment on this particular subject because to-day there is a Council of Ministers of Agriculture meeting at Brussels.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who chose the 14,000 people who were questioned last September?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, the companies to which I referred related to an Economist survey. If the noble Lord is referring to the particular poll, this was done on behalf of the European Community as a whole.

RHODESIA: INTERNAL TALKS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information of the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Ian Smith and Bishop Muzorewa, Chairman of the African National Council, for a settlement of the constitutional issue in Rhodesia.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: My Lords, we understand that Bishop Muzorewa is continuing his discussions with the Rhodesian authorities but have no further details. We hope that progress will be made towards an agreement between the two races on the basis for a settlement.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while echoing the hope that agreement may be reached, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not the Government have facilities for knowing what these discussions are about; and is the noble Baroness aware that others know that the representative of the African National Congress has agreed to postpone the idea of "One man, one vote in order to get a target date for reaching an African majority? May I further ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider applying to Rhodesia in the meanwhile the successful formulation put forward in the case of Northern Ireland on an inter-Community Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, the two sides are, quite rightly in our view, keeping the details to themselves for the time being, and while of course we do have contacts with all kinds of opinion within Rhodesia we feel that such contacts must remain confidential until we see whether there is a basis for settlement in Rhodesia.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since it is fairly obvious that the talks are going rather better than one might have expected some time ago, and since they are aiming at a more advanced level of communication and integration between the races, would this not be a good moment for Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the settlement proposals which they have left
1188
lying on the table? Indeed, if they do not withdraw them at this point, does it not give fuel to the extremists who are always behind Mr. Smith's back and offering something less that he appears to be discussing with the Bishop?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think I have answered that question from the noble Baroness before. We have not withdrawn the 1971 proposals because a great deal of useful and delicate legal work was involved in those proposals, and they are there as a basis for discussion.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness has not answered this particular question before, because the situation appears now to be completely different; Mr. Smith has moved a long way forward and therefore the settlement proposals are reactionary. Would the noble Baroness not agree that that is so?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: I do not think so, my Lords. There are a great many things in the proposals which are reasonable; but what I do think is important is the question of allowing time for those in Rhodesia to meet together and seek a compromise. That is why we do not wish to disturb this position in any way, although we are always ready to help if required.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her answer to the first part of my supplementary question, can she reply to the second part of it, which was a suggestion that the Northern Ireland precedent might be extended to Rhodesia? May I further ask whether Mr. Whitelaw, having succeeded in Northern Ireland and hoping to succeed on the miners' problem, might now be allowed to help with the discussions concerning Rhodesia?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I must say how much we appreciate the unalloyed admiration for Mr. Whitelaw; but the fact remains, as I said earlier, that we should wait to see what comes out of these quite considerable contacts—because it is the basic agreement between

1189
those who live in Rhodesia which must be the basis for settlement.

NORTH SEA OIL
2.48 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the The Times second leader of Monday, January 14, they would confirm that "North Sea oil belongs to us" (column 712, Hansard, January 10, 1974) and that the E.E.C. will have no say in either its prising or its distribution, and that the international oil companies will be subject to the Government's directives.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I can certainly confirm that North Sea oil belongs to us. The terms and conditions under which companies operate on our Continental Shelf are also our responsibility.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether, having regard to the fact that the companies themselves have paid for their concessions and agreed the terms of royalties, and so on, the Government have any further control over them?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am examining this whole issue at the present time, and when I have had advice on this and have come to conclusions I will certainly report further to your Lordships.
THE EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that without the expertise of the oil companies we should never get the oil at all?
LORD CARRINGTON: Certainly, my Lords, the expertise of the oil companies is absolutely essential for the production of oil from the North Sea.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, while nobody disputes that the successful development of North Sea oil will be very welcome as regards our balance of payments, unless we can at least begin to agree on some common energy policy
1190
(in regard to which I may say I am still awaiting answers to various questions which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the other day) it is rather difficult to imagine, especially after what happened in Paris yesterday, that we shall get agreement on any common policy at all.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the whole question of energy policy goes even wider than the question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger have invited us to attend a conference in Washington on February 11 to discuss the whole question of energy—a conference which I hope will ultimately be concerned not just with consumer countries but also with producer countries. It would be of advantage to the whole world—consumers, producers and the underdeveloped countries—if some really sensible arrangements could be made about energy in the future.
THE EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his statement about North Sea oil has been widely welcomed throughout the length and breadth of Britain?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am glad that something I have said recently has been welcomed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is likely to say something a little later to-day?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I never know whether I see the Press or the Press see me, but let me assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I recollect with great clarity a debate we had the other night and I have absolutely no intention of ever again being discourteous to your Lordships, even if I was on that occasion, and I do not think I was.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether or not, in the event of the Government's deciding that the whole of the North Sea oil should be used for the benefit of British industry, he would be able to do so without any reference to the Common Market or the oil companies?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a question that I should like to go into in greater depth. We are not going

1191
to get any appreciable amount of North Sea oil for another 18 months or so. The circumstances at the time will make us decide what we want to do with that oil. I think what any Government would decide would be to see that the oil which belongs to this country is used to the best national advantage.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when the noble Lord referred to getting oil from the North Sea in "18 months or so", did he mean "18 months" or "so"? What does "so" mean?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, one of the things that I have discovered in the 13 days that I have been Secretary of State for Energy, is that one must not be too specific in these matters. There are a great many imponderables, not least the weather, particularly in the North Sea. I have just been able to see at first hand the problems which people have to contend with in getting oil out of the North Sea and how difficult is the scale of the whole problem. One must try to make sure that every possible effort is put into getting the oil as quickly as possible—not only to keep it up to schedule but to get it even sooner if one can. I should not like to commit myself to any date for any particular amount of oil.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I entirely agree with what he said? I recognise that prudence and caution are required in this matter. Although I should welcome, as I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House would, an early flow of oil from the North Sea which would help to remove some of our problems, nevertheless there is far too much euphoria about the prospects and we ought to be very careful about that.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I assure the noble Lord that I am not suffering from euphoria.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, this is a most important question. People have been thinking most seriously about this major product that we have been fortunate to find in the North Sea. Can the noble Lord state what arrangements have been made between the parties and Her Majesty's Government regarding the sharing of profits? Is that to be based on
1192
a 50–50 basis, or on the system which used to operate when the old coal owners were in operation in the mining industry? The royalty system was used then. Is a royalty system to be a major factor so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is the kind of question that I am examining. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to put down a specific Question about that, because if I answered off the cuff I might get the answer wrong and then I should be in trouble again.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I recognise the difficulty that the noble Lord has in answering questions at this stage, but would he inform the House as soon as possible what the position will be and, if possible, before the oil begins to flow in quantity so that we may be rather better off than we have been regarding North Sea gas?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords. I will let your Lordships know as soon as possible after I have completed the examination and the body I have set up to inquire reports.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords can the noble Lord tell us whether the British Government have received an invitation to the Nixon Conference on February 11? If so, will be be personally attending or will he be engaged in other activities around that date?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know that the British Government have received an invitation and have accepted it. Whether I or somebody else will go will depend upon whether the Prime Minister decides to send me or someone else.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Members of your Lordships' House would have very great confidence in the noble Lord's attendance at that conference?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged. I thought the noble Lord was getting at something else.
LORD CHAMPION: He was!

CHINA AND PARASEL ARCHIPELAGO
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely—
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in the Security Council of the United Nations in response to Saigon's request for urgent consideration of the conflict with China in the Parasel archipelago.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, no meeting of the Security Council has yet been called.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, even so has not the request from Saigon been made? Will Her Majesty's Government urge that there should be a meeting of the Security Council in order to prevent dangerous international repercussions from this conflict in South East Asia?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is for the President of the Security Council in the first place to start consultations, in which we shall be included, on whether a meeting should be held. We have not yet seen the text of any official communication from the Government of the Republic of Vietnam to the United Nations on this queston.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that answer, may I ask whether it is not clear that the real issue is the possibility of oil supplies under these islands? Is it not desirable, in view of the oil situation in the world, that there should be immediate consultations about oil under the sea prior to the Conference on the Law of the Sea?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question was about a possible meeting of the Security Council. All I can say to-day is that it is not possible to say whether the United Nations can play a useful part in this matter until the outcome of consultations in New York are known.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will be making a Statement on the Middle East.

CIVIL AVIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend Sections 21 and 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. In doing so I have to declare an interest in that I am directly concerned by the provisions of the first section which I seek to amend. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
3.0 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is right and proper, even in the middle of the very grave troubles in which this country finds itself, that the Legislature should be able to find time to discuss this kind of question. The purpose of this Bill is twofold. It is to protect the diversity and richness of the plant life of this country and to prevent the extinction of certain wild species and their loss to the world, mankind and science.

1195
The main pressure on the plant life in this country is the pressure of land use. In the 18th century there was an enormous richness in the woods, heaths and commons of this country. Gradually the improvement of agriculture, the building of roads, railways, houses, factories, and the digging of mines, have eroded this richness. To take one small example, every year since the war, on the average, 1 per cent. of the hedges of this country have been destroyed. In each mile of those hedgerows there have sometimes been valuable plants.
Many of these things that have led to this change in land use we must all welcome as good in themselves. To take the most obvious example, an agriculture capable of producing a large proportion of what we consume is healthy economically, and (I think we should probably all agree) sociologically as well. The few apostles of a future angelic urban life, where the country will be an adjunct to us all living in towns, the assumption being that this would be in some way helpful, have had a rude shock in recent months. The turning of meadows into leys, the cultivation of more and more land, the planting of more and more forests, not to mention the increasing use of herbicides and the efforts on increasing the efficiency of farming, have all taken their toll.
On top of this comes the thoughtless digging up of plants which are seen to be pretty, and inevitably thereafter the depredations which stem from the knowledge of rarity. It is not all that long since every university botanical department thought itself deprived if it did not have a specimen of every indigenous wild plant. While the behaviour of the scientific professional community is now much more responsible, a small proportion of botanists are still a problem. Indeed, the classic case history of the extinction of a species is diminution through land use, which results in its becoming rare; the rarity then gets to be known and draws collectors; and the collectors then exterminate the plant. The only specimens left are those that are in museums.
The decline of Britain's flora and fauna, evident since the early 19th century, has accelerated very sharply since the Second World War. Frank Perring and Max Walters, writing in Nature,
1196
volume 229, in February, 1971, discuss the question of conserving rare plants, and open their remarks with the following statistics:
"Since botanical recording began in the middle of the 17th century about 20 native plant species are believed to have become extinct in Great Britain.
He, Frank Perring, also produced evidence that many more species are in danger of extinction if they are not protected immediately. When the field work for the preparation of the Atlas of British Flora was being carried out by the Botanical Society of the British Isles between 1954 and 1960, a thorough survey was made of the past and present distribution of rare species. In the late 1960s a re-survey of the rarest 300 species was made through the county recorders of the B.S.B.I. A combination of these two surveys showed that before 1900, 44 (17.4 per cent. of the rarest 300) occurred in only one or two 10 kilometre squares of the national grid; by 1930 the number was 59 species (23·3 per cent. of the rarest 300); and by 1960, it was 97 species (38·7 per cent. of the rarest 300).
Thus, about 7 per cent. of the native British flora, of about 1,500 species, may be in danger of extinction, and further species are declining so rapidly that they may shortly be in the same dangerous position. This is particularly true of species of marshes and wet meadows which are subject to drainage. The Fritillary, Fritillaria meleagris, once known from more than 100 localities, is now known from only 13. The Fen Orchid, Liparis loeselii, once widespread in the Fens of East Anglia, now occurs in only a very few localities in that region and grows mostly in dune-slacks in South Wales. Twelve species are known to have died out since 1900, including the attractive Summer Lady's Tresses orchid, once locally common in the New Forest and killed off by draining and clearance in the 'forties, and the Umbellifer, Hares Ears, last seen in Essex in 1962.
Much effort has been put into halting this trend, largely through the efforts of the Botanical Society of the British Isles to spread an awareness of the problem, and also by the creation of nature reserves, by organisations, and by individuals like the noble Lord, Lord Camoys—I am glad that he will be speaking later in the debate; he created a nature reserve on

1197
his land—and by the Nature Conservancy Council to preserve some plants. But the B.S.B.I., the Council for Nature and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves feel that the time is long overdue for legislation; and this Bill, my Lords, I hope is it.
The Bill itself would do three things which must be carefully differentiated. First, it would protect all indigenous wild plants from wilful uprooting or destruction by anyone other than the owner of the land or anyone acting on his or her behalf. This is not a new principle in law; it is the principle that is at the base of a number of by-laws which various local authorities have adopted. I should like to make it clear that this Bill does not prevent the owner of the land or his agents dealing as seems best to them with the plants on their own land.
Secondly, the Bill prevents the picking of wild flowers for sale by persons other than the owner and his agents. Many of your Lordships, I know, will be aware of the gradual elimination from the woods of primroses, daffodils and bluebells which were prevalent in our youths. Now it takes a trip to the West Country to see what used to be very common in the Home Counties. Much of this has been effected, not by change of land use or digging, but by ruthless picking for the market which, it would seem by a glance could diminish the population, often without the pickers realising that it has this effect.
What the Bill does not do is to prevent the ordinary people from picking wild flowers for their own pleasure. Here it is in line, I believe, with the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and the discussion held on that Bill in your Lordships' House. Neither does it stop landowners selling wild flowers off their own land. In some of these cases your Lordships may feel that the Bill is in fact too lax; but it has quite definitely been our intention in drafting this Bill that we should get to the root of the problem without affecting civil liberties more than necessary, and without creating more offences than we can possibly avoid.
Thirdly, the Bill names 20 species in danger of extinction, while giving the Secretary of State power to add to them, and it protects these from wilful picking, uprooting and destruction by anyone,
1198
including the landowner, except "as an incidental result which could not have been avoided of any operation which is lawful," such as normal cultivation.
These are the three measures which are essential for the greater protection of wild plants, and they are very mild. No one is prevented from picking any save the 20 rarest wild plants. No one is prevented from doing what he likes with the wild flowers on his own land, except the 20 rarest plants, and even then he can, alas!, destroy them if he needs to in the cause of agriculture. Everyone is protected by the word "wilfully" from an offence committed by mistake.
I now turn briefly to the clauses. The first three clauses, which go to the heart of the Bill, I have already explained in my analysis of the three main effects of this Bill. Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to license the picking or uprooting of plants for educational and scientific purposes—a provision which it is envisaged will be used very sparingly and only after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the measures for the arrest and punishment of guilty persons, and are closely modelled on similar measures approved by your Lordships recently in the Protection of Badgers Act. Clause 7 provides for setting up Councils to advise the Secretary of State and making recommendations to him on matters affecting wild plants; and in my mind this is the heart of the whole Bill. By creating this machinery of advisers to the Secretary of State we shall, even if this in itself is a mild Bill, be setting in motion a machinery which will be able to look after the wild botanical life of this country. Clause 8 enables local authorities to educate the public and to institute proceedings. Clause 9 provides machinery for the making of an Order adding to the list of scheduled plants, and gives opportunity for representations against such an Order.
It is important that in regard to this Bill, contrary to a previous Bill introduced in another place, we have kept the Schedule down to the bare minimum of plants, feeling it was important to write in just the strongest preservationist clauses for the smallest number of plants. Of course, if your Lordships can make out a case for additions during the course of the Committee stage (if we reach a

1199
Committee stage, if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will) those additions can be considered. But we have built into this Bill ability for the Secretary of State to add to this list on the advice of these Councils.
Clause 10 deals with definitions. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I intend to move an Amendment inserting the Common Council of the City of London in the definition of "local authority". Apart from the fact that many wild plants still lurk in the City, there is of course much marketing therein. I hope also that on Committee stage we might look at the whole question of whether we confine this Bill to indigenous wild plants or cover all wild plants. This is not a question I need go into at Second Reading, but it is an interesting one and my inclination would be to strike out the word "indigenous" in the definition. But we can leave that point to the Committee stage. Clause 12 excludes Northern Ireland.
My Lords, we are in the middle of a long process of trying to preserve our environment. We have passed Bills protecting birds, seals, deer and badgers. Now is the time for plants. It may be that the time is getting near when we need a general conservation Bill. But I think that would have to be a Government Bill. Meantime, these individual Bills cover not only the individual fields as they come along but bring the general Bill nearer in the sense that, the more it is a Consolidation Bill, and the more there are these individual Bills to take up into it, the more likely will a Government in the future be able to give time to it, This Bill is closely modelled on other Acts that have passed your Lordships' House. It performs a valuable, not to say a vital, function in the preservation of our wild life. Before I sit down I should like to express the depth of gratitude which I owe to Mr. Peter Mills, who was my predecessor in putting this measure forward in another place; for the enormous help I have had from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and from Tim Sands of the Council of Nature, and the officers of the botanical and nature conservation bodies concerned. I repeat that this Bill forms a valuable and an essential function in the preservation of our wild life. I
1200
commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
3.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPART OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I intervene in the debate at this point to say a few words generally about the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and about the Government's attitude towards it. I am sure we are all very grateful to Lord Beaumont for providing an opportunity to discuss this interesting subject. The Government welcome the opportunity of hearing your Lordships' views on the important matter of the proper conservation and management of our native flora. I think we all share the desire to conserve the beauty of the countryside, of which wild flowers form such an important part. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the long-standing feeling which has been held in some quarters that our flora needs protection through legislation. My task to-day is to give, in as objective a manner as possible, an account of the general problem as we see it and then to explain the Government's attitude to this Bill.
The British flora has been studied over a very long period and surveys in recent times have confirmed that there has been a substantial decline in the populations of rare species in Britain and a major reduction in the abundance of several widespread and attractive species. Detailed examination of the distribution records of nearly 200 of the rarest species of British flowering plants and ferns (about 10 per cent. of the British total) revealed that only nine species appeared to be increasing, while 80 were declining and 14 had become extinct in about the last 150 years. Additional evidence suggests that a number of the less rare species are showing a comparable decline. It is clear that there has also been a major reduction in the abundance of several widespread and attractive species, such as the primrose and wild daffodil, which were formerly abundant in many parts of the country but have now become extinct or very rare in certain localities as a result of picking or uprooting. I am informed

1201
that, for example, as the result of over-picking, and doubtless some digging of roots for gardens, there are virtually no longer primroses in the former Middlesex area. A similar situation is to be found around many large centres of population. These and other species, besides having scientific importance, add greatly to the attraction and beauty of the countryside and any decline in them must concern us. Such declines are primarily attributable to loss of suitable habitats—both from natural causes and through man's activities, collecting for scientific, educational and commercial purposes and the uprooting of attractive plants by the general public.
It is against this general background, my Lords, that the first Bill to give protection to plants was prepared by the Wild Plants Conservation Board (then an integral part of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, as it was then called) in the 1930s. However, it was not supported in Parliament. It was widely thought that much could be done to protect our flora through education and publicity and through protective local authority bylaws. It was not until the end of 1967 that another Wild Plants Protection Bill, sponsored by the Botanical Society of the British Isles, the Council for Nature and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was introduced into Parliament, but it too failed to make progress. In view of the continuing concern, the Nature Conservancy, then a component body of the Natural Environment Research Council, set up a Working Party in 1968 to study all aspects of the conservation of wild plants. In the light of their findings and after further detailed consideration, the Nature Conservancy and subsequently the Natural Environment Research Council concluded, late in 1971, that legislation for the protection of wild plants was, in principle, desirable but that the form of such legislation required careful consideration.
As your Lordships will know, the new Nature Conservancy Council came into being only last November and so early in its existence has not been able to give detailed consideration to every facet of this Bill. The Council has nevertheless advised me of its strong support for the Bill in principle. But the noble Lord's Bill casts the net very wide and clearly would cause serious practical difficulties.
1202
Clause 1 would make it an offence to uproot any wild plant or to sell any wild plant which had been either picked or uprooted. As I have indicated, the Government have considerable sympathy with the objectives of this clause which is aimed at safeguarding common but well-loved wild plants. But there are serious objections to a clause which seeks to embrace every wild plant. We are advised that there is not even an entirely satisfactory definition of "wild plant". I am assured that the one given in the Interpretation Clause, Clause 11, will not do, and it appears that a definition would need to be backed by a definitive list. In any case, I believe that there are over 2,000 species of plants in Britain and the term "plants" includes not only flowering plants but ferns and their allies, mosses, liverworts, lichens, algae and fungi. Some of your Lordships may have in mind in this context that we already have legislation to protect birds, but precise definition is a far more complex matter for plants than for birds. We are advised that Clause 1(b) raises the additional problem that in some cases cultivated plants cannot be distinguished from wild varieties of plants. One must foresee the difficult position that the provision would therefore create for traders in cultivated plants.
Clause 1 is also open to the objection that it would be almost totally unenforceable. I am aware that some legislation, particularly that for the protection of wildlife, poses enforcement problems and I appreciate that legislative sanctions, even though not fully enforceable, may encourage more responsible attitudes. But I think whether they will do so depends on the extent to which the general public are likely to find the provisions sensible and so be willing to abide by them voluntarily. In our view the public are not likely to think it reasonable that a person could inadvertently be exposed to prosecution for a wide range of innocent activities. Where provisions are ill-defined, anomalous and unenforceable, we risk bringing the law into disrepute. Your Lordships may also feel that because of the heavy burdens carried by the police at the moment public opinion may, with reason, be particularly unsympathetic to the creation of new offences which are not always intelligible and could be thought to be minor.
Clause 1, therefore, as it stands is un-

1203
acceptable to the Government, but the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may wish to consider whether more limited objectives could be achieved by means which might overcome the difficulties I have mentioned. It is not for me to say how these objectives might be pursued, but it seems to me that the noble Lord might with benefit seek to concentrate on the line adopted in Clause 2 where an attempt is made to specify in a Schedule those plants to be protected. I cannot, of course, promise acceptance of Amendments on those lines, but I can say that we should examine sympathetically any alternatives which the noble Lord might wish to suggest. From what I have just said it will be apparent that we regard the kind of approach to the problem taken in Clause 2 as much more appropriate. Clause 2 makes it an offence to pick, uproot or destroy any rare plant specified in the Schedule. I am advised that this is pretty much the right list of rare plants needing protection, but in any case this is a matter that could be looked at more closely at a later stage.
I do not propose to detain the House by setting out all the Government's detailed objections to the noble Lord's Bill, but if a measure along these lines were thought to be desirable the present Bill would need fairly substantial Amendment and a good deal of tidying up. A serious deficiency, and one which makes the Bill in its present form unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, is that it does not provide adequate exemptions for necessary agricultural operations and other legitimate and essential activities by a wide variety of authorities. From the point of view of the general agricultural interest, if the definition of "authorised person" in Clause 11 were widened and applied to Clause 2 it would be just about sufficient to protect the farmer who destroys a plant in the course of normal agricultural operations, but it would also be necessary to make uprooting and so on legal in these circumstances and not merely to provide a defence. Moreover, the Bill would also need to be amended either by extension of the definition of "authorised person" in Clause 11 or by other means to ensure that it did not impede the work of, for example, river and water authorities, land drainage authorities and persons carrying out
1204
duties under Acts relating to such matters as, for example, plant health control which requires diseased plants to be destroyed. A wide range of statutory undertakers' functions could clearly be affected.
Clause 4 would permit the Secretary of State to license the picking or uprooting of wild plants for scientific or educational purposes, but it would probably be more appropriate for any necessary licences to be granted by the Nature Conservancy Council. Under Clause 5 as drafted there would be a risk of a breach of the law relating to agricultural holdings if the requirement for an offender to "quit such land" were held to be capable of terminating a landlord/tenant relationship in respect of that land. The penalty and forfeiture provisions in Clause 6 are not altogether satisfactory as they stand. As regards Clause 7, we should expect the Nature Conservancy Council, rather than the external Advisory Committees proposed, to be the source of advice to the Secretary of State. The Council have their own statutory territorial committees to advise them. Consideration of Clause 8 conferring powers on local authorities would, of course, require consultation with the local authority associations, and the reference to "local authority" in Clause 10 would need to take account of the differences in Scottish legislation, since in Scotland local authorities do not have powers to institute criminal proceedings.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider these general comments to have been made in a helpful spirit, as is certainly the intention behind them. They may sound critical but, as I have already made plain, the attitude of the Government is one of sympathy to the objective of protecting wild plants. If, after to-day's debate, your Lordships decide to give the Bill a Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, may wish to look again at its provisions in the light of the comments that I and other speakers in the debate have made.
3.28 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is a trite opening in a speech to compliment the mover of the Motion, and to say how much one welcomes this proposal, but on this occasion I am deeply moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont

1205
of Whitley, and by the Bill which he has put forward. It gives us an opportunity of doing something which ought to have been done years ago. All of your Lordships in this House have witnessed a number of small but valuable Bills conferring protection here and there. But possibly the greatest of all our heritages in this country is our floral heritage, and when one listens to the noble Baroness replying for the Government, and hears how over these last years some of out most lovely species have been allowed to disappear while people have been fumbling with the legislative process, it makes one quite ashamed.
I myself feel ashamed, having devoted some 40 years of my life to the protection of rural England, that over all these years we have done so little along the lines of this Bill. I feel this both as an Englishman and as a member of your Lordships' House who has given so much of his time to these particular matters. I did not realise how rapidly these lovely plants are disappearing from our countryside. During my lifetime, of these 300 most rare species to which the noble Lord has referred a very appreciable fraction has disappeared from our countryside. I hope that this Bill will be passed and that, at any rate during the short span of life which is now left to me, there will be no further disappearance of these beautiful plants from the English countryside.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to what seems to me to be a very great danger, of which the population as a whole has been just as ignorant as I have myself, and for which the population as a whole ought to feel equally ashamed. So I hope the noble Lord and your Lordships gathering round him this afternoon will insist that this Bill is given a Second Reading. I can quite see that there are a number of matters that will have to be put right: the noble Baroness has set them out very clearly. I did not feel that some of them were particularly serious but others, obviously, need to be dealt with. However, the Committee stages in this House and in the other place exist for the purpose of enabling matters of this kind to be put right, so I sincerely hope that your Lordships will see to it that this Bill receives its Second Reading this afternoon.
1206
From time to time in the past we have had specific problems in regard to the protection of plant life brought both before the public and before Parliament, The noble Baroness referred to some very important examples of plants which are disappearing, and the enthusiasm of botanists and collectors from time to time has been an important cause of these disappearances. The spring gentian—gentiana verna—one of the most lovely of all the little plants which are native to this country is found only in a very small area in the Yorkshire hills. Every now and then some enterprising journalist draws attention to the fact that it can be seen. The following Sunday in that particular valley hordes of motorists arrive with their forks and trowels, not because they want to make the little gentiana verna an extinct species but because they want to dig it out, take it back home and put it in their gardens. Anybody who has tried this knows perfectly well that there is not one chance in a hundred, or indeed in a thousand, of the wretched little plant surviving for more than a very short time.
We had a Bill before us involving the conferring of powers on Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, to make a reservoir in another Yorkshire valley at Cow Green, which involved very great danger—possibly not of extinction but at any rate of substantially diminishing a number of other rare species. Some effort was made to provide protective clauses in that Bill, although it certainly did not satisfy me, or indeed many other people. That is an example of the sort of thing that happens. I hope that this Bill will bring this problem home to the public and will make them realise what they have been losing and what they are in danger of losing in this way.
There is no country in the world to which the appeal of the wild plant is stronger and which is more built in, so to speak, to our appreciation of Nature. Almost every Englishman wants to get out into the countryside. Very few people realise the treasures that live there, and unfortunately a large number of them are so ignorant that they carry death and destruction with them. I hope that publicity will be given to this Bill, and that there will be an appreciation of its subject

1207
matter so that the dangers which confront us will come home to the people of England.
It is an extraordinary fact that, while so much of our poetry has evolved around these lovely little flowers, we should be almost the last civilised country in the world to be proposing to take any steps to give them protection. Every one of your Lordships will have seen, when visiting foreign countries—Switzerland, the Austrian Tyrol; I need not mention all the countries which have this legislation—the long lists of flowers which are put up in the front halls of all the hotels. Under peine d'amende you are forbidden to take them away or to dig them up, and this legislation has worked, because while many of these plants have been in danger over all these years you will find them in the meadows and on the Alpine slopes still growing, and, as it would appear, in plentiful supply. I hope that this scandalous position which our England has had in, so to speak, this league table—right at the very bottom—will soon be put right.
As I have already indicated, I think that the English people should be particularly sensitive to the importance of their floral heritage. What have flowers meant to the English? If you go to the Chelsea Flower Show, if you go to Vincent Square every fortnight, you will see not wild flowers but flowers which have developed out of wild flowers; but for the wild flowers they would not be displayed there and our gardens in the summer would not be the lovely sights that they are. Plants have meant a very great deal to the English people, to the English way of life and to our culture. One important aspect of this I have already mentioned; namely, what flowers have meant to our poets. Obviously, our greatest poets have been as much moved by the charming little flowers in our countryside as by almost anything else, and that has meant a great deal.
The inspiration to our people of our great poets—Shakespeare, Wordsworth and the others—cannot be measured. It certainly cannot be measured in money. It cannot really be measured in words. What would Wordsworth's poetry be without the flowers? There was Wordsworth seeing the daffodils "by the lakeside under the trees fluttering and danc-
1208
in the breeze". He saw "the primrose by the river's brim", to which the noble Baroness has referred, that lovely little plant, which, as she told us, is now disappearing from quite wide areas of our countryside. What a shameful thing to have to say. The primrose struck the imagination of one of the most imaginative of all the Prime Ministers this country has produced, Benjamin Disraeli—and indeed the league which was founded in his memory to further his work was called the Primrose League, for that very reason. So I ask my noble friends opposite—because I am sure that they are my friends so far as this Bill is concerned—to bear this in mind and to insist that this Bill should have a Second Reading. The fritillary has been referred to, and those of your Lordships who love the lines of Matthew Arnold will remember how he found "tracking the shy Thames shore" the fritillary; what a lovely plant it is! To feel that it is disappearing makes one very sad indeed.
My Lords, I think that I have said enough to underline the importance which these wild flowers have had in our botanic history and general outlook on life, bringing us recreation and joy when we visit the countryside. This is not only a matter of aesthetics, and so on. Our best medicines have come to us in this way. We have been told to-day of the work done by the Botanical Societies. The Director of the Botanical Society in Cambridge has been one of the great protagonists of this Bill. The botanical societies, or very many of them, sprang out of the herb gardens which grew up in the Middle Ages for the purpose of producing medicinal herbs. They were the medicines of those days, and they form still an important basis for the medicines of our own time. It is rather regrettable that until the Medicines Bill, to the consideration of which your Lordships gave a great deal of time only a few years ago, reached this House, the position of the medical herbalist right from the time of the ancient Greek medical man had depended so much on these humble herbs which had been completely forgotten.
It was in your Lordships' House that the necessary clauses were written into the Bill to protect medical herbalism. Some of the herbs and many of the flowers, like the foxglove, are still an

1209
important source of some of our most valuable medicines. Without this Bill, or something like it, they are left unprotected. Of course they would be produced specifically for the purpose, but it is still possible that some of these plants contain within them specifics which are not yet known. It is within the memory of almost every one of your Lordships how the old wives' remedy, which I believe Fleming noticed being used in the Wiltshire cottages, was the origin of Penicillin. This has saved so many thousands of lives since it was discovered only a few years ago. It may well be that some of these plants, which this afternoon we are hoping to start protecting, may have within them other qualities of that kind. It may be that a historian of medicine will look back and say, "How well it was that this Bill was passed through Parliament in the year 1974, without it such and such a plant might have disappeared forever from England, and its specific never discovered."
My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is important to give the Bill its Second Reading. If there are blemishes, as I have no doubt that there are—and most of them the noble Baroness has pointed out already—we can spend some time in removing them in the Committee stage. So I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about the Middle East which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Despite the cease-fire agreement, the Egyptian and Israeli armies have remained in close contact and precariously interlocked. This dangerous situation has posed a grave threat to the cease-fire and has made it impossible for the peace negotiations at Geneva to proceed to the issues involved in a permanent settlement. Honourable Members will therefore have learned with great satisfaction
1210
that agreement has now been reached between the Egyptian and Israeli Governments through the good offices of the United States upon the disengagement of the opposing armies and their separation by a substantial zone to the East of the Suez Canal in which the troops of the United Nations Emergency Force will take up their positions. A copy of this agreement has been placed in the Library of the House. The House will applaud the tireless work which Dr. Kissinger has put into the achievement of this major step towards peace. For that is what it is. I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss all these matters with Dr. Kissinger early this morning.
"The present situation provides an opportunity to establish a permanent settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Arabs. It is an opportunity that must not be missed. Above all, it is essential that the disengagement of the Egyptian and Israeli armies, which we welcome with such relief, should be seen not as an end in itself but as a promising starting point which makes it possible to press ahead with negotiations towards a full and permanent peace settlement. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to help through the Security Council or in any other appropriate way.
"I should add that this latest development obviously has a bearing on the question of the supply of military equipment to the parties to the conflict, about which honourable Members expressed much concern during the period of the fighting. While the disengagement agreement is far from being a guarantee of lasting peace it will certainly reduce drastically the dangers of military confrontation, and the Government have decided accordingly that we need no longer continue to suspend delivery of the military supplies to the battlefield countries which we held up when the fighting broke out on the 6th October. We will of course continue to scrutinise any future requests with the same care and against the same criteria as we have consistently applied in the past.
"I hope that all concerned will now use this hard-won agreement as a foundation on which to build the durable peace that has for so long

1211
been denied to the peoples and countries of the Middle East."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, for having repeated this Statement. The Government were heavily criticised at the outset of the war in the Middle East for ceasing to supply arms to Israel and other countries in the Middle East because they felt that this would provide them with a position from which to mediate. Therefore, the noble Baroness might perhaps find it slightly ironic that the United States, who remained four-square with Israel, should, through their Secretary of State, play such a vital, if not the supreme role in bringing Israel and the Arab States together for the very first time at the conference table. We on this side of the House applaud and express tremendous admiration to Dr. Kissinger for all he has done in bringing Israel and Egypt together. Naturally, the Statement says nothing about the negotiations now going on between Israel and Syria. We understand why, but we hope that the noble Baroness will keep the House informed, because clearly there has to be agreement between Israel and Egypt and the other Arab countries if a firm peace is to be established in the Middle East.
My Lords, arms supply is a matter to which I think most of us would like to give consideration. It is one thing to criticise during the heat of the battle; but, of course, it is another matter when one is commencing the supply of all weapons to all sides at a critical moment of negotiation for peace. Can the noble Baroness say whether the arms that the Government have in mind are those that were in the pipeline, those that had been ordered and held back; or do the Government look for new orders for equipment both from Israel and from the Arab States? May I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government would not now consider this to be the moment to explore with the United States, France and the Soviet Union, the possibility of some international control of arms to this area, so that we can avoid an arms race and the building up of pressures and ten-
1212
sions which could create another war, with all the good work that has clearly been done being lost? I think I will leave this to see how events proceed. The Government know that we on this side of the House have great admiration for Dr. Kissinger; we recognise that the work has yet to be completed, but we have supreme confidence in his ability and in that of Mrs. Meir, President Sadat and President Assad of Syria.
3.50 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of the House would wish to be associated with the congratulations to Dr. Kissinger on his really great achievement, one which gives grounds for hoping that there may in the near future be a permanent settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute—something that has defeated the efforts of all other statesmen for the last quarter of a century.
I would, generally speaking, like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about arms supplies. Is it really desirable at this still delicate and indeed dangerous moment to resume the supplies of arms? Are the Government quite sure that that is the right thing to do? In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, may I add that I hope that this is not connected with some independent deal over arms with any other Middle Eastern country concerned, notably perhaps, if rumours are true. Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the noble Baroness would confirm that that is not the case?
3.51 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their tributes to Dr. Kissinger, who seems, apart from anything else, to have the most remarkable stamina. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly inferred, I am not yet in a position to speak of the progress of negotiations with Syria, but certainly I will keep the House informed.
On the question of arms supplies, to which both noble Lords referred, first of all there are those which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to as in the pipeline. These are contracts which were unfulfilled and about which we

1213
were, as he rightly says, much criticised for not fulfilling at the time. If any new orders are made, we will not supply any weapons which in our view are likely to increase the chances of resumption of hostility or—and this is very important—to impede the search for a peaceful settlement of the dispute. With regard to the question of whether there should be some kind of international agreement on the supply of arms to the Middle East, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this would be admirable if it could be secured. My right honourable friend mentioned such a question to Mr. Gromyko on December 3, but this was not pursued.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I say at once that I am very grateful for the Statement which has been made this afternoon, and I too would like in a humble way to offer my congratulations to Dr. Kissinger for the remarkable achievement that he has obtained so far. I hope that the agreement will be carried out in the spirit that he has tried to instil into the parties concerned, and I think one can go forward with the hope of an ultimate settlement, although not a very immediate one.
There are one or two points I should like to put to the noble Baroness. First of all, on the Syrian question (we now have diplomatic relations with Syria), there is one question which is disturbing everybody who has any knowledge of the situation at all and that is the question of prisoners of war taken by the Syrians. In spite of the Geneva Convention, the Syrians have not given a list of the Israeli men, and possibly women, who have been taken by them. It is a matter of very grave anguish to the parents and relatives of these people. I hope that we shall do something in the direction of persuading them to realise their obligation in respect of the international agreement.
There is one other question I should like to ask, and that is with regard to a rumour to the effect that the Libyan Prime Minister has been invited to come to this country. Does the noble Baroness really think, or do the Government think, that people who are probably the chief factor in creating and sustaining terrorism and blackmail and similar acts should be invited to come here at all, and particularly at a time when these delicate negotiations are going on in respect of a
1214
settlement? I hope that if such an invitation has been extended it will be withdrawn.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's concern about Israeli prisoners of war. As I understand it, so far no list has been supplied by Syria. We would hope that, now that the Suez disengagement agreement has been settled, we shall be able to turn to other matters, and we hope that Syria will be able to find it possible to attend the next Session of the negotiating conference. I quite understand the great concern on this matter.
So far as an invitation to the Libyan Prime Minister to come to the United Kingdom is concerned, I have myself no knowledge of such an invitation. Lastly, I would say that I am sure that Dr. Kissinger, if he reads our Hansard, will note the tributes to him with gratitude.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question? While I have great reservations whenever I hear of sales of arms to any country in the world, will we be as evenhanded in the sale of arms now that peace is drawing near as the Government said they were when there was no peace at all?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, we were certainly very even-handed in the withdrawal of supplies to the Middle East. It depends, of course, very much on what country wants the United Kingdom to supply what materials. As I said very carefully in answer to an earlier question, we shall consider every application on its merits and with very great care.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, although we are all grateful to her for repeating the Statement made in another place, so far as I am concerned there is no gratitude to Her Majesty's Government. They have played no part in bringing the parties together in order to seek the possibility of peace. That has been left almost exclusively to the United States, probably with some pressure exercised by the Soviet Union. Her Majesty's Government have played no part in it whatsoever. They do not deserve any gratitude. That is the first point.

1215
The second point is this. Is the noble Baroness aware that there appeared to be undue haste some time ago in imposing a ban on the provision of spare parts for Centurion tanks to the State of Israel, and that now there is almost undue and surprising haste to remove the ban? Is the noble Baroness aware that to supply these spare parts to Israel is really a military nonsense now?—it does not help them in the least. It might have helped them at the time, but not now. The Government propose to supply arms, according to what the noble Baroness has said to your Lordships' House, only if they make no impact on a resumption of the conflict. To whom are the arms to be supplied? Can she be a little more specific? Because unless Her Majesty's Government are specific as to who are to be the recipients of these arms, and what is to be the nature of them, many of us will be very dissatisfied and will return to this subject over and over again.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must confess that I was not aware that there was any gratitude expressed to Her Majesty's Government, but much was expressed to Dr. Kissinger. I think it fair to point out that our contribution of arms to all those involved in the hostilities was of a very minor nature compared to those supplied by the United States and also by the Soviet Union. We have had quite a considerable opportunity to put forward ideas on the methods by which a peace agreement could be reached, and I think that perhaps my right honourable friend's long experience in this matter with Resolution 242 has been of help on this, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, does not seem to be able to be satisfied about anything. First of all, he says that there was undue haste in stopping arms supplies to the Middle East, and now he says that there is undue haste in re-starting them. He must decide which he wants. I can only say to him that the countries to which the embargo applied were Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Libya. As for the future, it depends entirely on what requests for new arms are made. As I said earlier, we intend to fulfil the existing contracts, which we also had a right to stop. There is a right to stop or modify any licence.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I join those who feel a little baffled by this Statement. The first part of the Statement gave us a great deal of pleasure. At long last it appeared that peace was going to be established in the Middle East. Then, to my astonishment, in the same Statement we are told that the Government propose to provide arms to both sides. Could the noble Baroness tell me what is the motive of a Government that makes a Statement of a peaceful kind and then, in the same Statement, tells us that they are going—this is my opinion—to encourage the two sides who have been fighting each other to once more indulge in war? After all, arms are only sold to nations for that purpose. Why has it been done at this stage?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Baroness will no doubt recall that a great deal of unease was expressed in this House about the imposition of the arms embargo on the Middle East. It was felt that contracts that had been entered into should be fulfilled. We imposed the embargo when hostilities broke out because, as we said at the time, we thought it was the best means whereby we could perhaps play some part in calling for peace. Although this is not a permanent peace at present, there is no doubt that by this disengagement the two sides have made a very important advance towards peace. This has defused what was at the time of the imposition of the embargo a very dangerous situation. We think, therefore, that now is the time, if ever, to go on fulfilling the contracts about which this House was so disturbed.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, the question of Syria has been raised, but may I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, whether she will keep us as informed as she can about Jordan, which Dr. Kissinger also visited. I mention this in particular because at some stage—and I know that these are early days—the question of the Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem may arise, and it has already been reported that President Sadat is going to see the Pope. Some of these Christian places or institutions, such as the Cathedral of St. George and the Hostel, and St. John's Hospital, depend very largely on the support of Her Majesty's Government. May I ask that

1217
that fact be borne in mind, and that, by means which they will know best, and which may not always be in public, these will be not forgotten but supported?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I can assure the House that when there is information to give on the situation in Jordan, or the situation of the Holy Places, it will certainly be given to this House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say—we have paid great tribute to Dr. Kissinger—whether, prior to making the decision to resume supplying arms, Her Majesty's Government consulted with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State gave his agreement to it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: No, my Lords; to my knowledge it was a decision taken by Her Majesty's Government, but I should like finally to confirm that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is extremely important. If Her Majesty's Government did not consult with the Secretary of State at this very crucial period, I cannot imagine anything more stupid and likely to place peace at risk than such a decision.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord exaggerates in saying that our fulfilling of the contracts would place peace at risk; because, so far as I understand it, both Israel and Egypt are fully rearmed and have both agreed to a disengagement procedure. They have also said in their agreement that it is not regarded by Egypt and Israel as a final peace agreement, but that it constitutes a first step towards a final, just and durable peace. The conversations which my right honourable friend has had with Dr. Kissinger are of course confidential, and I should not like to say absolutely either. "Yes" or "No" to whether the subject was raised.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, since, as we understand it, Her Majesty's Government are endeavouring, with their eight colleagues in the European Community, to harmonise the Nine's foreign policies, can we take it that they at least consulted with their eight colleagues in
1218
the Community before taking this decisions?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, the Community of course have a common policy in so far as they issued the Statement which supported Resolution 242. So far as the issue of arms from this country to the Middle East is concerned, that is a decision by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one question arising from the reply that she has given? Is she really considering supplying arms to Libya at the present time? I thought that the noble Baroness mentioned Libya. Surely we are not going to assist the enemies of the civilised world. They are the arch enemy of civilisation at present. They are a main part of the "Big Brother" that has appeared all of a sudden giving supplies to terrorists throughout the world, including those who are using arms against our own country. In those circumstances, are we really justified in supplying further arms to Libya?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, although the embargo is lifted, as I said at the beginning, if there were requests from Libya they would have to be studied with the greatest care. In any case we should certainly not supply anything that could conceivably be of use to terrorists. I can assure the noble Lord of that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am sorry to harry the noble Baroness. That is the last thing I should wish to do. But at this time in the world, when we are all pleading for peace and for disarmament, I am shocked at this Statement. I should like to know where the pressure has come from for this remarkable decision of the Government to supply arms to these warring peoples.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should have thought one of the greatest pressures we had to resist was the pressure of this House and also of another place. In your Lordships' House it was made absolutely clear to Her Majesty's Government that many noble Lords in all parts of the House felt that existing contracts

1219
should be fulfilled. I explained at that time that all licences have written into them a provision whereby part or all of the licence can be cancelled, but that we would lift the embargo at a suitable time when the actual fighting had come to an end. I am very happy to say that this is really what this Statement is about, that we can say that the fighting has so far come to an end.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have been on this subject for some 26 minutes and I know that there is another Statement to be made, but I must say to the noble Baroness that the latter part of our questioning has raised a matter of serious disquiet. I hope that the noble Baroness will write to me. If it is the fact that the Government did not consult Dr. Kissinger, I shall have to see whether we should raise an urgent debate on this matter.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said and I will confirm to him what I said: but I hope that the House will realise that the point of this Statement is, firstly, that we have come at last to the first stage of the ending of hostilities, and secondly, have done something which the House very much wanted to happen; namely, restored the contracts.

WILD PLANTS PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, reverting to wild flowers, may I say at the outset that I am one of those who is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this Bill and I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who was a former constituent, if not rated as one of my most enthusiastic supporters. On this occasion I am glad to say that I agree with nearly every word that he has said. He touched on a great many points, but he did omit one which I expected him to mention: it was in a village in his county of Westmorland that the Wild Flower Society was founded, a society which has helped and encouraged a great many amateurs and, in particular, children to love wild flowers.
1220
I do not know whether an omission which I discovered in the Library here in your Lordships' House a short time ago has been repaired. Just before we rose for Christmas, when I went to the Librarian to ask for a copy of the British Flora to look up something, I was horrified to find that there was no such books in the Library of your Lordships' House. I hope by now that that omission has been repaired.
Wild flowers are not just a matter of concern to professional botanists. They are for all and for free—not that there is much for free in this world in which we live to-day. For myself, they have been a continuing joy. I have had an interest in wild flowers from childhood, and even during the war years I found them a great solace at times. I have collected wild flowers over a great deal of the country that has just been under discussion, part of the area in which the Arab-Israeli war was conducted, particularly on the Syrian frontier and beyond. I had better confess, before I give any judgment on those who uproot wild flowers, that when I was commanding a company in North Iraq I had a lance-corporal in the company who was as keen as I was. We uprooted a lot of plants. We watered them as best we could and we took them when the battalion moved to Tobruk, and on the way they died. I am afraid that wild flowers when uprooted very frequently die, as the noble Lord has said, even when they are not exposed to the particular rigours to which our plants were exposed.
I have been lucky in that I lived as a child in Teesdale; that is, Teesdale before the flood. I do not think I need say anything more about Teesdale because I do not want to speak at length. I do, however, wish to put great emphasis on one particular point; that is, the responsibility of the highway authorities in our counties to-day, and in particular, to refer to the way they handle the verges of their roads. It is in their hands to make or mar the cause which so many of us have at heart.
I am told that one of the counties of England—a county in the South, I am glad to say—a few years ago spent £72,000 in one financial year on cutting roadside verges. One wonders how much unnecessary damage they did to wild flowers at the same time. All of us have

1221
seen so many verges disappear because it has been necessary to widen carriageways; but is it so necessary to spray verges and to cut them from the edge of the carriageway right back to the base of the hedge or into the ditch when for visibility reasons and for the protection of the carriageway a strip of about three feet wide would often be satisfactory? I am sure that most people who are concerned with this matter in different parts of England and who have had contact with the county highway authorities—that is, the chairmen of highways committees and their officials—will have found them most sympathetic to working out some way to improve the present situation, and there must be many informal agreements between county councils and naturalists' trusts. But that is only the beginning and not the end of the story. It is the men who do the work who do the damage through not understanding the spirit of these agreements. It may be that the timing of the work is wrong and that many plants are cut just before they have any chance of seeding, it may be, again, that an area behind the narrow strip on the edge of the carriageway which ought to be left undisturbed is cut almost as bare as a lawn. We must not forget that whatever we may write into this Bill, there is an increasing pressure for widening and straightening our country roads, particularly in the areas which are the most popular with tourists.
I was disappointed with the Government line as the noble Baroness explained it to us. I had hoped that even if she had had a rather bureaucratic brief, she might have put it on one side and told us a little more of what she personally felt. But I felt that she was telling us almost too much of the difficulties which officials are perfectly correct in representing to Ministers when Bills of this sort are discussed in the Department, and not least, when there is a danger of creating a very large number of minor offences which it will not be possible for the police to control. The police at this time have so many important duties to carry out that minor breaches of a Bill of this kind could have only a very low priority. I am sure the officials were right in pointing out these facts to her, but I wish that she had put them in rather a different way to us
1222
and had tried to indicate ways whereby these difficulties could be overcome.
My Lords, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, we are not pioneering here to-day. In hotels, particularly in the alpine areas of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, there are notices everywhere explaining the controls over the picking as well as the uprooting of a number of wild flowers. Some major countries, like Germany, have had some law of this kind for certainly as long as I can remember. I cannot believe that if Ministers and their advisers really set their minds to this and extended all the help that they can to the noble Lord Lord Beaumont of Whitley, we could not find a solution through this Bill. Even if we have to give up some part of it we ought at least to be able to retain the important parts. I hope that in all these circumstances, and being fully aware of these difficulties, we shall none the less give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and set our minds to overcome these problems during the Committee and Report stages, when we shall have ample opportunity to do so.
4.19 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Inglewood, with his deep and wide knowledge of country matters, and I am glad that he touched upon the matter of the roadside verges, as I would wish to do, but he has done it so much better than I should have been able to do.
I have been badgering away at people in high places, in the Nature Conservancy and elsewhere, for some years now to get this Bill reintroduced into Parliament. Oddly enough, I have not badgered the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, about it, but I am extremely grateful to him for having taken so much trouble over the preparation of this Bill and for introducing it to your Lordships this afternoon. It is none too soon for this Bill to come before Parliament again, and I hope that this time it will find its way past all the obstacles which face Bills of this sort. So I should like to stand up and be counted among those who wish to give it their support.
At the start, we should be quite clear that nothing in this Bill will prevent children from picking a bunch of primroses and taking them home, any more than they have been prevented in the past.

1223
But there is a loss of species going on, and a loss of species threatened, and that is regrettable for two reasons, first, ecologically and, secondly, aesthetically. Ecologically, it is not just the loss of one species of plant that is regrettable, although often it has taken Nature millions of years to evolve and adapt it to certain circumstances and environments and we cannot replace it. In addition, we may be removing a link from a chain of inter-dependability among plant and animal life which we do not yet fully understand and which, again, we cannot replace.
As has been said, there are two reasons for the dangers besetting our plant population, particularly the more sensitive of them. First, there is the contraction or elimination of habitat, and secondly there is the collecting and picking which has been going on for a very long time, but most seriously over the last 150 years. The case of the very rare lady's slipper orchid is well-known. No so long ago it was common in Durham and parts of Yorkshire. One can read of the factory girls from the mills going out and picking great bunches of them at the beginning of this century. But the specimens still extant can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The Cotswold Hills and the Highlands of Scotland are my own special areas of interest in botany of which I am a very amateur exponent. I am lucky enough to live in the Cotswold Hills of England and to spend much of my time in the Highlands of Scotland where I am busy as a forester; and both of those areas are extremely rich in beautful and rather rare flowers. In the Cotswolds, the habitat has been vastly altered since before the war when farming was very much rundown and there were miles and miles of rough grass, which formed a very good habitat for many of the plants that we are talking about. But since the war-time agricultural expansion and the coming of more powerful tractors, with the need to cultivate every little corner of land, many of the banks which were a particularly rich habitat for species such as anemone pulsatilla and others have come under the plough. And, of course, the elimination of rare plants has been aided and abetted by the application of fertilisers and sprays.
1224
The position is different in the Highlands where we have not destroyed by cultivation. But way up in the high hills there are many interesting relics of Arctic/Alpine flora dating back to the disappearance of the last Ice Age, about 12,000 years ago. There are some lovely species, such as six or eight different kinds of saxifrage and plants like mountain azalea, and their habitat is threatened not so much because we have changed the little conies and rocks where they live, but because Nature itself has changed the habitat and the climate. But they are relics of the Ice Age and in my view, which is shared by many others, they are all the more valuable for that. They are very sensitive to human interference—but I shall come back to that point later.
The problems of habitat are not really the subject of this Bill, although they have an effect. The Nature Conservancy and the county naturalists' trusts—and the farmers themselves, who have been educated in the need to leave some of the little patches and bogs untouched—have done a great deal to preserve particularly interesting areas by the creation of nature reserves and S.S.S.Is—that awful abbreviation which stands for sites of special scientific interest. But the habitat contraction makes this Bill all the more necessary. We have to look right back to Victorian times when there was a tremendous expansion of interest in Nature and botany, but, my goodness!, the Victorians were bad predators. Whenever they developed an interest in anything to do with Nature they had either to shoot it, if it was a bird, or pull it up if it was a plant—and they did a lot of that. Modern botanists are much better and, in the main, are conservers.
I have received letters from several botany societies asking me to say something to-day, which I intended to do anyway. But, unfortunately, they contain a small number of rogue botanists who are the most dangerous of all because they know what to look for. The ordinary person would pass by such plants as the Alpine woodsia which is very rare, partly because of the Victorians, and would not recognise it, but the rogue botanists would recognise it and would pull it up. But in the main one is worried about the casual visitors who see something nice and pluck it to take home.

1225
Even the high corries and the tops of mountains at 3,000 or 4,000 feet, where there are Arctic/Alpine relics on which I am so very keen, are no longer safe. It might be thought that not many people would get to such remote places, but for part of the year I live in the Cairngorms Nature Reserve and up there we are only too well aware of the enormous increase each year in the number of people coming to seek recreation among the hills.
Not long ago I had the privilege of serving on your Lordships' Select Committee which looked into the future of sport, recreation and leisure, and we found, as we expected, that interest was expanding enormously. There are now ski-lifts to the top of the Cairngorms, so that even the old and infirm—I was going to say, "like some of us" —can get up to those places. But there are some plant species which will not survive casual or any other sort of picking over the years to come. The attitude, "Let us take this home and identify it in the book", is an attitude which is frequently adopted and one which I think some of your Lordships may have to plead guilty to having adopted at times. I certainly have. "Is this a Veronica beccabunga?" There really is such a thing, my Lords, and it is quite common. You take it home and look it up in the book. "Oh, dear, no! It is not; it is a Veronica spicata", which is on the protected list and of which there are only a very few specimens left. In such circumstances, the old maxim, ignorantia let is non excusat, may seem a bit harsh, and you might get away with it, I supose, by pleading mistake of fact. But this sort of thing will not do if plant species existing in mere hundreds, or less, are to be saved from 60 million holidaying human beings. So there are problems to which your Lordships may wish to give thought, and I am sure your Lordships will. It is a problem very largely of education and a problem of the enforcement of any law such as we are considering. That ties up with the problem of better wardening in the countryside—a problem which crops up so often in relation to the Countryside Acts and to the activities of the Countryside Commission.
My Lords, I have only two other things to say. One of them is to echo my noble friend's disappointment at what the noble Baroness on the Front Bench had to say
1226
about the early clauses of the Bill, because there is nothing that I can see in the Bill as drafted which prevents a person from digging up the dandelions on his lawn or a farmer from pulling up the docks. I think we want to try to engender in the nation as a whole a sort of acceptance of the rule that you do not dig up plants; it is not the thing to do. The other point I would mention just briefly concerns the list of the protected plants which appears at the end of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, explained why the list has been kept very short; indeed, I think it is true to say that all the plants on the list are very rare indeed, and there are only a very few of them left. But there are a whole lot more species which are threatened and becoming rare. It may be politic to keep the list as short as possible at this stage, but I am not so sure, my Lords, and I should like to see very close attention given to making that list much longer—and soon. I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill its Second Reading.
4.33 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I must confess straight away that I am a layman so far as these things are concerned, or perhaps, to be more accurate, I should say I am a laywoman. At any rate, I should like to support this Bill, first, because I was asked to do so by Mr. Brickell, who is the Director of the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens at Wisley and who, apart from that, is also a distinguished botanist. I must confess that I am not a botanist but I am a lover of wild flowers. I grow a number of flowers in my garden, some of them very wild; in fact your Lordships might call them weeds. Alongside my garden there is a public footway, and there I see many things going on, including, sometimes, lovely children coming along with bunches of flowers. It is probably a hot day, they have big bunches of flowers, and they have got tired of carrying them—the flowers are very nearly dead, anyway—and they have just thrown them down. A lot of these flowers, at the right time of the year, are bluebells, which have been pulled out with all their white stalks as well. But apart from sun-porting the listed plants, I also strongly support the variation of the Schedule, provided for in Clause 3, by which any wild plant which, though not rare at the

1227
moment may become so, may be added. I think this may come about because of, for instance, agriculture, motorways and, of course, reservoirs taking up more land.
Another point is that while many more people are walking about to-day, which is splendid, I believe that trampling is a problem and that many plants are destroyed in this way. Then, of course, this Bill is concerned also with over-picking, which leaves no flowers and therefore no seeds. I hope that the Government will support education so far as this Bill is concerned as much as anything, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, that very often it is those people who should know better who find the rare plants and think it would be fun to try them at home or take a part of them. They are really the people who ought to set an example to others. I do not believe that the rare plants are taken by children, because I think that a lot of these plants are not perhaps wildly exciting, and children like to take the gayer flowers. I think perhaps all of us need very badly to be educated in this matter.
I should like to give just one or two examples. I have no intention whatever of mentioning where these incidents happened, because you have only to mention such places and people rush there. A member of the Surrey Flora Committee told me that she knew of a village that had a nice little copse which some years ago was absolutely full of primroses. There is not a single primrose in there to-day, but every single village garden has primroses. Then she told me of another example, of a lady she saw walking down a hill with a very large handful of orchids. She said to the lady, "Do you realise that by picking those you have prevented them from seeding and that it takes ten years for the orchid seed to become a flower?" Of course, the lady was full of horror when she was told this, and was tremendously apologetic; but then, of course, it was much too late. Then, although this does not concern wild flowers, you have only to go to Wisley Gardens, to the Alpine House, where so often, alas!, one sees a blank space and a notice saying, "This plant", and then its name is given, and the country it came from—"has been stolen".
1228
My Lords, I wonder what has happened to the Teesdale Sandwort. Has it survived the Upper Teesdale Reservoir? Is it too soon to tell whether the change of climate as a result of the now vast expanse of water has made the climatic conditions unsuitable for it? Lour Lordships will remember the Cow Green battle. I should like to end on this note: "Please help everybody to leave the wild flowers for others to enjoy." This is the plea of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, to which I hope the Government will give not only sympathy but constructive help in making this Bill a reality.
4.39 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, much has been said to-day of the danger to wild flowers in this country, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said in a speech which interested me so much, there seems to have been a sudden realisation of the danger to living things. I should like very briefly to look at this Bill in the wider context of the conservation scene. First, in the world scene, I am advised reliably that one out of every ten wild plants are in danger of extinction. That is the astonishing figure of 20,000 to 25.000 plants—more than the higher animals, and a greater danger.
I am not going into the detail of this, but one point that worries me so much is that many of these plants, especially those in the islands all over the world, have been written off to take their chance. There is not the money, there is not the opportunity, to save them. This matter was recently discussed at the Stockholm Conference where there was concern, and rightly so, about the loss of wild plants in the world and the loss of the genetic diversity, to which my noble friend Lord Dulverton referred, in the upset of the balance of nature: and because concentration on hybrids tends to lose for ever the original plant from which the hybrids come. It was agreed at Stockholm that the nations represented there would record the facts, would set up collections and seed banks and conserve habitats—those are the three important things which have to be done—and that they would co-operate with other countries. This co-operation has already started.

1229
Turning from the world scene to the British scene, we have been told that one in 14 of the 1,500-odd species are in serious danger. We have been told of the loss of suitable habitats and the four main reasons for that: recreation, urbanisation, the change in agricultural practice and pollution. Many organisations are helping to remedy this. There is the Nature Conservancy Council, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton—and are we not glad to see them under the D.O.E.? They are doing a great deal though, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, they could, I think, do a great deal more with the S.S.S.I.s, now that they have the situation under control, with a Minister who really will be able to help them. There is the Council for Nature which co-operates with all the other nature conservancy bodies and the County Naturalists' Trust. These bodies, each in its own way—and especially the County Naturalists' Trust—are pinpointing the dangers and doing something about them. As this cannot be done without money, tribute should be paid to the World Wildlife Fund, as most of the Fund's money spent in this country is spent for this purpose. So, my Lords, the task in this country is the purchase and then the proctection of habitats, the management of those habitats where necessary and publicity and education which would prevent so much of the thoughtless collection to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, referred.
Another group has been formed, the Plant Resources Working Party, made up of the Botanical Gardens, Nature Conservancy, universities, the Forestry Corn-mission and the Agricultural Research Council. They have given themselves the task of identifying and examining the principal plant collections held in Britain and so form the basis for future collections. Here again this Bill will play a necessary part.
My Lords, let me turn to the Palace of Westminster and raise something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I want to read an excerpt from the Report of the Eighth Meeting of the All-Party Conservation Committee of both Houses of Parliament held on November 22, 1972:
"A. E. Smith, Joint Honorary Secretary of Council for Nature and Honorary Secretary
1230
of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, spoke on comprehensive legislation for the conservation of British wild life. His proposals were wide and constructive. It was considered appropriate that these should be printed and circulated to all members of the Committee. It was considered that such comprehensive legislation was desirable and should be adopted. It was agreed that Ted Smith's proposals would form a suitable starting point. Meanwhile there should be no slackening of efforts to achieve conservation successes through Private Member's Bills and through existing legislation."
Quite recently this Bill was discussed by the same All-Party Conservation Committee and they gave it their blessing. So, my Lords, in giving this Bill your blessing you are giving it the blessing of both Houses of Parliament.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in the excellent work that he is doing. There are one or two alterations to the Bill which I should like to see; it leaves out at least another 40 plants which are almost extinct. We have two great enemies. I am sorry to have to say this, being a farmer myself, but the farmer is, unwittingly, an enemy and I will give your Lordships an example. This year we found only the fourth site of the military orchid. This orchid likes semi-shade and it was growing in the semi-shade thrown by an overgrown hedge on a headland which had not been disturbed for a long time. An efficient, modern farmer unwittingly had the hedge out and put the headland under some kind of crop; and there is the problem.
The other great vandal—and this was touched on earlier in the debate—is the highway authority. For a long time I have had a battle with the Oxfordshire County Council highway authority over the mowing of a stretch of road outside Henley-on-Thames where the local authority has mown as closely as possible up to 20 yards from the roadway. Not only is this a waste of public money, but they have almost succeeded in eradicating a plant which is not particularly rare but very beautiful, the wild marguerite. To take a small area, Fair Mile, North of Henley-on-Thames, as soon as you get a wonderful, glowing, golden carpet of buttercups on each side of the road it is mown down, and all one can see is bits of paper and plastic and other

1231
rubbish. The mowing is grossly overdone. We do not have county surveyors any more; they were very helpful and useful. With the help of a sensitive surveyor we managed to save a site of the dwarf elder which is very rare; the cut-leaved elder of which there is only one known site. But we lost the battle, unfortunately, through a mistake on the part of a contractor, where there was a nice colony of columbine growing wild.
My Lords, I think that we must all put our local authorities under as much pressure as possible not to mow for more than three feet from the side of the road. I remember having a row about this with the county council and finally someone got up and said that beauty has no value. My Lords, beauty has a great value. The man who comes from America to do business on the Slough Trading Estate would come anyway. But the attraction of the beauty of England is an immense source of invisible earnings. Largely through ignorance, and sometimes through pigheadedness, we have this attitude on the part of local engineers, or borough surveyors, or whoever it may be. It is an attempt, as it seems to me, to turn the whole of the roadsides of England into a sort of urbanised area, with all the grass mown down.
I see the difficulty about implementing any law which is passed, but I hope that this Bill will go forward. The police have too much to do as it is, but individuals can do a great deal. I have been able to do something. I was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Somehow we have to find means to educate people. The B.B.C. and the I.T.V. have been very good and helpful. They have shown films of wildlife which no doubt your Lordships have seen. The other way in which something can be done—and we do this locally—is through schools and the teaching there. It is better not to teach children to go picking bunches of wild flowers because they may pick something which is very valuable. But teaching them about the nature of flowers is of great importance. In that way we can be of sonic positive assistance.
I have been fortunate enough to be able to set aside 450 acres of my own land with public access. We have put up hides so that people may go there to eat their sandwiches, to observe and to take
1232
photographs. A small charge of a couple of shillings is made and they can spend all day there with a camera or binoculars just watching. Through inquiries made at Henley Grammar School and other schools, I found that a number of 14, 15 and 16-year-old children have been to Longleat and seen the lions. They have been to the Safari Park at Windsor and to the Duke of Bedford's Park and seen the bison, but they have never seen the English wild deer; they have never seen a badger or a fox. Therefore I am trying in my own small way to encourage them to take an interest in what the Almighty has given us and which has been very much abused.
Naturalist societies, such as the Berks., Bucks, and Oxon. Naturalist Trust, are of immense value. There are always difficulties when it comes to sites. I know, for instance, a site for a wild tulip, a plant which I do not think is on the list. As soon as the site of a rare plant is mentioned, some determined person will go and pick the flowers or try to dig up the plant. Two years ago we had a tremendous flowering of the ghost orchid, one of the rarest English orchids. It has a cycle of life and a rotation of flowering of about 15 years; and suddenly it sprang up not very far from Marlow. There were hundreds of plants which no one had seen growing there before. The difficulty is to preserve these things from people who are ignorant or ill-intentioned. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, if he eventually amends the Bill, to increase the lists of species to be protected. I could cover South Oxfordshire for him. I am fortunate in living in the Chilterns, which is quite the best place for wild orchids and good for wild flowers generally. There is the case I know of the Fen Orchid, which is not at all common. The farmer on whose land it was found, being ignorant, fenced off the land and put his pigs in, so that now we no longer find that orchid there. It occurs to me that perhaps something could be done to protect these species in a rather similar way as in the case of trees, where a preservation order is placed on a particular headland or hedgerow. If it is pointed out to people that there is a valuable plant nearby most people will play the game. The main thing is to support the Bill: it can do nothing but good. I am

1233
grateful to your Lordships for having discussed so thoroughly something which is very close to my heart.
4.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope the Government will take notice of the fact that there has not been one single speaker to-day who has not been wholeheartedly in favour of this Bill. There is nothing I can usefully add to the very powerful arguments that have already been put forward in favour of it. However, I should like just to support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that the noble Baroness might ask her Department to take what I might define as a rather less Departmental outlook on this and remind the House that we did discuss this very problem during the passage of the Criminal Damage Act in 1971, when the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack pointed out to those of us who were then making pleas for conservation that half of what we wanted was included in that very Bill—now an Act of Parliament. I have looked up the words which he used, and he pointed out that you cannot dig up a primrose or a cowslip without committing an offence. That was the implication of it; and then the noble and learned Lord went on to point out that if you want to pick sloes to make sloe gin that was legal under that Act, as indeed it still would be under this Bill.
One of the two key clauses of this Bill is Clause 1, and Clause 1(a) is virtually already the law of the land, although I hope that the definition will be extended slightly to cover some of the less popular plants such as the bryaphytes and the like, which I should like to see protected. Perhaps I am going a little beyond the Second Reading, but it is important for the Department concerned to realise that these points should be looked at in the early stages. The noble Baroness suggested there might be difficulties in agriculture. So far as I know, nobody carries out any operation on any land unless he is the owner, the occupier, the servant of those people or some authorised contractor. So I do not think that agriculture can be damaged by this Bill in any way at all.
Finally, we get down to the possibility that this Bill will create a large number of extra offences. However, so far as
1234
the digging up of plants is concerned it will not create any more offences. A great many counties have long experience of a similar provision made under county council by-laws which forbid the digging up of any plant in any place to which the public have access. Such a provision would represent no burden on the police. Indeed, I might say that it would have the reverse effect, because the mere fact that the police are able to point out to someone in a country district that digging up plants is contrary to the county council by-laws or the law of the land has an immediate effect. People know that they are doing wrong. By and large, people do not want to break the law unnecessarily, and sometimes of course they do not know that they are breaking the law. I do not think I have ever known a prosecution for this offence during a great many years on the local bench, but I know how useful it has been to be able to tell people that such behaviour is contrary to the county council by-laws. I feel that if the Department would look at this clause with rather more of an open mind, and would realise that it does not ask for very much more than exists already, but represents just that little more which would make all the difference to the conservation of our wildlife, I am sure we should be able to get through the Committee stage in amity and produce a reasonable Bill.
4.57 p.m.
THE DUKE of DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening in this debate so late. I assure your Lordships that I shall keep you for only a few minutes. This is an admirable Bill and I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, upon introducing it at this timely moment. I am a little concerned, however, about Clause 11, because it seems to me rather too widely drawn. I should be the last to wish to interfere with the rights of private individuals, but there is one particular aspect of ownership to which I should like to draw the attention of the House.
Some of the best land, botanically, is corporately owned, or indeed nationally owned. The rough of golf courses—par-ticularly those by the seaside—is among the best areas for finding rare specimens. That land, I suppose, is owned by all the members of the club concerned, and therefore Clause 11 ought to go very much wider than merely referring to the owner

1235
or someone authorised by a single individual owner. Other very happy hunting grounds for botanists are disused railway sidings, and even sidings on main-line railways. Owing to the fact that they are not cultivated, that is a very fertile field. This land belongs to British Railways, and I suppose that, indirectly, it belongs to us all. There is a third category on which I am not sure of my ground; that is, land owned by the National Trust. In giving the Bill my warmest support I should like to make the point that at the Committee stage, when we come to Clause 11, this question of land that is owned not by an individual but by a corporate body should be looked at very carefully.
5.0 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House for having failed to add my name to the list of speakers. I excuse myself on the ground that I have had other matters occupying my attention in the past few days. Now I take the opportunity of offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on making this submission to your Lordships' House. I cordially support this Bill, in principle at any rate. May I declare my interest? Apart from my previous connection with the County of Durham, where in my old constituency of Easington they have a famous beauty spot, a nature reserve, Castle Dene. I am also the Patron of the Durham County Conservation Trust. These are my sole qualifications. My knowledge of botanical affairs is extremely limited. The Castle Dene is not only of botanical interest but has historical associations. It was first discovered before the beginning of the 19th Century and it has attracted the attention not only of people in the neighbourhood but of people from afar, persons interested in botanical and archaeological affairs. They are extremely anxious not only to conserve the contents of the reserve but also to make any possible improvements. For that reason I support the principle of the Bill.
I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the speech she made following the submission by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. As I understood her, she accepted the principle of the Bill. But—and I hope that I am not using an improper expression—she seemed to damn it with faint praise,
1236
because she intimated that there were many technical difficulties and obstacles in the way of implementing all the clauses and provisions of the proposed legislation. One difficulty which she mentioned was somewhat extravagant: it was that it is difficult to implement the intention of the Bill regarding farmland. She used the illustration that if wild flowers were flourishing in farmland it would be impossible to prevent them from being uprooted and disturbed by those engaged in farming occupations.
I can understand that; but it was not my impression from the speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it was the intention to include farmland in the implementation and the provisions of the Bill. I thought that the intention was to deal with designated areas, beauty spots, nature reserves, planned and controlled by a local authority or by conservation trusts, or by associations who were anxious to conserve the wild botanical specimens. Therefore, it may be possible in any proposed Amendment to the Bill, or any submission which the Government care to make, to include what I have suggested in designated areas of a particular kind containing botanical specimens which we are anxious to conserve. If such an Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it could assist in overcoming the obstacles which occurred to the noble Baroness.
One of the difficulties about conserving botanical specimens in nature reserves is that, naturally, these places are visited by young people and, very often, by children who are immature, lively and excitable. They pick flowers whenever they feel disposed, and therefore some education is required in these matters. This is where teachers in these areas could assist materially in educating the children in botanical affairs. It could be part of the curriculum—a very desirable part—to prevent what might be regarded as vandalism. It may be necessary to use botanical language which is clearly understood. Members of your Lordships House may be surprised that there was occasion when I once had a garden with 400 rose bushes in it. I did not tend them myself; I managed to employ somebody at a very modest rate of remuneration in order to look after them. I know something about gardens, but I know very little or nothing about wild plants.

1237
I see in the Schedule some designations, and I should like to know what they mean. I can understand a child going into a nature reserve and picking a plant, not knowing whether it is wild, mature or cultured and not understanding the names. I see that one is called Dianthus gratianopolitanus. I am not sure what that means. I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who is an authority in botanical affairs, could explain it. There is one name which is even more remarkable and which attracted my attention at once for a reason which will appear obvious: Orchis militaris. Has this anything to do with defence or the Army? Militaris ! Is that the kind of plant that stands up straight and soldierly?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks at the left hand column of the Schedule he will see that that is a military orchid and the first plant he mentioned is a Cheddar pink.
LORD SHINWELL: Then why not say so in the first place, my Lords? Then we should know what we were talking about. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who is a prominent educationist—
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has failed to notice that on the left-hand side of the Schedule there is the English name and on the right hand side of the Schedule there is the Latin name of exactly the same plant. Therefore, the name of every plant is given in Latin and English.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it is not too apparent because they are run on parallel lines in columns. One would have supposed that they referred to two different kinds of plants. However, now I understand it. I am glad I intervened in this debate because I have gained some knowledge; if I have not imparted any knowledge then I have at least gained some. In the interests of my constituents, who are anxious to conserve these botanical specimens, because sometimes I have to pay them a visit and want still to be on good terms with them, and because I am proud of the fact I am the Patron—not one Patron but the Patron—of the Durham County Conservation Trust, I cordially support this Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am not too sure who are now the constituents of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I think it is the whole world, because he occasionally speaks for the whole world—and with good common sense. He certainly spoke with common sense about the Bill that we have before us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will be happy with the way this debate has gone. I feel that I must say a few words in support of this Bill from this Bench, for I certainly should not like it to be thought that Her Majesty's Opposition are not in favour of protecting the plant life of our countryside, and particularly the species endangered by overpicking and by digging them up and uprooting them. There is little that I would wish to add to the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Charley, whose knowledge of the poetry of the subject did not surprise me though it certainly entertained me. I liked his mention of the medicinal properties of some of the plants that we might be considering to-day. The only one I can think of that I know has medicinal properties happens to be the foxglove. Digitalis has for a long time been used in certain heart conditions.
The picking of flowers by children has been mentioned, and particularly the picking of the bluebell. While I should not like to see our trying to prevent them from picking that lovely flower, I am bound to say that I have from time to time seen masses of faded bluebells on the road, picked and discarded by children on the way home. It seems to be the case that the bluebells are picked, they fade fairly rapidly, and then they are discarded. I know some areas where in my young days they were very prolific but where now they are not to be found at all; and I very much regret this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell that this is very much a matter for education.
I would support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to the road authorities to do the least possible damage to our wild flowers by overcutting or spraying road verges. To his plea I would add a request to the Railways Board to deal understandingly with their embankments and the area between the permanent way and the railway boundaries, for those areas are so often the last

1239
refuge of the wild flowers of that particular part of the countryside. Then burning off, which is commonly done, can destroy beautiful banks. It so happens that on my way up to this House I have to pass a bank that used to be, in spring, a lovely mass of primroses: it was a joy to look at this bank on the way up to this House. But burning off has completely destroyed the whole of that bank, and it is now covered by brambles, and certainly not beautiful flowers.
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her criticism, which I am sure will be helpful to the House when we come to consider the Bill in Committee. From this Bench I certainly support the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have unanimously given strenuous support to this Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not take up every individual suggestion that has been made in the course of this debate. The whole problem of increasing the number of species in the Schedule is of course one that we should look at at Committee stage. I think we should be well advised to include any species which may have been carelessly omitted but which definitely comes within the same category as the 20 named. I am not entirely certain that we should be right to extend the Schedule at this particular stage. This is because I should like us to treat the conservation of these 20 species as a matter of enormous importance.
I am not very happy, if your Lordships will forgive my saying so, with the noble Baroness's suggestion that agriculture, forestry and drainage were rarely sufficient reasons why the plants named in this Schedule, which are really endangered plants, should be endangered more and that some of them might have to be destroyed. This is a point on which I feel that this Bill could deal with even more strongly than it does. I should have thought that to make the ordinary agricultural operations a defence was, if not going too far, at least going far enough. But that is not a major matter, and I am
1240
quite certain that we can reach accommodation on this particular point. But there is a reason for keeping the Schedule short; that is to give the maximum protection to these particular flowers without trespassing on anybody's rights.
I was grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, for his suggestions that we might look at these definitions again. I think I am right in saying that these definitions are based on those used in other similar Bills, but we will certainly look at the point. I am indeed most grateful to the noble Baroness for her general welcome to the Bill, and for the general welcome that the Government have given. It is a great step forward to-day that the Government have declared their support for the principles of this kind of conservation.
I join my voice with those of one or two other noble Lords in the plea that the Department might have a look again at one or two of the reasons which they put up for opposing Clause 1(a) and the reasons which the noble Baroness put forward for opposing Clause 1. I think that some of them were based on a misunderstanding. This question of cutting and offering for sale of wild flowers is one about which I have had a large number of letters from many people. People feel very strongly about it. I understand from the noble Baroness that one of the reasons for not liking this particular point is that many of these flowers are much the same as cultivated species and it might be difficult to differentiate between the two of them. But, my Lords, if it is wrong to cut wild flowers on other people's land and expose them for sale, is it not that much more wrong to cut cultivated flowers on other people's land and expose them for sale? Indeed, it is theft and therefore already covered. So I do not think that this particular difficulty of the definition should worry us greatly, because if the definition is extended then it is already covered by the law. Equally, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, pointed out, the Criminal Damage Act already covers a large number of the offences of picking plants on other people's land. All this Bill would do would be to extend slightly this coverage.
I was not certain that it was the happiest phrase the noble Baroness used when she said that we must not make

1241
offences of what are otherwise innocent activities. I do not think that digging up plants or cutting wild flowers on other people's land and offering them for sale—which is what we are speaking about—are innocent activities. We are not in any way threatening the innocent activity of just the occasional plucking of a wild flower. A further point which the noble Baroness made was about blanket coverage. The model Home Office bylaw, which is still in force in many parts of the country, and which is not now readopted only because of a technical disparity with the Criminal Damage Act—I stress that it is only technical—says this:
"No person shall without lawful authority uproot any ferns, primroses or other plants growing in any road, lane, roadside, waste roadside, bank or hedge, common or other place to which the public has access".
So the Home Office has already given its blessing to this particular blanket coverage.
Obviously, we are coming to the end of the Second Reading debate. We shall have plenty of opportunity to look at these points on the Committee stage. I welcome the noble Baroness's good will in this matter. I warn her that I shall take full advantage of it and try to see whether we cannot iron out a number of these points before we come back to your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that out of your Lordships' support today will come a very worthwhile Bill, no matter what the details are. Whereas I certainly shall go back and look at what the noble Baroness has said, I hope that the noble Baroness and her Department will reciprocate.
I should like to close, slightly out of Order, I am afraid, by apologising for my inability to remain and support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to which I should have liked to give the same support as he has privately given to my Bill. May I once again thank noble Lords for their support. I am quite certain that what we have done this afternoon, in the midst of this national crisis—or what I hope your Lordships are going to do in giving this Bill a Second Reading now—is a worth-while first step on the way to our obtaining a very good new law.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
5.23 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. If I had been asked a few years ago whether I would be following the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in moving a Bill of this kind, I imagine I should have said, "I think you have chosen the wrong person." I must admit that I am one of those who have, alas! been brought up with no adequate biological background and training. I have to admit that I was brought up educationally as a physical scientist, and it seems a little odd that a person brought up with that training should now come before your Lordships and ask you to consider this Bill, which is a conservationists' Bill and concerned with living things. But even a physical scientist may, as life goes on, begin to find that there is a great deal to learn beyond the limited scope of his own subject. I gladly admit that I have been learning much over the last few years.
The first time I began to learn anything at all in this direction was when, as your Lordships may recollect, a few years ago a Private Bill was promoted for setting up a dam in the Northern parts of this country in order to facilitate a reservoir. It was the Cow Green scheme. This involved flooding a vast area and the likely destruction of plants which had existed there from a time before the last Ice Age. I began to realise that there were problems here to which I had never given any attention, and perhaps it was time that I should begin to give them attention. So I appear before your Lordships to-night and ask you to give consideration to this Bill, which is a measure to preserve endangered species. What are these endangered species? I was asked by one noble Lord whether he was included. I assured him that I would certainly not wish his extermination but he could scarcely be called "a species", although he might be regarded as a very interesting specimen.
My Lords, when we speak about endangered species we speak of species of living creatures, of animals, birds (since they are often separated from animals), fish, and indeed plants. These form the living environment in which we grow up

1243
and develop. Our whole life and development is affected by this environment. If we destroy this environment, we imperil the very conditions in which we live. It is a sad fact that the growth of our industrial society has almost inevitably, almost necessarily, brought with it conditions which lead to the destruction of species all round the world. I believe that over the last hundred years mankind has succeeded in destroying one animal species every year, and that this is a far more rapid rate of destruction of species than ever occurred before. It has been taking place as a result of our industrial civilisation and the means put at our disposal, to which we have ready access, to destroy whenever we wish. Some of this destruction may be inevitable. It is impossible to say that species can necessarily persist. We know perfectly well that species may disappear despite attempts to keep them alive, but we now realise that a great deal of this process is due to human activities.
Your Lordships are as well aware as I am of that very interesting herd in Northumberland called the Chillingham herd. These are cattle which go back to the beginning of our era. This herd was nearly wiped out. In the year when I went to Newcastle, 1947, the herd was nearly wiped out because of a very severe winter. I believe I am right in saying that two young bulls died that winter and only an old bull was left, and it was doubtful whether he, though active enough to deal with other bulls, was still sufficiently either keen or active to deal with the cows. Consequently, there was considerable risk that the herd would die out. It did not. But I believe that it was threatened again at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic a few years ago when there was a grave risk that the whole herd might be condemned. This is the kind of accident that can take place without a deliberate attempt by human beings.
However, in this Bill we are dealing with something different. We are speaking not of the accidents that occur—although we should do everything to stop them if possible—but about deliberate attempts by human beings to make profits out of trading in the skins and other parts of rare animals. The importance of doing this has been so much realised in recent
1244
years that there was held in Washington in March of last year a meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, as a result of which there was drawn up this convention which was presented to Parliament in November last by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The convention was signed, I think, by 39 different countries, including this country. But so far it has not been ratified by any single one of them, and those of us who are interested in this problem of conservation—and that really means all of us—are hoping that we can now move on to the point of ratification.
We may be asked: Is there any urgency about it? Can we do it to-day? Might we not put it off? Is it not sensible to take our time? Unfortunately, my Lords, one has to bear in mind that a convention that was signed nearly a year ago is a warning signal to all those who want to make a profit out of the trade in these animals. The profit is enormous, and they know perfectly well that if they delay until the convention is ratified by ten countries, which will make it operative, a lot of their trade will have disappeared and it will become an increasingly precarious business for them. Therefore, in order to make it difficult or Impossible for them to continue in this trade, we should ratify as quickly as possible. That, my Lords, indicates the urgency of these matters.
When one looks at the various aspects of this trade one finds that it covers everything from the large mammals—from the elephant, the carnivores, right down through the smaller animals, fishes, birds, even including such things as butterflies. I was surprised to learn that the price of a rare butterfly is very considerable. One can easily see the advantage to an unscrupulous person of trading in this illegal way, because a single pair of butterflies of the rarest type of species is listed at £135. So it is clear that it is not small money that people can make out of this sort of trade. Some of your Lordships may have noticed on the television last night a short film about elephants in Kenya. One large elephant there, because of its great value, was apparently being specially safeguarded, by four wardens, in case it should be shot. It actually died as the result of an ulcer, but the value of its tusks was said

1245
to be £7,000. One can see that the unscrupulous can make a lot of money, and we should take action to prevent it.
This Bill is concerned with the implementation of the various points raised in the convention. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with all the details, but if one looks at the Bill one sees that Clause 1 extends the existing conservation legislation to plants. In other words, the Bill covers plants as well as animals in their widest sense. Clause 2 extends the legislation to cover export as well as import. Clauses 3 and 4 are important because of their novelty; that is, they provide for controlling trade in the parts and manufacture of products of animals which are in need of conservation. When legislation was introduced earlier the question of parts of animals raised a difficulty because it was not at all clear that scientific methods were adequate for identifying parts. It is now fairly certain that the scientific methods are quite adequate and that the parts can be readily identified; therefore the clause refers to recognisable parts.
Clause 5 refers to the drawing up of a list. This is primarily an educational venture in that there will be an endangered species list showing in plain terms, with suitable illustrations, the species concerned. I was asked by one noble Lord in the early part of the afternoon why no list was included in this Bill. The answer is very simple. The convention covers something like 600 different species and it would have taken up too much space to list them all here. The list is available, however, in the printed convention agenda which can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office.
Clause 6 provides for certain specified ports of entry, so that if the Customs and Excise authorities felt that it was desirable to have the importation entirely through certain ports, those specified ports would be the only ones available. Clause 7 extends the existing customs powers of investigation of offences relating to controlled animals to all controlled species and products. Products, an important point in the Bill, will be included. Clause 8 deals with offences and up-dates some of the excepting passages as well as providing machinery for the various advisory committees to influence the disposal of live species seized by customs as illegal imports. An important point
1246
of the Bill is that there should be a set of expert advisory committees, some of which may be already in existence, which would continuously advise Governments as to what animals or species should be added to the list, or if necessary removed from the list if it is no longer necessary to include them. These, my Lords, are the essential points of this Bill.
I have received a good deal of correspondence from various societies, and if I may I will mention them to your Lordships. I have received supporting letters from the British Veterinary Association, from the Society for the Promotion of Nature Resources, the International Society for the Protection of Animals and from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I should say that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of course realise that the Bill is not specifically concerned with stopping cruelty but that it is concerned with the conservation of species.
I also received a very valuable letter from Sir Peter Scott, which, if your Lordships will permit me, I will read. He said:
"I am writing in support of the Endangered Species Bill introduced by you just before Christmas. The International Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is the result of many years' work by the Survival Service Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources but the Convention can only be implemented with the support of strong legislation by the signing Governments.
As Chairman of the Survival Service Commission I therefore welcome the introduction of your Bill and very much hope that it will be given a speedy passage through Parliament."
This is a clear indication that the Bill is one which has widespread support, and I am very proud to be permitted to introduce it to your Lordships' House. I hope that it will get the same swift passage as the excellent Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has just introduced. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)
5.42 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, once again I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point to give the Government's view on this Bill. Perhaps I may begin by

1247
saying that the Government fully support the admirable intentions behind this Bill. Indeed, I feel sure that your Lordships will entirely share with me the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. We certainly believe that all practicable steps must be taken to conserve as many species as possible of the world's heritage of wild flora and fauna. Action is especially needed, on an international scale, to protect those rarer species that are threatened with extinction by indiscriminate trading.
In the past twenty-five years there have been greatly increased pressures on some animals and plants from human activities. There has been widespread destruction of their habitats, and with the resultant diminution in numbers the commercial value of some fauna and flora has accordingly risen. In addition to the inroads made on populations through an increasing trade in live creatures, excessively large numbers of animals and plants have been taken for food or for leather or furs, for decoration and a wide variety of other purposes. The technological age has made it only too easy to destroy huge numbers of formerly common species. As early as 1961 the Survival Service Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources had drawn up a list of endangered species of animals.
As the noble Lord has made clear, the main objective of the Bill is to enable us to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. This Convention is the outcome of several years of effort, in which the United Kingdom played a leading part, at meetings of the I.U.C.N. and at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in June 1972. The Convention provides for the control of both exports and imports of whole specimens of certain animals and plants and of many of their parts and derivatives. The species to be most strictly controlled, which are those already considered to be threatened with extinction, are listed in Appendix 1 to the Convention. Other species which, though not in immediate danger, are considered likely to become endangered if trade were not regulated, are listed in the second Appendix. For the second group trade will be controlled and monitored so that action can be taken
1248
if a threat to survival develops. A third Appendix lists species which a contracting State may consider threatened within its own borders, and in respect of which it operates export control. Other contracting States are invited, but not required, to operate import controls in these cases. The Convention necessarily, however, allows contracting States to reserve their position in respect of specific items in any of the Appendices.
The Convention was signed in Washington in March of last year on behalf of the United Kingdom and 23 other countries. Others have since joined in and, to date, 37 nations have signed the Convention. I must emphasise here that it is not the practice of the United Kingdom Government to sign international Conventions unless they are in earnest. We fully intend to ratify the Convention unless there emerge overriding practical difficulties in the way of our doing so. I can assure your Lordships that no such difficulty has yet appeared. So I can support the noble Lord in saying that it is our intention to ratify as soon as the practical problems have been overcome.
It should also be said—and I think we can say it with some pride—that we are one of the leading nations of the world in already operating trade controls of the kind envisaged by the Convention. The Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964 was our response to earlier efforts by the I.U.C.N. in this direction. Under it we already restrict severely imports of live specimens of nearly all the rare animals covered by the Convention. Indeed, in one or two cases, such as that of the pongidae family (great apes) our controls are more severe than the Convention requires. On the advice of a committee of independent experts we admit imports of these rare species mainly for special purposes, such as breeding or scientific research. The list of controlled species is kept under continuous review by the Advisory Committee and is varied as necessary from time to time. This list is extended as necessary under the 1964 Act by Order. Also, in the interests of international conservation, we have controls on the import of certain birds, under the Protection of Birds Acts. These controls differ somewhat in form from those applied to animals, but they can be varied and were extended a few years

1249
ago to apply to birds of prey and owls.
A major gap in our controls, though not in our powers, which has to be filled in order to implement the Convention, relates to wild plants. At present we exercise no control over endangered species of plants, and there is certainly a need for action. We shall also need to extend controls over the parts and derivatives of wild fauna and flora. Some parts of animals and birds are, however, already controlled under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, and these powers could be used to fill such gaps as those which I have mentioned. There is, for example, a total ban on imports of vicuna hair and of tiger and certain leopard fur skins. There is also a ban on all whale products other than sperm oil, and strict control on the plumage of jungle fowl and the fur skins of certain other leopards and cheetahs. Thus we are already acting in the field of parts and derivatives, although the Convention will require us to control many more of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned the point about the export of—
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, if she is relying on the open general import licence powers, who is the Minister responsible? There is no Nature Conservancy Council control over the powers. I know that the Customs have to direct imports, but it is really most unsatisfactory to try to convince anyone of that.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding of this Act is that of course it would operate under the Advisory Committee on animals that has been set up and which could of course be extended by other appointments to meet the kind of cases that I have quoted. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, made a point about the export of animals or derivatives. I should like to assure him that this point is met by the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.
Against this background, which I have tried to explain as fully as I can, it is with considerable regret that I have to ask the House not to support this particular Bill. I do so on three counts. Firstly, it is not necessary in order to enable us to ratify the Convention; the
1250
existing legislation is adequate for that purpose. Secondly, although fresh comprehensive legislation would be administratively desirable, it is important to get it right and further work still needs to be done on the implications of the Convention. Thirdly and finally, and with the greatest respect for the very thorough work done by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, his Bill is, we think, fundamentally wrong in the way it seeks to tackle the problem. Perhaps I may elaborate these three lines of thought.
My Lords, we are fully satisfied, and we have gone into this carefully, that the Acts to which I have referred earlier, and under which we already exercise a considerable degree of control, do provide all the powers that are needed to implement the Convention. We recognise that the Protection of Birds Acts were designed for rather different purposes and are not entirely sufficient to deal with even live birds in the ways required by the Convention. The Animals Act is also limited to live specimens and does not cover exports and re-exports. But the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which contains very wide-ranging powers indeed, can be used to supplement these other provisions. As I have already indicated, this Act has been used for many years to control bird plumage and, more recently, certain furskins. We are advised that, to the extent that any of the present Acts which deal specifically with these issues fall short of what is required, there is no legal objection to the use of the 1939 Act.
I do not pretend that the position will be entirely satisfactory. There could be administrative problems. As a consequence, I am sure that fresh, comprehensive legislation would be desirable when proper time can be found for it. But we are certain that there is no statutory obstacle to our ratifying the Convention. Moreover, the administrative problems of operating with the existing powers should not, in our view, affect the enforcement of the controls. Having established that we already possess all the powers that are strictly necessary, it would be inadvisable to rush into fresh legislation before all the practical implications of the Convention have been thoroughly examined.
My Lords, an inter-Departmental committee of officials is examining the prac-

1251
tical problems. This is by no means a simple task. One of the main difficulties is that of identification of species, their parts and derivatives at the ports of entry into the United Kingdom. It would not always be possible, for example, to distinguish the parts and derivatives of one family from those of another. Ivory includes not only elephant tusks, but also the tusks of the walrus and the teeth of any animal. Taking elephant ivory alone, it would be almost impossible to distinguish between African and Indian elephant ivory. The Indian elephant is protected under Convention, but the African elephant is not. These are merely examples and I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that, with the many species listed in the Convention, the task of producing a comprehensive list of identifiable species, parts and derivatives is not one to be completed in haste. We must ensure that rare species will not suffer from exploitation simply because they cannot be distinguished from their mare common relatives within the same family. One of the solutions to this problem may be found in applying the controls to a much wider range of animals than those which the Convention is designed to protect, but this too may have its problems where common members of the family are the subject of acceptable trade. To give an example, American beaver skins are traded in widely, whereas the Convention protects the European beaver, but the skins in each case are indistinguishable one from the other. The impact of this solution on trade must be taken into account and consideration given to whether it will be necessary to enter reservations. It is also clear that, because trade is involved, consultation with our E.E.C. partners is necessary. But I will return to that question in a moment.
My Lords, these points might not be conclusive if the Bill succeeded in pulling together the existing powers into a single code, tailored to the objectives of the Convention. But this is precisely what the Bill does not do. It seeks to build on some of the existing Acts by referring back to them and by adding new provisions. It even seeks to amend the Short Title of the 1964 Act. This cannot be accepted. The essential point is that the whole approach of the Bill is wrong.
1252
What would be needed, if we were to have legislation, would be a new, consolidating Bill which repealed the existing legislation, re-enacted those parts that were still relevant and extended the provisions to meet the requirements of the Convention. By treating the matter in this comprehensive and integrated way, we would have a single and easily comprehensible code. I am bound, therefore, to advise the House that, rather than improve the position, the approach adopted in this Bill would make matters even more confused and ambiguous.
My Lords, I referred earlier to the fact that we shall have to consult our partners in the E.E.C. about the Convention, and I should like now to expand a little on that. As the Convention is concerned with international trade there are obvious implications for the Community. The Convention recognises the special position of organisations such as the E.E.C. Article XIV provides that the Convention shall in no way affect the provisions or obligations of any treaty establishing a customs union in relation to trade between its members. This means that the Member States of the E.E.C. would not be in breach of the Convention if they exercised the controls on endangered species only at the point of entry to any Member State and not as between themselves. If this approach were adopted it would imply, of course, virtually simultaneous ratification of the Convention by all E.E.C. members. Seven of the nine members have already signed and it is expected that the other two (the Irish Republic and the Netherlands) will be able to do so in due course. It is not in fact wholly clear whether, under the Treaty of Rome, individual E.E.C. members could proceed separately. Article 36 of the Treaty appears to provide for this possibility but, if we felt it necessary to proceed on our own or in concert with only some of the other members, this is something we should be obliged to discuss with the Commission.
My Lords, this question of unilateral action by any country misses the essential issue. The Convention is an international one and we can only achieve its objectives by international co-operation. Ratification by the United Kingdom alone would achieve little. Until ten nations have ratified it, the Convention does not even come into operation. According to the latest information we have, only the

1253
U.S.A. has so far ratified and they did so as recently as January 14. It is certainly most desirable that countries such as ours who are strong advocates of the aims of the Convention should give a lead to others; and this we are well placed to do. As one of the world's leaders on conservation matters we have an important role to play here in encouraging others, especially within the E.E.C., to adopt these important safeguards to endangered species. Indeed, if the E.E.C. members, together with the U.S.A., ratify the Convention, this alone will be sufficient to bring it into effect and give a most valuable boost to the conservation cause everywhere. Although, therefore, we must consult our E.E.C. partners before we can ratify the Convention, this is not to be seen as a cause of delay in giving effect to it. On the contrary, our latest information is that a good deal of progress is being made in Europe. We see the consultation as a necessary step towards the international co-operation that is so essential. Without that co-operation, the Convention will be little more than a piece of paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the question of setting up a scientific authority. The Convention requires one or more such authorities to be set up in the acceding States, to advise on the export and import of endangered species of flora and fauna. The Animals Advisory Committee, which is in effect already a scientific authority for live animals, is a statutory body set up under the 1964 Animals Act. It may well be asked, therefore, whether we need legislation to set up an authority with the wider range of functions required by the Convention. I should like to make it clear that we do not. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State can appoint one or more scientific authorities as soon as we are ready to do so. But this is not, I suggest, one of the most urgent matters. We already have a wide range of scientific advice upon which we are drawing.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the point that there would be some possibly unscrupulous people who could be trying, as it were, to beat the ban of the Convention and take what animals they could. I would point out that, so far as live animals are concerned, they are nearly all protected by the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act
1254
1964. The difficulty is with parts and derivatives, because there are still many problems to be solved before a comprehensive list can be drawn up of recognisable parts and derivatives. But I can assure the House that steps are being taken to speed up this work.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness enlighten us about fur coats? As I understand it, the unmade-up skins are covered but there seems to be a gap in the legislation, so I am advised, where made-up garments, coats and stoles and the like, are concerned. Could the noble Baroness tell us about that?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this is one of the matters which will, of course, be looked at. I understand that this all-embracing Act, the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, could be used to cover these matters. This is a matter on which I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness, or possibly to answer her later on in the debate.
I should like to conclude by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that I hope I have said enough to assure him that it is the Government's intention to ratify this Convention, and we are actively concerned in looking now at all the practical steps we must take to do so. He has my assurance that the Government support his objective, but I would ask him whether he feels able to withdraw his Bill. There are the objections to it that I have indicated, and it is not necessary at this stage. I can assure him that it would do nothing to accelerate ratification of the Convention. Indeed, it might have the reverse effect. Nor would it serve to clarify the statutory position and help to simplify the administrative arrangements. It could indeed make matters worse. If the noble Lord is not prepared to withdraw, I very much regret that I must ask the House to oppose the Bill. I hope that the House will recognise that the intentions of the Government are, I believe, those of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sorry to ask the noble Baroness another question. Have the Government the intention or the power to carry out Clause 6, which is to limit the import or export to certain ports such as what are known as the rabies ports?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I understand that it would be perfectly possible to limit import or export of animals or their derivatives to certain ports. I think this is very much a matter for professional advice and opinion, as to whether in fact it helps the situation to have imports and exports through certain main ports or all of them. But it is possible.
6.5 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, as one who, like the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has often benefitted from the education received by people listening in your Lordships' House, I must say that I appreciated his own introduction to his Bill, which gave me a very clear idea of his aims and how he was hoping they would be carried into effect. I was looking forward to acting as a godparent to this legislative baby, but the noble Baroness, Lady Young, so far as I could gather, has already administered the Departmental poison dagger to the infant before it has emerged partway through its second stage in your Lordships' House. This means that I find myself beginning a slightly different speech from the one I expected to make. When a Government claim to be in favour of taking measures to preserve endangered species, one expects them to take action, particularly when their own Departmental staffs and Customs and Excise people have been working on this problem for some years. But they come along to your Lordships and say, "This Bill is no good, but we do not intend to do anything. We have the powers, but we do not intend to use them. We have no plans for to-morrow or the day after to-morrow". The noble Baroness did not give a date when the Government will be taking action to do the things which the noble Lord wants done.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that, because I think it is an important matter of principle to get right in the discussion of this Bill. I have indicated very clearly that it is the Government's intention to ratify the Convention. We have signed it, and we do not sign a Convention without intending to ratify it. We are actively pursuing these really quite complicated matters, drawing up, for example, lists of derivatives of animals. I have not given a
1256
date because I cannot promise that it will be done within a short period of time, but it is our intention to ratify as soon as we possibly can, and this does not mean in twenty years' time.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Departments had been working on this matter for several years, that Customs and Excise and other people had played a leading part in drafting a Convention that was signed ten months ago, and that now they are setting up a Departmental committee. I should have thought that that was a little tardy in view of the urgency of the situation. I do not want to get on to a controversial note at the beginning of what I want to say, but I was rather struck by the contrast between what the noble Baroness said were the admirable intentions of the noble Lord's Bill and her own expression of what she was going to do about those admirable intentions, when she was asking your Lordships not to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I am not a scientist, let alone a biologist. I cannot really say that I have first-hand knowledge of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is drawing attention, but I did make a list this morning from an encyclopaedia dealing with the matter of some of the species that have become extinct since the turn of the century. I found 38 such species, after a brief look, including Steller's seacow, the giant aye aye, apart from the indefatigable rice rat, which I am sure that we are all worse off without. Those of your Lordships who may think that this Bill is not particularly relevant should be reminded of something that the noble Baroness herself quoted, the vicuña. The prohibition against importing this animal, which is in great danger, in fur or parts, has made a significant contribution towards its continued existence. Those who poach it in its natural habitat cannot be controlled, but when importing countries make restrictions then, of course, those who poach find there is less outlet for that particular endangered species.
The noble Baroness made an attack on the noble Lord's Bill under three separate headings. The first was that it was not really necessary. This was where she went rather fast. Maybe there was

1257
something significant in that or maybe not. I think she was quoting a 1939 Act that was rushed through as a war measure to stop profiteering activities such as happen in time of war. Is this not the origin of the Act that she says should now be used to deal with endangered species? Perhaps she could give us some more detail about the real intention behind the original Act before saying that she has all the powers necessary to do what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, intends to do.
The noble Baroness said that this would take time. I would reiterate that this is a surprising point to make after what she said about the length of time that had been spent on this matter, especially when our delegation played an important point in drafting the actual I.U.C.N. Convention. When she went on to say that certain parts of certain species might be difficult to identify she was, by implication, criticising a list which forms part of a Convention that Her Majesty's Government's officials played a large part in drafting. This is really a circular process and hardly satisfactory. Perhaps we could have a little more information about the actual difficulties here, because they must have been envisaged at the time when the original I.U.C.N. Convention was drawn up.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Commission of the E.E.C. I would ask your Lordships to accept that that Commission supports the principle of this Convention as a whole, and is currently examining the possibility of the E.E.C. acceding to this Convention. So whether or not the noble Lord's Bill is needed, the Inter-Departmental Committee may find itself having to work quite fast if the Commission comes up with the conclusion that the Community as a whole should sign and ratify this Convention and put it into practice.
I am sorry if I have made a slightly negative contribution to what I hope will be a very positive debate launching this Bill to a further stage. It is a sad occasion to find a Government saying that they approve the principles of a Bill trying to deal with a serious situation, while at the same time not saying that they intend to do anything about it soon. They say that the noble Lord's Bill is bad for various reasons, without saying what they are going to do instead. Because
1258
that is the situation, I would ask your Lordships not to accept the invitation of the noble Baroness to send this Bill away. Let us proceed further, if only to see in greater detail the force behind some of the arguments that the noble Baroness was using to-day. It is an important matter, and the reasons that we have been given to-day for not giving this Bill a Second Reading are not adequate. My Lords, I support this Bill.
6.13 p.m.
THE EARL of CRANBROOK: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about the Convention during the past hour or so. For my part I welcome this Bill as being very imporant for conservation in general, without having any regard to the Convention to which, for reasons I can perhaps make it clear a little later, I do not attach quite such importance as do one or two other speakers this afternoon. I was Chairman of the Advisory Committee set up under the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964—the Committee referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill. According to the Bill, this Committee would continue to advise the Government, as it has in the past, on the importation of the animals for which it it already responsible, and would have plants and, I think, invertebrates thrown upon it as well. On that Committee we found that although we could do useful work within the power that we had—which was to control the importation of live animals—there were a great many animals which were already rare (some on the verge of extinction), and which were being practically pushed over the edge by trade in their skins or other products. We were told that the Government had no power to prevent that trade, and I think that we advised in two of our reports that the sort of power which is specified in this Bill to control the import of animal products should be given to the Government.
May I give one particular example. The vicuña is an exceedingly rare animal in South America. It has been brought to the verge of extinction because its wool is the softest in the world, and all the ladies in the world are only too anxious to have coats made of vicuña wool. We would have welcomed the import of breeding stocks of that animal into this country so that it could be bred in captivity with the possibility of return

1259
ing it to the wild when the people in its own country had exterminated it in pursuit of its products. Finally, under constant pressure, the Government found some way round the problem and the importation of the wool was prevented. It ought to be made abundantly clear that that is the power which the Government have. The point which the noble Baroness has missed—although possibly I should not say so—is that it is important to have a Committee of experts to advise, and it is this Committee of experts which this Bill would provide and which otherwise would not be provided.
May I give one more example of the sort of thing that is going to happen if we can gain control of animal products. At the present moment, very few live sea snails are imported, and then only to a few zoos, and the trade in the live ones (which could be controlled under the 1964 Act) is of negligible importance. But there is the most enormous trade in shells that are popular among collectors all over the world. You can see catalogues listing thousands of species, and collectors pay literally hundreds of pounds for some of the rarer or more beautiful ones. Once it is possible to control the importation of products, we are going to be brought up against the problem very quickly indeed. I suppose more damage is being done to the environment of shells than is being done to the environment of almost any other animal by the completely reckless exploitation that is taking place. This occurs particularly in tropical regions, where professional collectors are dynamiting the coral reefs throughout the whole of the tropics, and where even amateurs are playing their part in the destruction. I understand that you can pay for a holiday on the Great Barrier Reef by going there with an aqualung and on your return home selling the shells you collect.
There are some countries, such as Kenya and Hawaii and a few others, that have legislation to prevent, or try to prevent, the export of products of this nature and to protect the environment, and we should most certainly have the power to support them. I should like this to go far beyond what the Convention lays down, because it is important not only to protect the rare shells but
1260
to protect the habitat in which they are found. If you allow that habitat to be destroyed by collectors of shells of every sort you are destroying rare and common together. I should like us to have the power to prevent importation, perhaps by geographical as opposed to specific definitions, in order to help those countries which have this admirable legislation, which is very often rendered nugatory by illegal exports coming happily into countries which do not control it.
If one is to have legislation controlling imports of such things, the advisory committee has at least two, what I might call administrative axioms, which it must lay down. These are administrative axioms which, if the noble Lord who introduced the Bill will excuse me saying, I think he has failed to appreciate in parts of his Bill and which, it seems to me, the people who drew up the Convention have most certainly failed to appreciate. First, it is no good having a law forbidding the importation of animals or any other product unless there is some chance of the customs officer who has to control the importation being able to recognise what comes in. It is a pure waste of time introducing legislation to control the import of animals or plants when in fact the trade in them is so negligible that it has no effect on their status in the wild.
My Lords, I looked through the Appendices to the Convention and these two administrative axioms seem to have been totally disregarded by the people who drew up those lists. For instance, there is a list of molluscs in Appendix 1—and I am not an expert in this particular field for reasons which I will make clear—and I am told that the whole of that list is of fresh water molluscs from North America and that there is no man in this country who would be capable of distinguishing them if they were brought to him by a customs officer. Certainly in some of the other classes, of which I do have some knowledge, there are a number of sub-species laid down in the list which certainly a taxonomist could not identify, because they are so close to other sub-species, unless they had a label on them saying where they came from.
That is not to say that this Bill is not essential, as I said in my introductory words, for conservation in general. That,

1261
I think, is the point which the noble Baroness has missed in suggesting that we should not give the Bill a Second Reading. It is true, and the Bill expressly accepts that fact, that practically all the restrictions which have to be imposed and the controls which have to be made, can be made under current legislation, provided that on the advice of advisory committees set up under current legislation they are given the power by some new Act, such as I hope this Bill will become. The Committee of which I was Chairman is dealing expressly with vertebrate animals. I hope that there will be other committees set up because I do not believe that the Bill is right in giving that Committee other orders to deal with. I hope that other committees will be set up to deal with invertebrates. We already have committees for dealing with the importation of birds. As the Bill suggests, they are to advise the Government on that matter. What this Bill is designed to set up is the advisory machinery which is essential in order that the Government can put into operation Acts which already exist, and also to advise them on their operation, for which no committee already exists.
Naturally, I am somewhat biased having been a member of an advisory committee myself, but I do not believe that the administrative machine can work on things like this unless they have advisory committees of experts with a non-expert, such as ours had, in the Chair, able to weigh up all the evidence, with some knowledge of the creatures concerned and able to advise the Government.
That is what this Bill provides. That is what has to be provided in any case, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the advice of the Government but will give this Bill a Second Reading, although I think that it needs very drastically amending. First, the list in Clause 6 is a nonsense because it must be bound by the two administrative axioms to which I have referred already. It would be fatal to try to publish the evidence on which the committees act, because inevitably they will be giving advice continuously and it would be almost impossible to publish all the advice they give; and in a great many cases, particularly in the importation of live animals, it is contingent already in this country. I think that under Article 5
1262
of the Convention it is recommended that the importation of live animals should be allowed only to people who are competent to look after them. Quite clearly, it would be impossible to publish the "pros" and "cons" of whether a man is competent to look after a couple of chimpanzees or white rabbits. Nevertheless, that side of the Bill could be dealt with in Committee. The fundamental point of having these advisory committees is really important. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.28 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, very briefly, I believe that the House should consider what we are actually talking about. We imported the following numbers of skins between January and October, 1973: 2 cwt. of reptile leather; dressed; 272 cwt. of raw reptile skins; 2,511 cheetah and jaguar, 789 leopard, 37,910 otter, and 43,786 ocelot. In spite of what the noble Baroness said, I feel that some legislation now is essential. I am told that the definition of animals, for example, does not include invertebrates. But the one thing that worries me that at present is not covered in law, is the import and export of non-indigenous species and their products. They do not come within the scope of the Nature Conservancy Council Act. Why not use the 1964 Act machinery for those over an open general import licence. I know the customs do it and I know my noble friend Lord Cranbrook spoke about it. If anyone knew the trouble we had to convince the Customs and Excise that they could tell vicuña hair, they would realise that this is not a suitable vehicle. Therefore I would support the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on endangered species I find myself somewhat unhappy about it. Looking back over the existing 1954 Act, an enormous Act, I feel that if it were amended, as it was in 1954, it could well be brought up to date. I feel that that would probably be easier without all the work of introducing a new Bill either to add to the existing Bill or to subtract from it. If a species is becoming too numerous and does not need to be protected it can be subtracted. On the other hand, if it

1263
is becoming rare it can be placed on the list. I should have thought that was an easier course than having a new Bill. The existing Act is quite phenomenal in its use of Latin names, but being a physics scientist the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has not put them all into this Bill. But there is one species which is fairly rare and will become even rarer in the years to come which might be added at some time, and that is the hereditary Peer.
Last week, I had the honour to be in contact with Sir Peter Scott. From my childhood days I have always had a great love for him, especially for his paintings and his writings on wildfowl. I have always found his pictures tremendously thrilling. He was kind enough to tell me what has been going on over recent years, in order to get over to the public the fact that certain species are being endangered, and he also sent me a copy of the magazine Wild Life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, mentioned the amazing figures in Washington, where 23 countries signed the Convention and 65—who probably intended to pay only lip service to it—said that they would sign it, but in fact did not do so. The United Kingdom has the responsibility of getting other countries which are exporting or importing certain species to come to terms with that document. I hope that those countries will be interested in this subject, and will sign the Convention. Would it not be totally unwise for us to introduce a new Bill now, when Her Majesty's Government and the associations involved are working on the Convention, and might it not put back the work that is already going on, since an Act on this subject already exists?
6.34 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, to take up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, I am sure he is aware that it is not abnormal to introduce legislation if one is proposing to ratify an international convention. In fact, we have going through this House at the moment the Dumping at Sea Bill which became necessary in order to enable us to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions. So, in principle, I find it very difficult to follow him in that criticism.
1264
I am sure that we are all rather unhappy at the state in which we find ourselves, because my sense of the feeling of the House is that it is overwhelmingly in support of the aims and objects of this Bill. It is true that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised a number of difficulties. She fell back very largely on the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, which controls imports and exports but which was certainly never intended for the purpose of succouring endangered species of animals, molluscs or other invertebrates. I do not deny that it may have come in handy, but it was not directed to that purpose. I cannot think that the thoughts of anybody in 1939 were particularly on the salvation of anything other than the human race. The noble Baroness has herself admitted that that is not a satisfactory vehicle for the purpose of ratifying a convention.
The Member of your Lordships' House who most influences me, as a completely non-scientific person in these matters, is the noble Earl. Lord Cranbrook, because he speaks from vast experience. If he and my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones tell me that legislation is necessary for the purpose of protecting endangered species, then it seems to me that we should take that opinion extremely seriously. I am perfectly willing to accept that in its present form the Bill may need considerable amendment, and one must be a realist and recognise that in the existing political situation it may not reach the Statute Book. But I do not consider that sufficient reason for not supporting a Bill. After all, if anything makes a Department concentrate its mind it is having to brief a Minister on legislation.
The noble Baroness put forward two reasons for not being able to ratify this Convention, one of which is the E.E.C., and that, I agree, is a real difficulty. She spoke of practical difficulties, but it seems to me that to set to work on a Bill which has only eight clauses would surely help the Department to clear its mind. It could then see that the various problems on which the noble Baroness touched were fully considered, taking into account the experience of various Members of your Lordships' House. I grant that the problem of the E.E.C. is not an easy one, if we must wait for all our partners to come into line.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I intervene to say that I put a written question on this subject to the Commission, and my understanding is that at the moment the Commission are thinking about the machinery needed to make all members join. If the Commission decide that we should all join and that is agreed in the Council, it will be decided through the machinery of the Community. So I do not think that is necessarily an obstacle to this Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with greater direct experience than I possess of what goes on in Brussels, and I hope that what he said about its not being an obstacle is correct. I was about to say, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out, that as the United States has ratified the Convention it would settle the matter if one could get acceptance by the nine members of the E.E.C., because the Convention would then come into force. For example, I do not know what steps have been taken to persuade the two countries which have not yet even signed the Convention, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, so to do. But, meanwhile, if there are these practical difficulties surely it would be a helpful exercise for this House to face some of them in dealing with the Bill.
In any case, under Article 23, although it is not open to any party to the Convention to make general reservations,
"Any State may, on depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, enter specific reservations".
So if we were in doubt about any particular species mentioned in the list in the Appendices to the Convention then, as I understand it, we could put in a reservation while we thought the matter over and decided whether or not we felt we could go along with it. The noble Baroness herself admits that there are certain gaps. If we are to deal with plants, for example, I understood her to say that while legislation was not in her view required, nevertheless we do not at the moment exercise what would be the necessary controls. I was a bit concerned whether anything in this Convention might overlap with the list given in the Bill just previously discussed in your Lordships' House, presented by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but so far as I can read the Latin names, I cannot find any one of the plants listed by
1266
the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in the list attached to the Convention. I hope I am right, although, of course, if he removed the word "indigenous" from his Bill this might lead us into further difficulties.
My Lords, I fully recognise that we are in some difficulty over this, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, really put his finger on it when he read out his very impressive list of the numbers of animals in species which are seriously endangered which have been destroyed in recent times. Therefore, if we take wild life at all seriously, we are under an obligation to do our utmost, and to recognise that for some species, at least, time is really of the essence and that where they enter into international trade—which, after all, is the main purpose of this Bill and of the Convention, which says in terms that it is a Convention on international trade in endangered species—then we really must do our utmost. One may not wish to exaggerate, but some of us have received notes about the horrible slaughter which is still going on among the great cats—the leopards and so on—because, of course, these provide very attractive furs. These animals are being killed quite ruthlessly, and will be killed quite ruthlessly so long as there are any markets for their skins in countries where people are prepared to pay very high prices. My own view of this is that if a woman cannot succeed in looking attractive without having a leopard's skin around her, I do not think very much of her charm. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and myself manage with, I think, a reasonably attractive combination of sheep and mink.
LORD CRATGTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness can get a "fun fur" just as good and at half the price.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, one can have a "fun fur" or one can even have simulated fur, though I do not much care for it myself I do not think it is warm, for one thing. But there are animals which are reared for the purpose, and which are in no danger of becoming extinct, which enable both men and women to keep perfectly adequately warm in a cold climate and protected from the chill winds. Therefore, it seems to me quite unnecessary to encourage this hideous exploitation of wild life which

1267
has been going on at a vastly increasing rate in the last few years. I must admit that it was not until the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned snails, on which he is a great expert—and I mean that seriously; far more of an expert than certain of my noble friends behind me—that I fully appreciated, of course, the great danger to the creatures of the sea bed. They are being threatened in other directions—the exploitation of minerals, for example—but clearly from what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said they are also being seriously endangered simply for purposes of collection, decoration and so forth. As he also rightly pointed out, if one is looking for certain scarce, particularly attractive specimens, one may also be endangering a large number of others at the same time.
So, my Lords, having listened carefully to the arguments, and having great respect for much of what the noble Baroness has said, I nevertheless feel that it would be helpful if we supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and then saw how far we could get with it. As I said, it would at least provide a spur, I should have thought, to those officials in the Department who, we are told, on an Inter-Departmental Committee, are meant to be considering how best the United Kingdom can bring itself into a position in which it could not merely sign but ratify this Convention.
6.46 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I wonder whether, by leave of the House, I might try to answer some of the points which have been raised, because, if I may say so to the House, the Government are entirely in support of all the arguments which have been made about ratifying the Convention and the preservation of endangered species. If I may suggest it, I think that the issue is whether or not the Bill before us would make it quicker and easier to ratify the Convention than if we proceeded on the lines on which we are proceeding at the moment as rapidly as we can. I meant it quite seriously when I tried to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, about the timetable. He was very critical, but on the point about the years of work concerned before signing the Convention, which we did in March, 1973, he seemed to imply that since making the monument-
1268
tal effort of signing this Convention we had sat back and done nothing. I am sorry if I gave that impression, because it would be totally untrue. An enormous amount of work has been done on what is in fact a very complicated matter, as I admit, having nothing like the expert knowledge of others who have spoken.
One of the criticisms raised has been that the 1939 Act, which was brought in at the beginning of the war, is a quite unsuitable vehicle for this purpose, and nothing has happened. I should like to give one or two illustrations of ways in which it has been used quite recently. Since 1972, the powers have been used to ban the import of vicuna hair, the fur skins of tigers, the Snow Leopard and the Clouded Leopard; and the import of other leopard skins and cheetahs were restricted. In 1973 a ban was placed on the import of all whale products except sperm oil. All these matters were very recently controlled and restricted under this Act, and I quote them to give an assurance that the Act can be used and is being used for this purpose. I think that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was also very critical about this list of derivatives, and he said that we should be working on this and should know, as we had signed the Convention, what it all comprises. I hoped that I had explained what a complex matter it is to identify them, but it is not just a question of drawing up the list in a Convention. It is necessary, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, quite rightly pointed out, for the customs man to be able to recognise restricted imports because if he cannot recognise them he cannot stop them. This is a very practical point. I am not using this as a debating argument because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has quite rightly said, it is something to which, in practice, we must find an answer. I give the assurance to the House that we are seeking, as actively as we can, to draw up the list, so that we can implement the Convention and tell the customs people and everybody else what they should be looking for.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, if I understood him aright, went on to say that the great weakness, he thought, in the argument I put forward was that there was no effective committee of experts to advise the Government. We believe that the Animals Advisory Com-

1269
mitee would be effective. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is himself a most distinguished former Chairman of that Committee. If he feels that it is not effective enough as it stands, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from appointing other members; or from inviting other experts to give advice at any time, or from listening to advice from experts. So far as the Convention itself is concerned, within two years of its ratification by the first ten States there will be a review of the list and the whole thing will be looked at again. If we felt that this was an unsatisfactory time to wait, under the Convention, we could within our own country add to the list at any time, something which we felt should be dealt with immediately.
Again, my Lords, I give the assurance that all these powers we have and could use. I believe also that this would apply to the case quoted by the noble Earl of, I was about to say snails, or molluscs—I think I shall try to use the proper word—which could be added to the list. If the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, feels, or other experts feel, that something should be added, of course the Government would listen to their advice. Experts could be appointed to cover these further points. The noble Baroness, Lady White, concluded her speech by what I think is a very telling argument: that, if we had this Bill, would it not help the Government to clear their minds on the whole issue and to concentrate on essentials? I well understand that argument. I do not think that there is any disagreement between the view that I expressed and the view expressed by everyone who has spoken, that what we need to do is to ratify the Convention as quickly as possible.
I was glad to have the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, about E.E.C. He speaks with authority as a member of the European Parliament. I am delighted to think that he could back up what I tried to indicate in that forceful way. I cannot give an assurance to the House that passing this Bill would speed up the procedure. A great many people now involved in the technical work would be involved in looking at the redrafting of the Bill—this is just a practical point—and the view of the Government is that we need all the help that we can get to press on with dealing with the real problems. I give the assurance that we
1270
are trying to do that. I would not lightly ask the House to feel able to withdraw the Bill if I thought that we were not meeting the very real worries, and the real feeling in the House, which I appreciate, that your Lordships wish to see this Convention ratified. I have gone into this as carefully as I can, and feel that I can give only those assurances and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to consider them carefully.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness, Lady Young, tell us whether she has been able to find out whether my point about made-up garments is covered by the existing regulations; and if not, why not?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not answering that point. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry made an order about fur coats in 1972 to ban certain skins, including fur coats, and a ban was considered. It was decided, however, on grounds of practicability, that it was difficult. Fur is made into coats, and is not always easily recognisable, and so it was decided that fur coats would not be controlled. That is not to say that fur coats could not be included in any of the controls under the 1939 Act. The problem is to recognise the fur. I think that is a real point and, having had our attention drawn to it, I think that we must look at it again.
THE EARL of LYTTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she would be kind enough to identify the 1939 Act, as its identity seems to be in doubt in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady White. Is it by any chance the Emergency Powers Defence Act?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the Act, to which I have referred a number of times, is the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939.
6.55 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been possible to put forward the case for conservation of endangered species, and everyone who has spoken has, in my opinion, succeeded in putting before your Lordships a clear point of view and making it understandable to us all. I would thank the noble Baroness, Lady

1271
Young, for her kindness in going through the matter in such great detail. She has taken a great deal of trouble over it and has emphasised a number of points. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, impressed us all with his extremely clear understanding of the whole problem. I personally have learned from listening to him, and I have found out a bit more about the whole problem. But I should like to take up one point that he mentioned. He said it was a pity that the Bill had become vague and unenforceable by talking about parts of animals. But care was taken in drafting the Bill. In Clause 3(2)(b), for instance, the words used are:
"… where the advice relates to parts of products, state which of them are, in its opinion, recognisable parts or products …".
There is no intention to make this Bill apply to unrecognisable parts. It is clearly stated that the Bill is to apply to recognisable parts, and they are to be defined by an expert committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that you could not distinguish between ivory from an African elephant and ivory from an Indian elephant. My Lords, it may well be that you could not identify it immediately, but if there were any doubt I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no scientific difficulty in identifying the bony parts of animals from different parts of the world where different metals are being ingested. There is not a shadow of doubt that you could identify origins of animals in this way. After all, this is one of the ways used in archæology nowadays. To say that the resources of science cannot enable us now to identify these parts is, I think, taking us back to the last century, and well away from all the progress that we have been making particularly in the last 20 years. So I think one may say that where we refer to "recognisable parts" the statement refers to something which experts consider can be recognised on the spot by the Excise people. Or, if not, and it is considered necessary to hold back for further investigation, that could be done by appropriate scientific methods. If we deny that this sort of thing can be done, we are saying that there is never any hope at all of the control of the importation of such things; and that, I think, is just not true. Such control can be carried out.
1272
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made some interesting remarks, particularly about the position with regard to the Common Market. I was somewhat surprised to find the noble Baroness, Lady Young, using the Common Market once more as a means of stopping us from doing something. When we had debates on the subject in this House we were always being told of the liberating effect of the Common Market and how much better things were going to be. Now, my Lords, every single time one proposes something one is told, "No, you must not do that, the Common Market will stop you from doing it." That is an absolutely astonishing argument.
LORD DAVIES of LEEK: Or, my Lords, the Central Intelligence Agency.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I was opposed to entering the Common Market. I was never fanatical, one way or the other, but I was opposed to it. But if we are in the Common Market, surely we should use the Common Market, and not go around trying to find out in how many different ways it stops us from blowing our noses or doing any particular act that we may wish to do. It seems to me a ridiculous attitude if the Common Market is going to be used as this continual bogey.
I was not clear whether the noble Baroness meant that the Common Market members would not like us to pass this Bill or whether she was saying that they would not allow us to ratify the Convention. It seems to me that passing this Bill is something which is within the province of this House and this Parliament, and which cannot be challenged outside this House and this Parliament. If there are consequences which can be shown to go against the rules of the Common Market, then let us be told what the consequences are and what rules we are breaking. So far as I know, nothing is here being proposed that would be in breach of Common Market obligations. If the noble Baroness has some particular example to give, then I would rather have that example than have a particular bogey thrown up at me.
I do not think we should legislate under threat of duress; we should legislate on an understanding of what we are trying to do. And what this Bill is trying to do is to get legislation which

1273
will make possible the control of trade in endangered species. This was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and also by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. We are concerned essentially with controlling illicit trade in endangered species. If we can succeed in doing this then we shall be doing something positive and good. The noble Baroness has not convinced me that there is anything in this Bill which would make it more difficult to do that; on the contrary, I believe that this Bill would make it easier. If the noble Baroness is saying that it would make it more difficult then I think she should point to how. In listening to her I have not found a single case where I think the Bill would make it more difficult.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if I might just answer the point made by the noble Lord, it is not that the Bill would make it more difficult: it is that it might not enable us to ratify the Convention so quickly. I believe we are pressing on with this as quickly as possible and the Government do not feel that the Bill is necessary for this purpose.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, but I do not think she has made the point. What the noble Baroness has said is that she thinks this Bill, if passed, might make it more difficult to ratify the Convention.
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords, I did not say I thought it would make it more difficult to ratify: I said I thought
Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
it might slow up the procedures for ratification—because a great deal of time which at present is being used to look at the detailed problems of ratification would be taken up in studying the Bill.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I presume from what the noble Baroness is saying that the Government are proposing to ratify the Convention within a few weeks. If that is not so, I do not see the relevance of that comment. It seems to me that the noble Baroness says, on the one hand, that the problems are so difficult that it will take a long time for Committees to go through them, and then, on the other hand, she says: "Do not, for heaven's sake! pass this Bill because the delay entailed in passing it will mean that we shall not ratify the Convention next week." I really should like to know the grounds for objection to this Bill. So far I have heard no ground at all from the noble Baroness which carries any conviction. If no convincing ground can be given, I do not see how I can possibly withdraw this Bill. It seems to me that this Bill tries to get something very useful done. The noble Baroness has not convinced me that the Bill would not help to get things done, and I therefore ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Platt, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hacking, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Robbins, L.

Boothby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Molson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Craigton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

White, B.

Cranbrook, E.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandys, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ironside, L.

Tenby, V.

Cowley, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Denham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

BARCLAYS BANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [H.L.] BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL [H.L.] BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [H.L.] CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.] CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.] CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [H.L.] EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.] GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.] PORTLAND DEEPWATER QUAYS BILL [H.L.] PORT OF TYNE (NORTH SHIELDS FISH HARBOUR) BILL [H.L.] RIVER WEAR BARRAGE BILL [H.L.] TORQUAY MARKET BILL [H.L.] UNITED KINGDOM TEMPERANCE AND GENERAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.] WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [H.L.] WRIGHTSON NMA LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.