Lords Sitting of 4 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
The Viscount Knutsford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RHODESIA: SANCTIONS AND AFFRETAIR
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 drawn the attention of the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council to the facilities given by a number of countries to the air service Affretair which is transporting goods to and from Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts):Yes, my Lords. A Note about Affretair was submitted to the Sanctions Committee by Her Majesty's Government on 9th April this year.
Lord BROCKWAY: My lords, is it the case that this company is a subsidiary of the Rhodesian Trans African Line and is subsidised by the Rhodesian Government; that it ferries exports and gives foreign currency through charter service to Rhodesia? In view of these facts is it not breaking all our sanction laws?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend's information is substantially correct, and his conclusion is entirely correct.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case
348
that a number of European Governments are giving landing facilities to this Rhodesian company, reconditioning its planes, training its crews, and giving employment to charter service in Europe? And is it the case that only Greece and the United Kingdom have refused the facilities?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not confirm that it is only the last two named countries that have refused facilities to this company, but the countries which are named in the representations we have made to the United Nations are nine in number and do include two, I think three, European countries.
Lora BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would draw the attention of the Organisation of African Unity to the fact that there are also African countries which are giving facilities to this airline, which is breaking sanctions against the illegal Government in Southern Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the terms of our representations to the Sanctions Committee will, of course, be circulated among all members of the United Nations, all of which are bound by Resolution 253 of 1968; and that includes all the countries of the OAU in Africa. As my noble friend has said, two African countries are involved in the terms of the representations we have made.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the Government's representation confidential or can it be placed in the Library?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think it is confidential in that sense. I believe it could be placed in the Library. Since 1973 we have made three representations of this kind about this company to the United Nations. I will look into this to see whether the texts of the three representations can be made available. I rather think they could, and should be.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT PENSIONS
2.40 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, in asking leave of your Lordships to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I must declare a personal interest.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the decision not to grant a pension to Members of the House of Commons who have had over 12 years of service prior to the year 1964; and whether they are aware that the number of such Members is rapidly diminishing.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): Not for the first time, my Lords. The Top Salaries Review Body is conducting an Inquiry into pensions of Members of the House of Commons and the position of those former Members referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will doubtless be looked at as part of the Inquiry. Nevertheless, noble Lords will appreciate the well-recognised superannuation principle that an employer cannot reasonably be expected to apply a new pension scheme to all those who have left his service at the time of its introduction. This principle, which was endorsed by the Lawrence Committee in 1964 and by the Top Salaries Review Body in 1971, is not altered by the fact that the number of potential beneficiaries has diminished.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I sat in another place for 34 unbroken years; that I have now sat in Parliament for over half a century and that I receive no pension of any kind? There is a small and rapidly dwindling number of people who occupy a similar position. Does he really think that is fair?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, whether or not it is fair, when one has to deal with the question of pensions for the public service as a whole, one always comes across anomalies and degrees of unfairness. But there is a cardinal principle that one does not, and cannot be expected to, pay pensions to those persons who have left the employment or the service before the
350
introduction of the pensions scheme. As I say, this is a matter which the Top Salaries Review Body can look at again, because I understand representations have been made to it.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, in asking this supplementary question, may I say that I am not one of those affected by this Question, as I retired from the Commons after 1964. But will the noble Lord put this to the Government in any investigation which takes place? Those who retired before 1964 were Members of the House of Commons when the salary was extremely low; when there was no payment for any secretarial assistance; when Members had to pay for their own postage and their own telephone calls, and had no allowance for living in London. Is there not here a special case because of that?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, again in matters of pensions there are always special cases. I am pleased that some steps have been taken to see that the House of Commons is not only properly paid but has the services available to it as a House of Parliament. But I come back to the basic problem of the Government; that is, the principle on which superannuation and pension funds have been based. If we were to make a special concession, admittedly for a small group of people, how then should we be able to draw the line within the public service as a whole? Frankly, the expense would be very great—or could be very great— and this would have repercussions on those pensioners who already receive benefit.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that many employers make provision for what is called, "back service", and that this should be looked at from that point of view?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will show me an example in which employers are paying pensions for servants who left their service prior to the introduction of the pension scheme.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Leader of the House accept that too, must declare a personal interest, not in relation to my service in the House of

351
Commons but as an ex-Regular soldier? Is he not aware that there is also a dwindling number of survivors from both wars who, like myself, had considerable other rank service, were subsequently commissioned, but who—because we were born too early—receive other ranks' pension? If the noble Lord is to look at the principle in relation to the House of Commons—and I hope very much that he will—will he also bear in mind this unsquealing, ungrumbling crowd, the ex-Regular soldiers, who take all that comes yet get nothing for it
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, we appreciate what my noble friend has to say with regard to the principle of payment of pensions. With regard to what my noble friend Lady Bacon said about the grossly underpaid and overworked Members of Parliament who were on that very small salary of £600, with none of the facilities which are now granted to Members of Parliament, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that this matter will be referred to the Boyle Committee, which is considering pensions? With the development which has taken place, these people who retired before 1964—and I am not included; I retired after 1964 and receive a pension—suffer a growing hardship. It does not reflect well on Parliament that people who were so long Members of Parliament receive nothing at all.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I need raise this matter with the Top Salaries Review Body because, as I have said, representations have already been made to them. That is quite sufficient for the Top Salaries Review Body to reconsider this matter, and then we shall have to consider what they propose in their report. I must not try to defend myself on a very difficult matter on which I know the House has a great deal of sympathy. But this matter is now being considered and instead of making representations to me on the Floor of the House, the best thing is that noble Lords should ensure that those representations are made to the Top Salaries Review Body.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I am one of the dwindling few. We shall all be gone quite soon, and if we keep on
352
like this the Government will be rid of the lot of us. Apart from that, it is very unfair. Is it not a fact that the Top Salaries Review Body looked at this matter, made a recommendation and the Government turned it down?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my understanding is that the Top Salaries Review Body supported the earlier conclusions of the Lawrence Committee that these pensions should not be available to those Members of the House of Commons who had left prior to the operation of the pension scheme.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there were no regular pensions from the House of Commons until the Labour Government came into power in 1964, and they pre-dated the service by 10 years? It has always seemed to me that that Act could be amended to pre-date previous service on proper percentages up to that time. I do not think that it is the present Government who stand to be indicted on this question. Having read all that happened before, one knows that Members of Parliament in Conservative days had merely to rely on charity; that is, the charitable funds from the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Pannell has illustrated some of the difficulties of the Government in this matter. I say again that this is a matter best referred to the body that Governments of all Parties have set up to review, and to advise on, these difficult matters. I suggest that these representations should now be made to the Top Salaries Review Body.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, my heart is bleeding, but we have had two Questions in 12 minutes.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been doing my best to get a move on, but, as I often say to a certain friend, my best is not good enough. I say to my noble friend Lord Brockway—who I know has been trying to get in—that this is a difficult matter. It is a matter in which the House has a great interest. There is a

353
body which can most adequately deal with it. Representations have already been made and I suggest that we leave it to them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have to declare an interest. I am one of the Members involved. I have never before intervened on this issue because I am not concerned about myself. However, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that we have had many representations to Committees which have been considering this subject and, therefore, we are not satisfied when he asks that another Committee should consider this subject? Is he aware that I had 15 years in the House of Commons, but because I was defeated in 1964 I have no pension for that discontinued service? I am concerned not so much about myself but about others who are in greater difficulty.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can only say that the Government and Parliament have accepted the Top Salaries Review Body as the proper body to consider these matters, and I suggest that we leave it at that.

CROWN AGENTS
2.50 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTHTYNESIDE: 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 the Report of the Fay Committee on the Crown Agents will be published; and when the proposed legislation on the future of the Crown Agents is likely to be introduced.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Fay Committee has not yet completed its inquiries and I cannot at present say when it will report. My right honourable friend intends to publish the report as soon as he receives it. As regards the second part of the Question, I cannot anticipate the Government's future legislative programme, but the Bill to incorporate the Crown Agents will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time is available.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I just say—
Several noble Lords: No!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I just ask, my Lords, whether the Minister is aware that I have no criticism of the Crown Agents? Is it not a fact, however, that it is in the national interest that action should be taken as quickly as possible, and may I please have an assurance?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; the noble Baroness can have that assurance. I understand her anxiety that legislation should be proceeded with in this important matter. She has, no doubt, studied the White Paper and understands the wisdom and farsightedness of the Government's proposals in this matter. She will, I am sure, also recognise the great pressure on Parliamentary time under this as under preceding Governments.

THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY: EXPORT CREDIT
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 why the Treasury refused to give extended credit to the aerospace industry, as a result of which an export order in excess of £300 million to Egypt has been lost to France.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I take this Question to refer to a recent newspaper report that the Egyptian Government are to purchase various military aircraft from France. It has been the practice of successive United Kingdom Governments not to disclose details of arms sales, but I can say that no request for credit support has been received from the Egyptian Government for aerospace equipment.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that rather satisfactory reply, may I ask him to give an assurance that if India, which I believe

355
is very much in the same boat as Egypt, required long-term credit to purchase Jaguar fighters, the Treasury would be sympathetic?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that is a different country and therefore a different question, but in principle the answer is, Yes. Of course, this kind of question can be examined only in the light of the facts as they exist at the relevant time and I am sure that the noble Earl appreciates that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My, Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that no request had come from the Egyptian Government. Had any request come from the British aerospace industry?
Lord ORAM: Not to my knowledge, my Lords. As I understand it, there has been no request for export guarantees from any source.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Government have shown their determination to create an effective and viable aerospace industry by the proposals which they have already put forward to create a strong national industry?

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES (CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL,
2.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [New rights of crofters and cottars to acquire their subject s]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after (" may ") insert (" within twelve years of the passing of this Act ").
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, the intention of this Amendment is that the right of a crofter to purchase his croft should be limited to a 12-year period after
356
which there could be some reconsideration. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said in Committee that with his energy, which he derived from coining from the North-East, he would resist "with some vigour" a somewhat similar Amendment which I tabled at that stage. After carefully examining the noble Lord's reply, I came to the conclusion—and I trust that other noble Lords have done likewise—that whatever vigour was there, it was done entirely on principle and not on logic. The noble Lord spoke about removing restraints on developing crofters' land, but I am afraid I cannot see how my proposals would place any restriction on development.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy appreciated the difficulty of the landowner in planning his estate with a Sword of Damocles hanging over him. This is where the restraint on development I will take place: not on the crofter but on the landowner. He suggested that at least there should be adequate warning from the crofter of his intention to the landowner. There should be some provision in the Bill for such a warning to be given, and indeed Lord Kirkhill gave an assurance that a reasonable time would be allotted, although no Amendment has appeared from the Government to cover this. It was partly on account of that assurance that the earlier Amendment was withdrawn. I feel that we should not miss this opportunity to cut out unremunerative administration should crofts be wound up—a smaller administration will be required to administer them—and to reduce the number of civil servants who administer crofting, which would, I am sure, be the wish of most noble Lords. However, being a generous person, I have slightly increased the length of time which I proposed at Committee, from 10 to 12 years, and noble Lords will note that the Amendment applies to croft ground generally and not to the house site, which the crofter would be able to continue to buy throughout the ages as and when he required. It would apply, therefore, only to the croft land.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who I hope has received a letter which I wrote to him, might be able to accept that I have given a full explanation of the Government's position. In that letter I reiterated

357
what I said in Committee and I can only repeat what I said then, following an Amendment which the noble Lord tabled at that stage in very similar terms. As I said on 6th April—reported in Hansard at cols. 1577–78—our intention is to give the crofters continuing rights and it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to remove these after a relatively short period. I am in full agreement with the statement made then by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the crofting system should be allowed to change in its own time. There is really nothing further that I can add. I gave as full an explanation as I possibly could of the Government's view.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that a reasonable time should be allotted, but I do not think there is anything written in the Bill to say that reasonable notice should be given by the crofter to the landowner that he intends to buy the land. One objection to the Bill as drafted is that a landowner could compulsorily lose his land without any prior warning, which makes economic planning of his estate totally unrealistic. I had hoped that by tabling this Amendment the Minister would give a further indication of Government thinking on this matter. Indeed, I had hoped that the Government might themselves have tabled an Amendment saying that there should be a reasonable time.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I have explained the Government position at length and I cannot move further forward to meet the position of the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I rest the Government's case on the clear exposition which I made at the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.1 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, together with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which apply to the same subject. The Amendment deals with the suggestion
358
that there should be an incontestable right to the crofter to buy his home only. I have reintroduced this group of Amendments because it appeared from what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said on Committee stage that he had not fully understood what I had intended to imply by my Amendment.
It seems that the Government are still not able to understand that suggestions which come from this side of the House are not always for our own benefit but are frequently for the benefit of the community at large. In this case, the Amendments were entirely in equity to the good working crofter and in no circumstances intended to imply any benefits to the landowner, as the noble Lord appears to think. I cannot see why the idle and absentee should have equal privileges with the good and hardworking. I appreciate that this may be Socialist doctrine, but I suggest that we should have none of it. Therefore, I am again putting forward the Amendment and suggesting that the hardworking crofter should have more privileges than the absentee crofter and the crofter who does not work his croft. I therefore suggest that, instead of being allowed to buy any house with an incontestable right—they will have a right to buy it as part of the croft ground—only those who are living in the house should have the incontestable right. There is not a great deal in this but it makes a slight gesture towards the good working crofter who is living on his croft.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, when this matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Burton at Committee stage, I do not feel that on the Government side it was made clear what the Government intended in the Bill. Indeed, the wording of the Bill seems ambiguous and we should be grateful if, when the Minister replies, he could indicate whether the wording as it is at present would enable a crofter to dispose of more than one croft house. With the singular "croft" (there is no plural "s") tenanted by him, would it be possible for a crofter to have more than one croft dealt with by the Bill in the way proposed?
I am seeking information about plurality. The Minister may know of cases where there are several crofts which are nominally in the name of one individual,

359
where the crofter is one person. Clearly, he cannot be living in all the croft houses at the same time. That is the point which my noble friend raised at Committee stage and to which I do not feel there has yet been a proper answer. Is it the intention of the Bill that only one croft should be dealt with for each individual, and that that should be the one which he inhabits, or would it be possible for a crofter to have several crofts in his name dealt with under the Bill? If the latter were in theory possible under the Bill, there could be unfairness between crofters. An individual crofter, who is a working crofter working his croft, might well have a grievance that someone else was using the Bill three or four times and, in some cases, was not really a crofter living in the croft. We should therefore be grateful for an interpretation of the intention of the Bill as it stands as well as an answer to the point raised by my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, for my part, I must confess to some degree of incredulity at the noble Lord, Lord Burton, casting himself in the role of the progressive crofters' champion by reintroducing this series of Amendments. The Amendments purport to secure that a crofter whose working unit comprises several crofts held on separate tenancies is not in a more favourable position in relation to the acquisition of house sites than a crofter with an amalgamated croft. I dealt at some length in Committee with the reasons why the Government were unable to accept the noble Lord's proposition and the passage of time has not weakened our resolve to resist it. In the first place, it would run counter to the principle of the Bill that a crofter is to have an incontestable right to acquire the site of the dwellinghouse on a croft of which he is tenant. If a crofter holds several crofts on individual tenancies, then he is in the fortunate position of having an incontestable right to acquire the site of the croft house on each croft, and I see no logic in the argument that his rights should be restricted so that he may not be in a more privileged position than his neighbour who is tenant of a number of crofts, amalgamated in his tenancy but historically forming a number of separate crofts.
The privilege is in any event more apparent than real since, as I explained
360
previously, the crofter with the amalgamated unit can acquire the sites of additional houses as part of the croft land. In any event, we are dealing here with a mere handful of crofts where a formal amalgamation has taken place under the Farm Structure Scheme. In the vast majority of cases where a crofter runs a number of crofts together as a working unit, these are held on separate tenancies, even if nominally entered as one unit in the Register of Crofts, and the crofter therefore has an incontestable acquisition right in relation to a house on each of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me for an elucidation. The position seems to be that generally a number of crofters leave their croft for lengthy periods because they are seamen or employed in one of the oil-related developments or have other employment which demands that they should absent themselves from their homes. These crofters arrange to sub-let their land to a relative or a neighbour so that it can be utilised for raising stock or growing crops. As I understand it, it is a fact of crofting life that crofters have to find work away from the croft. In the Government's view it would be wrong to penalise them by denying them the right given to other crofters to acquire their house site and so become owner occupiers of the dwelling-house which they or their forebears have provided. That seems to me to be the Government position. I hope that that explanation will be of some help to the noble Lord.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that this Amendment has more apparent than real effect, since any crofter will have a right to acquire his croft. It is simply the question of the incontestable right which worried me. I am sorry that it appears that, on this occasion, I am trying to champion the good crofter more than the Government. However, as this is a very small point and as the Government have twice been given a chance to reconsider, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Authorisation by Land Court of acquisition of croft land.]:
3.10 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out line 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what is proposed here is worthy of consideration. The Land Court must take into consideration the extent of land owned by the landowner quite regardless of the area of land which the crofter wants to take over, and this seems to be a very bad principle. The Government have consistently refused to amend the general principle of the iniquitous, bad legislation proposed in this clause. Therefore I feel that I must take out of the Bill at least this short sentence which, while it does not materially alter the whole Bill, at least removes a small amount of the iniquity. Can anyone advocate that the land should be allowed to suffer substantial detriment? That is what the Bill says, and, furthermore, in the case of large estates, such as those owned by the Secretary of State, and land already nationalised, there must be substantial damage before the Land Court can consider whether or not the crofter should be allowed to acquire his land.
In Committee the Minister put it to me that at no stage had there been representation on this point from the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I took up the matter with the Federation. It apologised for not making representation and it feels that this question should certainly have been brought before the officials; but the position is that there has been so much bad legislation from this Government, affecting so many matters, that despite taking on extra staff, the Federation has been completely swamped. It is not surprising that legislation such as that on development land tax, forestry taxation, and the like, which has nationwide application, should have received more attention than the contents of this Bill, which has a limited application.
The Minister further tried to clear the Government in their inserting this clause in the Bill by saying that what is proposed had been included in the Bill put forward by the Conservative Government. It was in that Bill, but I do not think that that Bill ever went through this House, and I am very doubtful whether any
362
Conservative Minister would have been allowed to leave this clause in the Bill. It is a very bad clause and I hope that the Minister will be able to give way on something here. I feel that we cannot allow a clause permitting substantial detriment to the land; land which I have taken much trouble to look after. To permit a clause, which would allow substantial damage, to go through without dividing the House would be wrong.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, first, I was sorry that on an earlier Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, should have expressed surprise that my noble friend Lord Burton was raising a point which was a matter of benefit to the crofters, because he has always seen this subject—which is a highly technical one, on which he is an expert—from the point of view of both the crofters and the landowners. Looking at this Part of the Bill we can all be excused if we find it rather difficult to follow. But my interpretation of it is rather different from that of my noble friend, and I shall be glad to have the Government's official interpretation of it now.
I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who introduced in another place the earlier Bill, which was in almost identical wording throughout, and I spoke on it during the Second Reading which it obtained in another place before it fell prior to the February 1974 General Election. I was always ready to consider improvements and changes to the Bill when it was going through. But the words, which my noble friend suggests should be taken out, can, I believe, be read in different ways. Paragraph (a) starts:
"… in all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord …".
That would appear to cover everything, including the extent of the land owned by him, in any case; so is it really necessary to have these words at all? If it is necessary to have these words, then it could be to his advantage that the extent of the land owned by him is taken into consideration; that is, he may have problems in crofts which are owned by him in another part of Scotland, or nearby, which need to be taken into account in considering the case.
The taking into account of the "extent of land owned by him" could well be a

363
consideration. As my noble friend has read it, this would mean that matters which were advantageous to the landowner's case would be taken into account as well as merely whether he was a large or small landowner. But we must also go a little further, because, unless the Government deny it, there are some further words which qualify the words which my noble friend seeks to remove. The subsection reads:
"… having regard to the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies …",
There is a comma after the word "applies". My understanding is that to remove the words which my noble friend suggests should be removed, without also removing the words,
"to which the Act of 1955 applies";
would not he to take out a complete sentence. That would leave paragraph (a) almost meaningless because it would not read on and make sense. Those qualifying words,
… to which the Act of 1955 applies "
presumably are to show that this is to take into account the extent of the land which comes under the crofting Acts. Like my noble friend, I should like to hear from the Government why it is necessary to have this written in, considering that just above we already have the words:
"… in all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord …".
I do not think that my noble friend need consider that these words will necessarily be detrimental to the landlord. Certainly the consideration, in so far as it needs to be put in at all, could mean that some particular difficulties which the landowner might have elsewhere in the crofting part of Scotland would be taken into account.
Lord HUGHES: I should like to join in the discussion on this matter before my noble friend replies. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has not left out everything that he intended to leave out, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has pointed out; but like him I think that the wording as it stands could be of advantage to certain crofting landlords and of disadvantage to others. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I accept that if these words were taken out the Land Court would still be able to take into consideration the amount
364
of crofting land which an owner had, because it would be one of the circumstances pertaining to the landlord.
But the inclusion of these words, along with the more general first part of the paragraph, seems to me to indicate that this is a circumstance to which the Land Court must specially apply itself. It could be a special circumstance if, for instance, the amount of land which was to be taken away, or was to be affected, was appreciably a large part of what the owner had. That could be something which would be more likely to cost him a substantial degree of hardship. But, looking at it the other way, if he owned a considerable amount of crofting land and, if what was being affected by this proposal was a relatively small part of his land, then the Land Court would find it easier to determine that there was no substantial degree of hardship involved. So obviously the matter can apply either way, and it seems to me that it would be of advantage to leave the wording exactly as it is
Lord K1RKHILL: My Lords, I must ask the House to resist this Amendment which I am advised is defective in its drafting and ineffective for its apparent purpose. I shall try to explain both the real intention behind the inclusion in the Bill of the words,
"… having regard to the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies, …".
and why the Government think that these words ought to be retained. Of course, I am mindful of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, because, quite clearly, his interpretation is very much in accord with the Government's view, as is the interpretation just enunciated by my noble friend Lord Hughes.
My Lords, if I could be of some help, the Government's position about some of the misunderstandings which appear to be emerging about Clause 2(2)(a) is that the subsection provides that the Land Court, in assessing substantial hardship to a landlord, is required to have regard to
"the extent of land owned by him to which the Act of 1955 applies,"—
in other words, to the landlord's holding of croft land, not his overall holding—and this is the important point. This requirement is included in the Bill as a

365
specific safeguard of the interests of landlords, especially small landowners owning one or perhaps two crofts, for whom a requirement to sell would create hardship by depriving them of the whole or the major part of their interest in croft land. However, even if this specific requirement were removed from the Bill the Government would expect that the Land Court would still have regard to the relation which the particular croft bore to the landlord's holding of croft land. This would be a relevant factor in the Land Court's assessment of substantial hardship to a landlord, and would be part of the court's assessment of "all the circumstances pertaining to the landlord", which is of course another requirement of Clause 2(2)(a). The purpose of including the specific requirement on the court to look at the landlord's holding of croft land is to ensure that the court considers this in all cases where it is asked to assess substantial hardship.
I would also point out to your Lordships that, as has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, these same words were included in the Conservative Bill in the other place before the Bill fell in early 1974. In the light of my explanation, I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, might not wish to press this Amendment.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the clear explanations which have been given. It is quite obvious that my drafting is defective, and I must therefore obviously ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment. I think the explanations which I have been given will be very welcome, as I think they have cleared the air very substantially on this. I am still not entirely happy myself that the Secretary of State, for instance, who owns more crofts than anyone else, or the Stornoway Trust, which is perhaps the second biggest landowner, might well be at an advantage in relation to someone who owns only a few crofts. But, having drawn your Lordships' attention to this matter, I must beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 13, leave out (" granted subject to such ") and insert (" at such nominal annual rent, for such period of not less than 20 years and subject to such other ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be of help to your Lordships if Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 were discussed with this Amendment. They are in the names of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and my noble friend Lord Burton. If they are in agreement, I think it would help, because all these Amendments are on the same subject. At the Committee stage we had a discussion about the question of sporting rights on inbye land, and it was recognised that, although this problem would not occur frequently, none the less there are valuable sporting rights on certain inbye land.
The Amendment which I now beg to move, No. 6, has a similar effect to one which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye tabled at the Committee stage and which he has now retabled, if not in the same words then in very similar words, as Amendment No. 7. The Government appeared to give a sympathetic response to considering this matter further. One or two of us pointed out that in the case of the Forestry Commission there was a parallel, because leases were agreed for 21 years or so, and that was a Government agency. As a result of the discussion which has continued since the Committee stage among those concerned and with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I believe that the wording of my Amendment will go a long way to meet the anxiety of noble Lords expressed in the Committee when this was being considered, and would at the same time not cause any difficulties or complications for the Government as regards their Bill.
There is another point, and that is the question of continuity; for example, if a crofter dies. The Government made it clear that they did not want to write into the Bill provisions to deal with that situation, but I understand from the consultations which I have just mentioned, which have taken place since the Committee stage, that there is nothing to stop the Land Court from arranging as a condition that an ex-landlord has the right of pre-emption for this purpose: that is to say, in connection with sporting rights. I trust that the Land Court will note this and also the tenor of these debates, and will exercise this option in

367
appropriate cases. If I may remind your Lordships of what was said in Committee at that time it was indicated that, for example, one part of a shoot being taken out could very much devalue the shooting rights. As my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out at that earlier stage, a situation of this kind is likely to arise infrequently as it applies to the inbye land, but that is not a reason for injustice. It is not a reason why injustice should be suffered that it is going to be suffered by only a few. I beg to move.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that we should take Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. I suppose it is not often that a Minister has the succulent dish put in front of him of three Amendments, all on the same point, from which he can make his selection; but the point is a very valid one, which I hope will gain his sympathy. Indeed, in the letter which he was good enough to send to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter he indicated that the Government would not be enthusiastic for such an Amendment but, nevertheless, would not be resistant to an Amendment in this sense. I think it is very important, because at the Committee stage and also on Second Reading I challenged the Government as to whether the Land Court had or had not got jurisdiction to take into account sporting rights when arriving at a price for a croft. The Minister gave me the impression, and I think perhaps gave the impression to your Lordships, on Second Reading and later in Committee, that indeed the Land Court had such power. But now the Minister has been good enough to make it clear to us that
"the discretion does not however extend to taking account of sporting rights in fixing the crofting value which a crofter pays for his croft, since this is derived from capitalisation of the rent and the value of sporting rights is not taken into account in fixing a fair rent".
Therefore, although I hate to say it, I think we were right and perhaps the Minister was not on absolutely sound ground at that time. Nevertheless, let that be so; we are grateful now to the Minister for his reconsideration of the matter.
As regards the limitation in this Amendment, which gives no continuity, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
368
said, continuity could be obtained, if a croft changes hands, if the Land Court would give authority and direction that a conveyance was to be in the form of a feu writ or otherwise subject to a condition giving the ex-landlord the right of pre-emption over the croft land. So we have gained two things for which I think we must be grateful: first, a general willingness to look at this pleasant dish of Amendments that we have placed before the Minister; secondly, to know that there is a way round the right of succession if the Land Court feel able so to direct. I hope that the point we raised in Committee and on Second Reading is going to end happily with the Government acceding to one of the three beautiful Amendments, all on the same point, which have been placed before them.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for sending the letter which, unfortunately, since I was not at home, did not reach me until Question Time today. It appears that he has been most helpful on these points and I think we should be grateful to him. The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy appears to satisfy him and to meet all the points. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us a further satisfactory reply when he answers.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, once again this particular point has brought forth interesting contributions from a number of noble Lords. The Government are sensitive to the fact that this particular issue has been the subject of considerable and prolonged debate and I indicated as much in my letter. In passing I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the Minister was on sound ground but perhaps did not express himself with his usual impeccable clarity. That said, I should certainly like to assure your Lordships that in the Government's view it would be undesirable to place any restrictions on the powers of the Land Court in considering the terms and conditions under which a crofter should grant a lease to the landlord. The Land Court considerations will take account of the submissions made to them and, as I have explained, it is expected that the Court would, in appropriate cases, include a condition that the rent should be at a nominal value.

369
As I have been reminded, I promised to look further at this particular point, and I can say that the Government are still of the opinion that it would be best to leave the question of the amount of rent to be paid and the duration of a sporting lease to the full discretion of the Land Court. It is clear from the discussions today and from the concern expressed in previous debates and to me personally from time to time between these two stages of the Bill, that these are matters on which noble Lords opposite feel deeply. In view of this, the Government would not oppose the Amendment if it is the wish of this House that it should be accepted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must rise to my feet to thank the noble Lord because it sounds as though it is my Amendment, Amendment No. 6, which he prefers of those offered.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may intervene, I should have stated very clearly at the outset that, indeed, I prefer the Amendment in the name of Lord Campbell of Croy, before the others.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends will feel that Amendment No. 6, as the one the Government prefer, meets the points which they have raised. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the trouble he has taken since Committee stage to go into this question with my noble friends and myself and for the fact that we have now reached agreement on a redrafting of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and also the value of any timber growing on the croft land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made any reference to this in his letter to us but I think there is a considerable point here. It is the question of timber on any crofting ground. I think that one of the problems here has been the diverse nature of crofting ground spread throughout the Highlands. I think that those crofts already nationalised and
370
belonging to the Secretary of State—and they amount to about one-eighth of the crofts—do not perhaps have any, or many, of the circumstances to which this Amendment applies. But there are a number of cases. For instance, my noble friend Lord Lovat has just cut some fine mature Scotch firs off land adjoining some belonging to me. As these trees adjoined a croft and the crofter had acquired the right of grazing in the wood, the land on which the wood was situated could have been compulsorily acquired by the crofter who then could have sold the timber for many times what he paid for the land.
I can think of a number of similar situations and if we do not alter the Bill to make provision for the value of timber on the crofting ground, then, as soon as there is a threat of a crofter buying his croft any prudent landowner will feel bound to fell any timber standing on the croft. It may be that this timber is not mature; it may be that it is good birch wood providing shelter for grazing; and there may be many reasons why the timber should not be felled. It might be just amenity timber which it would be a pity to cut off. Therefore, I feel it essential that somewhere there is written into the Bill that when the Land Court value croft land, they not only take 15 times the actual rental but also take into account the value of the timber standing on any croft ground at the time.
There is one other problem which arises —and I hope the noble Lord will see his way to being able to accept this Amendment—and that is that probably the Land Court themselves are not competent to value timber. I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy brought up this matter on Committee saying that it would be necessary for them to bring in valuers. Where timber was concerned, I think this would be very necessary because most of the Land Court members are more of a farming type. Indeed, some time in the past I had some problem over birch wood which the Land Court appeared to think was entirely valueless; so that it is important, if we accept something on this basis, that something be written into the Bill about the valuing of the timber also. I beg to move.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I would support what my noble friend Lord Burton

371
has said. Speaking as an interested party, I should like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that they overlooked in the drafting of the Bill the aspect of timber growing on a croft. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Government have been at a disadvantage in framing the proposals. What constitutes a croft? Of course, the answer is: "How long is a piece of string?" because no two crofts are alike. On the West coast there is no timber and there are very few sporting amenities. On the East coast, there are river valleys, sporting assets, and very valuable timber.
Again, speaking as an interested party, the value of timber on outruns on the estate that I know best is very much more valuable than the agricultural land which runs below them. Some of these trees are natural regeneration, usually conifers; and crofters have always had free right to cut their birch wood for fire. Birch wood and peat before the introduction of hydroelectricity had been the fuel supply required at the higher levels to keep the croft warm. The timber is of very great value and no crofter considers that to be his on either an outrun or inbye land where trees have been planted in many cases for amenity or shelter. This is an oversight in the drafting of the proposals and I support my noble friend Lord Burton. I am speaking with some knowledge and complete conviction that the timber rights are different from a crofter having the rights to his house or to his arable land. I hope that this will be borne in mind by the Government.
3.40 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, this was a point on which several noble Lords expressed views at Committee stage. If I may assure the noble Lord, of course professional advice reflecting a number of disciplines will be available to the Land Court, and professional valuation advice is certainly included in that comprehensive concept. In response to a request from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at the Committee stage, I set out at some length the Government's views on how a landlord could retain or obtain the value of any timber growing on croft land. My statement then remains the Government's view on how the problem of timber
372
should be dealt with and, accordingly, I ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
First, the problem of valuable timber will affect only a very small number of the conveyances of land under the Bill. This was a point which the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Lovat, recognised at Committee stage. The Government hope that in those few cases where a landlord does have valuable trees on croft land an agreement on the lines suggested at Committee stage could be reached between landlord and crofter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has just said, the crofter does not think he owns these trees, and I for one have sufficient faith in the fairness of crofters to believe that the crofter would not harbour unreasonable expectations on the subject.
It would therefore be wrong, in the Government's view, to deal with the matter in the sweeping manner of the Amendment, which would impose a requirement on all crofters who wish to acquire their land to have to pay for any timber that happens to be growing on that land. The effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, would be to require the crofter to pay for an asset which, in many cases, might never be marketable. Furthermore, although the crofter does not own the timber on his croft, neither does the landlord have an unrestricted claim to it. The landlord has the right, as laid down in Schedule 2, paragraph 10(d) to the 1955 Act, to enter a croft to cut or take timber,
"excepting timber and other trees planted by the crofter or any of his predecessors in the tenancy, or which may be necessary for ornament or shelter".
It would be wrong for the landlord to receive a payment from a crofter for such timber as the landlord could never have used as long as the croft remained on tenancy, or indeed to lay claim to timber planted by the crofter or one of his predecessors in the tenancy.
I therefore ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment. In the Government's view, its effect is too sweeping for what is admitted to be a minor point, which the Government feel can be dealt with more properly by agreement between the parties concerned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to intervene at this

373
stage because in response to an inquiry by me, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made a statement about this at the Committee stage. I agree with him straightaway that I think none of us want to insert into this Bill unnecessary machinery which would automatically come into action when there was a single or two or three trees of little value on the croft land in question. But we are concerned in the few cases where there is valuable timber. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to deal with those cases. The Government recognised on a previous occasion such cases can arise. My noble friend Lord Lovat has confirmed it again today. The noble Lord told us—and I do not dissent from this—that agreement between the crofter and the land owner is to be encouraged. One hopes that this will be arrived at in all cases. Again, we cannot assume it will; and the question therefore still is: how is this matter to be dealt with if there is disagreement between the land owner and the crofter?
On a previous Amendment my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out that one cannot just dismiss injustice or unfairness because it is going to happen in only a few cases to a few people. That is why we should like to know whether the Government can say what is to be done if there is disagreement, and whether they think something should be put in the Bill. For my part, if the noble Lord can indicate how this can be dealt with satisfactorily and give us an assurance about that without it needing to be written into the Bill, I should be satisfied. We have still not been told what happens when there is disagreement on this matter in the few cases which will arise where there is valuable timber.
3.47 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister in suggesting that, for some of the reasons which he stated, it would not be right that this Amendment should be accepted. As my noble friend pointed out, if there is timber on the croft, the effect of the Amendment would be to require the crofter to buy that timber, or pay a price reflecting its value, even although he or his predecessor as a crofter had been responsible for putting it in. Obviously, the intention of the Amendment is that timber for which the land owner has been responsible and where
374
in the normal circumstances he could have been expected in due course to recover the value, should not be transferred at no value. If the only consideration which the Land Court can take into account is the crofting value of the land—and that is laid down as being 15 times the annual rental—that in effect means the timber is not being valued at all. So it is perfectly obvious that the remedy is the one which my noble friend has suggested: in the circumstances it should be a matter of agreement.
But the Bill as it stands does not provide for that; it lays down specifically that if there is no agreement between the landlord and the crofter, then only the crofting value shall be paid, and it will not be possible, so far as I can see, for the Land Court to do other than fix the compensation at 15 times the crofting rental. My noble friend has clearly set out his reasons for not accepting the Amendment, because in certain circumstances it could be grossly unfair to certain crofters. Accepting the fact that there are in the Bill circumstances in which the crofting landlord should be entitled to payment, I do not think the Government can rest on the wording as it is at the present time. It may be the solution here is one which Secretaries of State for Scotland in the past have found helpful, in being able to rest on the administrative guidance which may be given. I suggest to my noble friend—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland might find this a possible solution to the matter—that something of this kind might be undertaken.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Lord sits down—because I have spoken once and I can only intervene now as this is Report stage—the noble Lord should take note of the point, which is a good one, which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It should not be the value of any timber growing on the croft land, but the value of any timber which belongs to the land owner and which is not the crofter's because he has planted it himself.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, on this intricate matter the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made the point clear, and the only comment I would make is

375
upon the Minister's argument against this Amendment that only a few people will be involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminded the House, it is our duty, as Parliament, to correct an unfairness to one or two people just as much as it is to correct an unfairness to a large number of people. I deplore the Government's using the argument in support of a case that "there will be only a few of them". I think that is clearly immoral and wrong, and I cannot resist saying so.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am placed in something of a difficulty here because it seems that there is indeed a flaw in my Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having put the case in a nutshell. The position at the moment is not satisfactory and obviously we must return to this on Third Reading. I would hope that the Government might produce a satisfactory Amendment on Third Reading. I know, for instance, of a case where the croft rental is only £5; 15 times that would be £75, which would be the value of the croft. On the outrun there is timber worth £5,000, and it is quite wrong that the croft should be bought for £75 when there is £5,000 worth of timber on it. The obvious answer is that as soon as there is a question of selling it, the landlord is going to stall any sale and cut the timber, whether or not it is fit. What would have to be cut may be a very nice piece of amenity timber, as I mentioned, or it may be used as a shelter for grazing. But obviously the landlord is not going to leave £5,000 minus £75 to the crofter, and I think it would be the greatest pity if something was not done. The noble Lord said that crofters might lose the value of timber if my Amendment were accepted. I can think of one or two small cases where this would be so. Accordingly, although my Amendment is not quite satisfactory, could the Minister perhaps speak again?
Lord KIRKHILL: Perhaps I might just intervene at this moment in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to assure him that if he reads what I said at Committee stage he will get a perfect explanation of where the minority can seek redress. At that time I expressly mentioned the position of the Land Court in those several but peculiar circumstances.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think most of us probably read through what the noble Lord said on Committee stage, but I put this Amendment down because I was afraid that, despite the fact that he gave us a very lengthy commentary and made some very valid points on the matter, the point still has not been met, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said. I think, therefore, something more must be done; but as there is a flaw in this Amendment I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and also the value of any sporting rights pertaining to the croft.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in a slight difficulty here because if we are to get a nominal rent for sporting rights, as has now been accepted as a result of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then it would be unreasonable to ask for a capital value on which the crofter would be getting no return.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should think "not moved" would be the solution here.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said "not moved", but I am not sure about that because unfortunately the noble Lord the Minister qualified his comment by saying that it would be at the discretion of the Land Court as to whether or not the rent should be a nominal one. If the Land Court decided that there should be no lease and there was still a capital value for sportings, as there could well be, then it is not right for it to be taken away from the landowner for nothing. Consequently, there is some difficulty here which I hope the Government may be able to resolve between now and Third Reading. I am sure there are cases where there should be a sporting value put on but where there is to be a long lease to be granted at a nominal rent it is not reasonable that those sporting values should be of any consequence.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, we have had some discussion on this issue previously and I think we have talked about the landlords' interest in the sporting rights pertaining to croft land. There is a broad measure of agreement on both sides that in general there is little sporting value on inbye land. However, the Government recognise that there are some crofts, particularly on the East Coast and in the Uists, where sporting rights over croft land are of value to landlords.
Clause 2(3) of the Bill contains safeguards for the landlord's sporting interests by providing that landlords should be entitled to a lease of sportings in those cases where they can prove that the loss of the rights would materially affect their interests. The Government have accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, specifying that any such lease should be at a nominal rent and for a period of not less than 20 years. In the Government's view, it would be unfair on crofters to require them to pay the value of sporting rights over their land and then to require them by Statute to lease the rights to their former landlord at a nominal rent. If the crofter were to pay for the sportings, he should be entitled to expect a realistic rental for them from the tenant of his choice, who would not necessarily be his former landlord. On this account alone, I would ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
Moreover, I think we should also bear in mind the points made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who spoke with some authority on the valuation of sporting rights. The noble Lord quite rightly said that the value of sporting rights below a certain acreage is limited and that it is difficult to value sporting rights since they are based entirely on supply and demand. Therefore this Amendment would impose on the Land Court the onerous task of assessing the sporting value in all conveyances of land under the Bill, whether or not the rights were of any real value to the landlord and whether or not he made regular use of those rights. Furthermore, this valuation might not fully recompense the landlord for the loss of his rights, since the rights might be much less valuable as an individual sporting interest related to the particular croft than as part of the larger sporting estate in the landlord's ownership.
378
But I am opposed to this Amendment on grounds of principle. The purpose of this Bill—and I have said this on several previous occasions—is to enable crofters to obtain rights of ownership over those elements which they enjoy as tenants. It is not the Bill's primary purpose to provide for the transfer of sporting rights, although the Government have done something to accommodate representations from the Opposition on that latter point. Where sporting rights are of value to landlords, the proper course, as the Bill recognises, is for special arrangements to be made for the landlord to retain these rights. Sporting rights can be an emotive issue in the Highlands, and in the Government's view it is in the landlord's interests to rest on the safeguards contained in Clause 2(3). I hope, therefore, that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will not feel that he need press this Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, will find it possible to withdraw, because after all if this were to go into the Bill, having regard to the Amendment which my noble friend has already accepted, a ridiculously anomalous position could occur. There could be the situation that in determining the compensation account had to be taken of the value of the sporting rights which went with the land, and the crofter would then be required to pay on that basis. Having acquired them on that basis, he is then obliged, because of the Amendment which has just been passed, to turn them over at a nominal value. Obviously there is no need to have it both ways. The landlord's ownership of the sporting rights is now adequately covered by the Amendment already accepted by my noble friend; in other words, he will retain these rights for a period of not less than 20 years on payment of a purely nominal rent. I think in these circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Burton, should feel satisfied that he has accomplished a lot more and received more out of the Government on a matter of this kind than has been his normal fortune; and he should not press his luck too hard.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am afraid that we have heard a number of inaccuracies. At every stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that the

379
majority of the sporting rights are on common grazing, and at every stage I have stood up and said that that is not the case. I must again hasten to disillusion him. The low ground shootings can indeed be of very much greater consequence than any sporting rights on open ground. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who said that much of the open ground, particularly on the West Coast, is so devastated by hooded crows that there is not much to shoot on it, and that is probably the case. But there are some very good low ground shootings which can be completely devastated.
There was some mention of maps in Committee, and when they were found they were sent to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, instead of to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I hope that they will eventually find their way to those concerned, because they show that there could be very considerable damage here. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, there is some difficulty. But he was not quite right, because there is no compulsion on the landlord to make any lease and therefore sporting rights can well be acquired by the crofter for a nil value, because he is paying only £15 for his rental which does not include the sporting. If there was compulsion where the landlord required sporting rights to be leased back at a nominal rent, that would be a different matter but it is left entirely to his discretion. Therefore, the crofter could well acquire sporting rights for nothing.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord may find it helpful if I say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced in the other place that he will set up an inquiry into the whole question of common grazings. So that in the rather longer term his point can at least be yet again elucidated.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure about that. This may well meet part of the situation. I was a little worried when the Minister said that there was some difficulty about valuations because, after all, the assessor for rating purposes is constantly valuing sporting rights. Furthermore, whenever there is a transfer of land the district valuer values it. So there is no difficulty about it. It is
380
inaccurate to say that there is some difficulty in assessing sporting rights. If one reads the report in Hansard of what happened in the other place, one finds most awful ignorance and total misconceptions on this matter. For instance, even a Scottish Nationalist farmer, who I should have thought would know better, talked complete nonsense about rights to shoot deer on crofting ground. This has nothing whatsoever to do with it. But there is a valuable asset here which could be lost if something is not done, though I agree that in view of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, my Amendment may not be valid today. But something ought to be done before we let the Bill leave us. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.3 p.m.
Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) The landlord or his successors shall have the right of pre-emption over the relevant land.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is perhaps one of the most important Amendments before us today. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee there were very strong feelings about this point. Indeed, having asked your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment, I received considerable stick afterwards for doing so. I think I should be right in saying that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was entirely one of principle. I thought that the principle was not very strong, not very valid. But surely we should not govern the country by principle; we must use logic and decide what is good for the country and what is bad for it. Certain people think it unreasonable that anyone should own anything, which does not seem logical, but that is what it amounts to.
In dealing with this Amendment earlier, we heard about the problem of the possible sale of crofts for holiday homes and for undesirable developments. But if this Amendment were accepted it would get over a good many of the problems which we discussed earlier about sporting rights, because where they are not transferable through successors we should be able, if we had this power in the Bill, to buy back

381
any crofting ground if it came up for sale again and the sporting rights could be safeguarded. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will get over his worry about pre-emption. I cannot understand the Government's worry about this. I think it came up on the feudal reform Bill. It seems to be felt that if the right of pre-emption is written in, the crofter will lose something. The noble Lord said that there might be some delay and he might lose a good sale. But the delay is minimal, and I have never heard of a sale being lost because there was a preemption clause in a feudal transaction. There is really no difference between writing a pre-emption into this Bill and writing it into a feudal transaction. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I indicated in Committee that the Government were opposed to this Amendment in principle, and I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that I do not think the Government's stand on principle is necessarily illogical. Indeed, I consider that the Government's principle in this case is perfectly logical. That remains our position today. It would be contrary to the Government's commitment to land tenure reform to include a provision in this Bill which would be inconsistent with their intention on that point. That is not to say, however, that a pre-emption right could not be written into a conveyance by feu writ or otherwise, which would secure for the landlord an option to purchase the croft land which he was conveying to the crofter if the latter wished to resell; and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, made this last point earlier this afternoon.
The landlord could include a preemption condition in a conveyance by agreement with the crofter, and I have no doubt that there will be many crofters who would respect the landlord's wish that the land should not go to a third party. Failing agreement, it would be open to the landlord to seek to have the Land Court impose a pre-emption right as part of the conditions of sale. Alternatively, there is, as I said in Committee, nothing at all to prevent a landlord from buying back croft land if it is put on the market. These possibilities which I have outlined are available as the Bill stands, and, in the Government's view afford a reasonable opportunity to the landlord to get back his
382
land in the event of sale in order, for instance, to protect his sporting interests. For the reasons which I have constantly stated during our many discussions, the Government cannot agree to a pre-emption provision being written into the Bill and I ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I am a little at a loss to follow the noble Lord's stand this afternoon. I thought that on the last occasion when we discussed this matter he said that the Government were opposed to the feudal principle, implying that landlords were, without exception, bad and extortionist in their approach; and therefore they should not have the chance, even although the crofter is completely protected, of inroads of large acquisition. I got the impression, as I am sure did most noble Lords, that the pre-emption was opposed because it smacked of feudalism. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, could put me right on that point.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government's view is that, in the light of our policy of reviewing the whole question of the law as it pertains to land tenure, they will not continue to give active support to the feudal system by writing into the Bill the kind of provision which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, seems to think is necessary. What I have explained this afternoon is that under existing Scots law feu writs can be constructed in a number of different ways. It is not the purpose of this Bill in any way to amend Scots law in this respect.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer, but possibly in the Government's mind there is a hostile attitude towards the landowner versus the crofter. In my experience this is very seldom the case, except when estates change hands frequently; then landowners and crofters are often at loggerheads, particularly in the West where one reads of the development of unfortunate relationships. If again I may add a personal note —and I do so without trying to appear to be a benevolent despot I know of many estates which have not put up the rents of crofters for 40 years. As the crofter is the interested party in selling his land to the highest bidder, I suggest that there is no

383
reason why the landlord should pay just as much for the purchase of that croft as would a total stranger who comes from far away and who has no understanding of and no knowledge of the traditions which go with the feudal system. On the estate I know best, crofters have carried on from father to son for generations and would prefer to see somebody they knew than a total stranger from the South. Many of the points contained in this Bill will bring about the destruction of the crofting system. The crofters are the yeomen of Scotland, the backbone of the country. If everybody sells their crofts and moves into council houses, it will be the end of a very fine section of the community. I add that as an afterthought.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because I do not think that the noble Lord has answered the problem. I stand to be corrected on this point, but I do not believe that the Land Court are empowered to grant a feu. They are bound to give to the crofter an outright disposition at a price of 15 times the annual rental. Indeed, we have asked that sporting rights and timber should be added.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and reiterate that the Land Court will have the power to impose a pre-emption right as one of the conditions of sale.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, this is welcome news. Previously we had not been able to read this in the Bill, but if the noble Lord is able to give us that assurance, I am sure that we shall all be very grateful. There is no point in pursuing the Amendment, and therefore I ask for your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Determination by Land Court of terms and conditions for conveyance of the site of the dwelling-house]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert ("and in no circumstances will the landlord's expenses be greater than the amount received for the sale of the site:").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again we are in some difficulty, because I do not think it has been appreciated how great will be the expense of transferring some of this croft land. It is not only the cost of the actual conveyance; many crofts have very ill-defined boundaries. While talking about this Amendment, I believe that it would be in order if I were to deal with the other Amendment regarding the expense of purchasing the croft land as well as the croft house site, to which reference has been made. During the Committee stage we did not put down an Amendment on this subject but there were several expressions of concern about what might happen over the expense of conveying croft ground. Possibly many people have not appreciated how ill-defined the croft boundaries are. This has not mattered in the past; a few yards here and there of let ground were of no consequence. However, if the land is to be sold and proper titles prepared, obviously there must be complete accuracy regarding the croft boundaries.
I have a case that is to come shortly before the Land Court; it is being brought by the crofter. In 1927, the Land Court gave a ruling about what was the area of the croft and laid down that it was a certain acreage. When one looks now at the Ordnance Survey map and considers the acreage of the croft, one finds that there is a discrepancy of about an acre. Instead of the croft being eight-point something acres, the Ordnance Survey map shows that it amounts to nine-point something acres. In addition, there is one ill-defined boundary. In the past, the crofter has been slack. The result is that there are no proper fences and the crofter is claiming even further ground, despite the fact that in 1958 the Land Court laid down what they considered to be the acreage. This may well involve a good deal of argument. Lawyers and court expenses would be involved. There is little doubt that the expense of trying to decide the area of the land will be considerably in excess of the value of the land itself. In this case, about two acres are involved, but there will be many cases where only a few yards here and there will be in dispute; but the cost of trying to assess what the correct croft boundary is could be very considerable.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the question

385
of valuers. There will be considerable complications regarding the valuation of housing, for which all the materials have perhaps been supplied by the landowner. The site will become the property of the crofter. Considerable difficulties, expense and complications will arise which have drifted on in the past because there has been a lease and the point has been of no consequence. However, as soon as a purchase is made, expense will be involved. As the Bill stands at the moment, the crofting landowner could be landed with substantial expense in excess of any purchase price that he will receive. Therefore, my suggestion is that in any particular case where a transaction is taking place and the expenses will exceed the purchase price, these should be borne by the crofter who is asking for the right to purchase his croft. As all the benefit will fall on the crofter, there seems to be no reason why the landlord should be out of pocket. Therefore, I move this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I add to what my noble friend has said. I feel sure that one ought to avoid a situation where the sale will amount to less than the expenses to which the seller will be put so that he comes out of the sale with a minus quantity. I am not sure whether it needs to be written into the Bill, but I am certain that it was right of my noble friend to raise this matter so that it may be clarified and so that we may have on the record the attitude of the Government.
Turning to the drafting of the Amendment, I think that the word "such" ought to appear after the first word "Any". Again it must be made clear that these are expenses which are all necessarily incurred. One would not want to have a situation where there could be any chance of one side or the other running up unnecessary expenses and the crofter then having to bear more expense than he ought to bear. In this kind of transaction both sides would want the expense to be at a minimum. At the same time, however, the Land Court may on occasion need the services of expert valuers. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to agree with the spirit of this Amendment, even though the Amendment itself may not be appropriate.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is
386
somewhat surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, should find it necessary to table this Amendment, in view of the explanation which I gave in Committee of the Government's intentions as regards conveyancing costs, an explanation which I thought satisfied him at the time because he felt at that stage that it was unnecessary to move his Amendment substituting the word "shall" for "may" in line 9. The Government have already said that in the case of the house site, the policy intention to which the drafting gives effect is that the crofter will be expected to bear all the expenses of the landlord arising from the conveyance as well as his own expenses.
I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I can assure him, as, indeed, I can assure your Lordships' House, that in the Government's view the Amendment is superfluous since the intention of the present drafting is that an obligation may be imposed on the crofter to meet all the expenses of the landlord arising from the conveyance of the house site.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think the Government's intention is quite clear. I remember well what the noble Lord said in Committee, but in spite of assurances given by the Government I am not really sure what the Bill lays down. I tabled the Amendment again because I felt that the point was not fully covered, but if the noble Lord is advised to the contrary, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Crofter's right to share in value of land resumed by landlord]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to ("according") in line 20 and insert ("the land so resumed forms or forms part of a common grazing, the share of the value of that land payable to the crofters sharing in the common grazing shall be apportioned among such crofters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to remove from the Land Court the primary duty which the Bill laid upon it in every case to apportion among shareholders in a common grazing the share determined under Clause 9(1) of the Bill of the value of land resumed from that grazing. The

387
Court is at present required by Clause 9(4) to apportion such share among the individual shareholders in accordance with their common grazing rights. The Court has expressed concern that this duty could involve it in a time-consuming exercise in cases where a small sum—perhaps only one or two pounds—was to be apportioned among a large number of shareholders according to a complex pattern of individual grazing rights.
This Amendment, which I hope will find favour with your Lordships, would resolve this difficulty. The subsection so amended will provide that shareholders in a common grazing will have a right to share in the sum determined by the Court, but does not specify who is to be responsible for the apportionment of that sum. This leaves the apportionment to be carried out on the initiative of the landlord with the agreement of the individual crofters. It will not prevent a landlord, such as the Stornoway Trust, agreeing with shareholders in a common grazing that the money should be paid to the common grazing fund. But the Land Court is not excluded from having jurisdiction in the matter if the need arises. If a crofter and landlord fail to agree as to the content of the crofter's individual common grazing right, it will be a question for the Land Court to decide if brought before the Court under Section 4(1) of the 1961 Act.
In effect this arrangement parallels the provisions of Section 12 of the 1955 Act relating to the payment of adequate compensation to shareholders on resumption of grazings land by a landlord. The present arrangement for paying adequate compensation is that the Land Court determines as part of the resumption process the amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord, but does not apportion this compensation among shareholders. It is left to the agreement of the landlord and the shareholders to decide on how the money should be paid, whether it should be to a common grazings fund or whether it should be paid to the individual shareholders in proportion to their rights in the common grazing.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has also tabled an Amendment to this subsection. His Amendment seeks to meet the points raised by the Stornoway
388
Trust by providing that the share in value on resumption of common grazing land shall be paid to the relevant common grazing committee in those cases where a majority of shareholders decide to waive their individual rights. I cannot recommend that Amendment to your Lordships since it would cut across the crofter's right to his individual share in value of common grazing land. In the interests of equity this right must be maintained. However, as I have already explained, the Government Amendment covers the Stornoway Trust's point by leaving the apportionment of value to be carried out by the landlord with the agreement of the shareholders in the same way as adequate compensation under Section 12 of the 1955 Act is paid by the landlord to shareholders. Nothing in Section 12 prevents the Stornoway Trust arranging to pay the compensation to a grazings committee rather than the individual crofters, and Clause 9(4) will not prevent a similar arrangement if the Government Amendment is accepted by your Lordships.
There are two reasons why the Amendment should be supported. First, it is necessary to prevent the Land Court from being required in all cases to apportion the share in value. This would obviously prove a difficulty. Secondly, the Amendment does not put any obstacle in the way of the point raised by the Stornoway Trust, that it should be free to arrange to pay the share in value to the appropriate grazings committee by arrangement rather than to the individual crofters. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated that this Amendment is designed to meet in part my Amendment No. 15. I agree that it does, and therefore I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to discuss my Amendment No. 15 with this present Amendment.
Since the Committee stage, I have been in touch with the Stornoway, Trust, which I said at that time had raised the matter with me. They have given their views on what the Minister said at the Committee stage. The Stornoway Trust hope to be able to retain their system, which they say has worked well and meets with the approval of the crofters concerned. In that case the value is retained by grazings

389
committees and used commonly for purposes generally for the benefit of the shareholder crofters concerned. They wanted to have that written into the Bill. My own view, represented in Amendment No. 15, was that there should be a choice open; that is to say, that the Land Court might apportion the value, or alternatively the practice of the Stornoway Trust would also be open under the Bill. Certainly the Stornoway Trust did not want to see the end of their system; they did not want to be forced to change, for no apparent reason, what had been carried out satisfactorily. Therefore we are glad to hear what the noble Lord said at the end of his speech, which was that the system practised by the Stornoway Trust can be continued under Amendment No. 14.
I think that one of the purposes of the Bill is to enhance the stature and functions of grazings committees. That was spoken about during earlier stages of the Bill and was certainly one of the purposes when the Bill was introduced, over two years ago. When I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage to my present Amendment No. 15, the Government gave it as their view that the proposal would deprive a crofter shareholder, without his consent, of the right to which he was entitled, because that would apply to the minority of crofters who were in opposition to the majority—over 50 per cent.—who had opted for one choice; namely, that the money should go to the grazings committee.
I recognise that as a possible objection to my earlier Amendment and also to my present Amendment No. 15. There may be no difficulty in the Stornoway area and no objectors to the system as practised there, but elsewhere it could be that crofters in a minority could feel aggrieved. At Committee stage the Minister pointed out that a voluntary arrangement could be worked out in particular cases, and, as I have mentioned, the Stornoway Trust none the less still hope that something can be written into the Bill. One of their arguments which I mentioned at the Committee stage is that in some cases the Land Court would have difficulties in finding an acceptable basis for an apportionment, and the noble Lord the Minister referred to that just now.
Indeed, more than the wisdom of Solomon might be needed to determine
390
proportions in which to divide the value among a large number of shareholder/ crofters with a complex pattern of shares and conflicting opinions as to the weighting that should be applied. Amendment No. 14 would relieve the Land Court of that function, as I understand it, and the Land Court would have to deal only with the difficult matter of apportionment if a dispute was referred to it. If I understand correctly what was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, the Land Court would not automatically have to do it in every case. The effect of the Government's Amendment No. 14, which I accept, goes some way to meet the case I have put. It would leave the Stornoway Trust free to continue their present practice, so I would advise your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 14. In those circumstances, I will not move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provision as respects removal of land from crofting tenure]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 14, line 10, leave out (" constitution of new crofts or ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 26, which is linked to Amendment No. 16. The debate during the Committee stage on Amendment No. 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was particularly useful, in that it drew to the attention of the Government an inappropriate reference in the Bill to the constitution of new crofts. The Amendment of the noble Lord was not acceptable at that time as it was too sweeping and would have removed a necessary safeguard for allowing decrofted land to be reinstated under crofting tenure as an enlargement to a croft. However, following the debate, it was recognised that part of the Amendment was appropriate, since the reference to powers for the constitution of new crofts is no longer apt in view of the repeal in Schedule 3 to the Bill of Section 2(1) of the 1961 Act, under which these powers are given to the Secretary of State. I am indebted to the noble Lord for his perspicacity. Amendment No. 26 excises a similar reference which is

391
contained in the 1955 Act. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 26, leave out ("the Act of 1955") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. It is to correct an error in the drafting of the new Section 16A of the 1955 Act, which is contained in Clause 13(3) of the Bill. Since, following the enactment of the Bill, the new Section will be incorporated within the 1955 Act, the reference to "the Act of 1955" in line 26 will be inappropriate. The wording should be "this Act", and the Amendment makes the necessary correction. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("consisting") and insert ("which consists").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and to speak to Amendment No. 19. These are minor Amendments designed to clarify the intention of the provision which is that the right to an automatic decrofting direction for the croft dwellinghouse site should only be available to a crofter who has already become owner of his house site by agreement or otherwise in pursuance of the entitlement given to him under Clause 1(2) of the Bill, or is in a position to exercise this entitlement. The present drafting is insufficiently precise, since it would allow any owner of a croft which is vacant if and when the Bill is enacted, or who later obtains renunciation of a crofting tenancy, to obtain an almost automatic decrofting direction for the house on such croft and to dispose of the house on the open market. This is not what the Bill intended. I have, of course, no reason to think that landlords would seek to exploit this loophole in the Bill by capitalising on the disposal of the houses on crofts which may temporarily become vacant, but in the Government's view, it is undesirable that there should be any risk that the stock of croft houses required for crofters should be diminished
392
in this way were that to happen. The effect of the Amendments will be that decrofting applications by landlords in respect of croft house sites will be considered by the Crofters Commission in the ordinary way, having regard to the general interest of the crofting community and local crofting demand. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 33, after ("croft") insert ("and in respect of which a crofter is entitled at the time of the application, or has been entitled, to a conveyance by virtue of section 1(2) of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 formally. I was speaking to it when speaking to Amendment No. 18.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Extension of Section 3 of Act of 1955.]:
4.36 p.m.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 16, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("land") in line 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that we are now getting into the realms of a lawyer's glory. Things are getting very complicated. I was grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for remarking just now on a previous Amendment that we were trying to get some of this sorted out. I hope that here it might be possible to reach another small agreement with the Government, because the Amendment is to the benefit of the crofters every bit as much as to the landowner—possibly more so—and it is also in favour of good land use.
My Lords, the point is that, so far as I can see, if a crofter gets a tenancy—even a seasonal tenancy—for any grazing, that land becomes part of his croft. This has been re-enacted in the Bill; it was part of the previous Bill. To all intents and purposes, this means that no one in his right mind will let anything to a crofter. Particularly once this Bill is passed, it means that that land could be acquired by the crofter on 15 years' purchase of the rental. Therefore, it is obviously not very sound practice to put this in the Bill.
For instance, where you had some planting ground, you might want to let it to someone for grazing for a short period—a year or two—until such time as you wanted to plant it; but you dare not let it to a crofter. He might well like to take it from you, and you would never be able to plant it in the future. This just does not make sense. Although my drafting may not be sound, I hope that the Government will be able to put this right, as it has become extremely complicated. I think the principle here is wrong and should be looked at.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has misunderstood the provision in this part of the Bill. Indeed, I can reassure the noble Lord that he is quite wrong in thinking that any land let to a crofter for grazing purposes automatically becomes part of his croft. This is not the case. Non-croft land can only be added as an enlargement to a croft under the terms of Section 2(2) of the 1961 Act with the agreement of the landlord. The landlord has complete control in this respect, and without his agreement an enlargement cannot be effected. A grazing let of non-croft land to a crofter, unless the landlord agreed otherwise, would be effected under an agricultural lease, and would have no relevance to the crofting tenancy.
The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to omit is to make it clear that any grazing right within the crofting legislation pertaining to a croft tenancy is an integral part of the croft. In this respect, they do no more than restate the law enacted in Section 3 of the 1955 Act. The effect of the Amendment would be to put the status of such crofting grazing rights in doubt, and in this case I do think that the Amendment is misguided, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I think that is a most useful statement by the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for clarifying the position. Your Lordships appreciate how complicated the situation is. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
4.41 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—
(" (3A) At the end of section 1(1) (constitution and general functions of the Commission), there shall be added the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976.".")
line 25, at end insert—
("( ) in subsection (1)(d), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976."")
Page 24, line 11, after ("crofts),") insert ("(a)")
line 12, at end insert—
(" (b) at the end there shall be added the words "and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc. These are technical drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to extend references in the 1955 Act to the Crofters Commission's functions and powers under that Act to include also functions and powers under the 1976 Act. Reference to the Commission's responsibilities under the 1961 Act are imported into the 1955 Act references by paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1961 Act, which states that any reference in the Act of 1955 to that Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, include a reference to the 1961 Act. An Opposition Amendment was accepted in another place to Section 2(4) of the 1955 Act to extend the reference to functions under that Act to include functions under the Bill. These Amendments, therefore, complete the process of making the extensions in relation to other comparable references. I hope that with this somewhat technical explanation noble Lords will be ready to accept the Amendments, which do no more really than tidy up the drafting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall put Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 26, line 33, leave out paragraph 19 and insert—
(" 19. Section 12 shall cease to apply.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may be rather confused

395
as to why this Amendment is put down. I may say straight away that it is a probing Amendment. The position here is that it would appear that though the Crofters Commission were given a remit 15 years ago they have never fully implemented it, or very seldom have they done so. In the past, I think under the 1955 Act and previous Acts, where a crofter was not cultivating his croft or looking after it properly it fell upon the landowner to do something about it. That was removed by the 1961 Act, and the Crofters Commission was given powers to sub-let the croft if the crofter was not working it. Your Lordships have only to look around the crofting areas to see innumerable crofts not being worked properly. Indeed there was one which recently came before the Land Court, and it must, therefore, very forcefully have been drawn to the attention of the Crofters Commission, but still they have done nothing about it. If Parliament gives to a Commission like this a remit to execute a job, I think it ought to be done. Therefore, particularly in view of the fact that the Bill gives the Commission substantial extra powers, I put down this Amendment to see what the Government intend to do to see that they do carry out those that they have already. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government of course recognise that this Amendment put down by the noble Lord is a probing Amendment. The Government can explain the reasons why powers given to the Crofters Commission under Section 12 of the 1961 Act to secure the sub-letting of crofts which are inadequately used have never been implemented. Section 12 has in fact never been operative, since it requires the introduction of an order under Section 19(2) of the 1961 Act to bring it into operation, and no such order has been made.
Briefly, the reason the Section 12 powers were brought is as reserve powers and were not made operative on introduction of the 1961 Act was because the concept of compulsory sub-letting met with such opposition in Committee that the Government of the day decided that in the first instance a policy of voluntary sub-letting should be tried and the compulsory power should be held in abeyance, for introduction as the ultimate sanction onlyif that
396
policy failed and after an order confirming the use of such powers had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. Following these guidelines, the Crofters Commission, in seeking to achieve more effective utilisation of croft land, have proceeded by persuasion and have not felt justified in seeking to invoke the compulsory powers.
The Commission have given a good deal of encouragement to crofters to arrange for the voluntary sub-letting to active crofters of land which they themselves were not using, and indeed nearly 2,000 sub-lets have been arranged since 1961. These measures, I am assured, have proved reasonably effective in avoiding sterilisation of croft land, and successive Governments have not considered it expedient to implement the powers for compulsory sub-letting contained in Section 12 of the 1961 Act. Nevertheless, I do not feel that we can say categorically that there will never arise in future a situation in which we would consider it desirable to make use of these powers. In the light of what I think is a fairly full explanation, I hope that your Lordships will resist the Amendment.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving such a full explanation. Now that this matter has been drawn to his attention I hope that he will consider giving it further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Repeal of enactments]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 28, line 19, column 3, at end insert—
(" In section 12(4), the words "the constitution of new crofts or" ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 formally, having already spoken to it under the heading of Amendment No. 16.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Increased access to, and protection for, freshwater fishing]:
The DUKE of ATHOLL The DUKE of ATHOLL moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 30, at end insert ("and of persons and clubs who have, or anticipate being granted in the event of the protection order being made the right to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland.")
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I think it is only right for me to apologise both to this House and to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, first, for the fact that I was not able to be in my place when this Bill was considered in Committee, and, secondly, for putting down these Amendments somewhat late. As they are all my own composition, I am sure that it will surprise no one if I say straight away that I suspect that they are defective in their drafting, but I have put them down largely as a basis for discussion.
The first Amendment which stands in my name would add to the end of paragraph (b) of Clause 1(3):
"and of persons and clubs who have, or anticipate being granted in the event of the protection order being made, the right to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland."
If this Amendment were accepted, it would mean that before the Secretary of State could make a protection order he would not only have to consult with the somewhat nebulous body which is already mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) but would also have to consult with any tenants or potential tenants of the waters over which the protection order was to be made.
I think this is only right, as there could be a case where a tenant, an angling club, for instance, already has the right to fish in waters. The owner of those waters might wish a protection order to be made over them. The body mentioned in paragraph (b) might think this a good idea and raise no objections. Then, as the Bill now stands, the Secretary of State would be able to go ahead and make a protection order. But the members of the angling club who were already lessees of that water might well have some objection to this. For instance, they might consider that the owner was suggesting a rent which was too high, or that he was going to take out the brown trout and put in rainbow trout instead, or something like that, and their members might like fishing for brown trout rather than for rainbow trout. I feel that it is only right that the Secretary of
398
State, before making a protection order, should consult with the existing tenants of the waters over which he is going to make his order.
Of course the owner is covered because the owner has to suggest the protection order in the first place, and so he is in no difficulty. If he does not wish to have a protection order made over his waters he simply will not put forward the proposal. It seems to me that the existing tenant could be in an underprivileged position when protection orders are being considered. Equally, I feel that many owners will, when they apply for a protection order, have already made arrangements for an angling club to take over the administration of the waters over which they propose to obtain a protection order. In this case I should have thought that it was only right that the angling clubs which are going to benefit from a protection order, if it is made, should have the right to be consulted by the Secretary of State before he makes the protection order. It seems to me that they could well add something useful to the representations to which the Secretary of State will listen before he makes a protection order. I beg to move.
4.52 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government would seek to resist this Amendment. The purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is to ensure that all types of persons wishing to fish for brown trout are given proper representation and full opportunity for their views to be made known to my right honourable friend when he is considering the making of a protection order. The weaknesses in the representative hierarchy in trout angling became obvious during the passage of this Bill through another place. Not only must the Government ensure that those anglers who are organised in clubs and associations have their views fully made known, but there are moreover the views of those many individual anglers—people who often prefer not to be organised in their comings and goings—which must be conveyed to my right honourable friend, if he is fully to appreciate the views of the trout angling community as to whether the benefits to be derived by that community merit, in their eyes, the giving of protection to trout fishing in the area.

399
I am not for one moment suggesting that anglers will be debarred from membership of the group if they happen to hold fishing rights—or even hope to hold them at some future date. But no one section of the angling community could properly be given any special right to selection for the group other than that general right stemming from their wish to fish. It is for that general reason of principle that I have to ask your Lordships to resist the noble Duke's Amendment.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, there seems to me a point here of some importance. It is not clear from what has been said at any stage in the debate on this Bill as to how frequent or how important are the powers of holding a local inquiry before a protection order is made. We ought to seek to find this out from Her Majesty's Government because if, in fact, it is going to be the rule rather than the exception that an inquiry precedes the making of an order, then I do not think that anybody need fear that he is going to have a chance of making any representations he may wish to make before a protection order is made. But if, in fact, a local inquiry, or a public inquiry, is going to be the exception, then it is going to be very important to make sure that people have a right to make their views and their positions known before the Secretary of State considers the matter.
So far as I am concerned, and I think those of us on these Benches, we should like to see the public inquiry the rule rather than the exception, because I do not think that anybody need have anything to hide in this matter. We want to see, when a protection order is being laid down—and this will be a new thing which we shall see happening for the first time after this Bill is passed—the matter properly threshed out in public in every case. I should hope that inquiries would be the rule rather than the exception. It would be most helpful if Her Majesty's Government could let us known how they envisage how this part of the Bill is likely to work.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is not Her Majesty's Government's intention at this time to proceed overtly and frequently by way of public inquiry. The Secretary of State will consider representations.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in that case may I ask whether any representations can be made and, if so, will they all be considered, or just those that the Secretary of State is obliged to listen to?
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers that may I ask whether, when applications are made for a protection order, they will be publicised fairly extensively so that people will be in a position to make representations?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should, in perfect equity and fairness, have qualified my initial reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I should explain that of course if objections are made then a public inquiry would be held. I do not think that the Secretary of State would proceed to a discretion if objections were made. I was assuming that if no objections were put to him then of course he would accept and listen to representations from a number of sources.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer the question I asked? How much publicity will be given to the proposed protection orders when they are submitted to the Secretary of State?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at this stage, but I am very willing to answer on a future occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with respect, should not the noble Lord be in a position to answer my noble friend's question? We are now getting to the penultimate stage of the Bill. It has already been through another place. If the noble Lord is not going to answer my noble friend's question now when, may I ask, is he going to answer?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Schedule 1 makes provisions as to the publication of the various protection orders. The noble Duke asked for a specific detail from me as to the full extent of publicity. I shall look into that matter and reply to him.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord the

401
Minister has said, I think it is only right that I should withdraw this Amendment. I still feel that the existing tenant, or potential tenant, should be given consideration, and of course my Amendment would not have stopped the Secretary of State from consulting with the body set up under subsection (3)(b). I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties in acceding to my request, and I put down this Amendment very late, for which I. must again apologise. In the circumstances, I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.58 p.m.
The DUKE of ATHOLL The DUKE of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("and").
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are purely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 4.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Derwent): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Duke? If he is going to talk about Amendment No. 4, may I say that it is wrongly put down on the Marshalled List. It should read:
"Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (h)".
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Amendment No. 4 would leave out the top two lines of page 3:
"(h) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant."
I have put this down not because I particularly object to the Secretary of State's considering any other matters which he might consider relevant, which it seems to me is a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do, but to find out what other matters he might consider relevant. It seems to me that paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (5) are so comprehensive that there cannot really be any other matters which could be relevant. I should be interested to know what the Government think might be covered by (h) or whether it is purely a safety net in case they and I have forgotten something. I have always been told that if one is to have a general
402
provision like that, one should particularise beforehand. It seems that we have a lot of particularisation before we get to the general phase at the finish.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should have thought that the answer to the noble Duke's question was that if the Government had known the other matters which might be relevant they would have proceeded through the alphabet after the letter "g". It is reasonable for the Secretary of State to say, in effect, "Should anything else turn out to be relevant which has not occurred to me up to now, I should have power to take it into account".
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, one matter which must be relevant is the question of proposals for the improvement of fisheries, and I do not see that mentioned. We have references to charges, tackle, the number of fish, rods, the size of fish and so on but nothing relating to the actual improvement of the fisheries, although presumably that is what the Secretary of State might have in mind.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I think that the noble Duke's assessment of his Amendment is quite accurate, and his assessment has had at least a partial confirmation from my noble friend Lord Hughes. The items specified in (e) to (g) are, of course, items to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will require to pay some attention, but other matters will be represented to him, and (h) permits him to give his further and wider consideration in just the manner which has been outlined. The provision (h) is really a saving one and is no more than that. Perhaps I should mention to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that subsection 4(c) covers the point he raised.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, before my noble friend the Duke of Atholl withdraws his Amendment—or does not, according to his inclination—may I ask the Minister a question about which I shall sympathise if he cannot answer immediately because he may not be in a position to do so. I must apologise for not bringing the matter forward in Committee; I was undertaking a certain public duty in Scotland and was prevented from so doing. The considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard

403
under subsection 5(b) include the permitted methods of fishing or tackle and the maximum number of fish that may be caught. Since this matter came before your Lordships, I have carried out my own personal straw poll, if that is the expression, during the Easter Recess up and down the banks of the Tay. Perhaps I should mention that I have an interest therein, or in certain parts of it, as a trustee. The inquiry which was made of me by persons who were employed as fishermen was: who is to say what the permitted methods of fishing or tackle are to be if a protection order is to be made and, above all, what is to happen if somebody flouts the regulations?
In that part of the Tay—I realise that this is a very subjective view of the situation where I come from—the word is that the large brown trout have already been fished out because those who came, and particularly those who do not know the water very well, use, for example, minnows. The large trout are attracted to them, perhaps more than they should be, as opposed to a fly and they have all been caught and there are no more brown trout of that particular size. If a protection order is made, one assumes that the riparian owner, club or whoever it is who is setting the scene for future angling, is entitled to say, "You must fish with a fly and not with a minnow because that is unfair", and I do not suppose that the noble Lord or his advisers would demur from the proposition in proper instances rules may be made.
Bearing that in mind, I should like to know, first, how the Secretary of State is to interpret that and, secondly, what is to happen if the permitted methods of fishing or tackle are flouted. Can an ephemeral permit be revoked by the riparian owner? Can the wardens enforce the rules which accompany the permit which is issued, and what is to happen if they are broken? I appreciate that I have brought this matter up at a somewhat late stage. If the Minister wishes to raise it as part of the Third Reading debate on this measure, or if he prefers to write to me, I shall understand.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to the noble Earl. These are interesting points—
The EARL of MANSFIELD: And vital ones, my Lords.
Lord KIRKHILL: They are vital and interesting points of arresting detail, my Lords. I can say at this stage that it will be for the owner or occupier to lay down a permanent method or methods. His sanction will, of course, be the withdrawal of the permit in the event of his decision not being adhered to. Perhaps there is a slight misunderstanding in the noble Earl's interpretation of the point he raised. The provision requires the Secretary of State to have regard to certain matters with a view to satisfying himself that an order may be made by him. The protection order, when made, will not specify anything other than a provision against unpermitted fishing; it will not specify anything more than that. However, I will write to the noble Earl further on this point of detail.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, is it the Minister's interpretation, therefore, that by using a method not permitted on the stretch of water, the person holding the permit automatically invalidates the permit and thereby becomes a person fishing in breach of the protection order? Is that the noble Lord's interpretation?
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords, I think that follows.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for helping us to clarify this somewhat complicated subject. I am not entirely convinced that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is right in his question about the improvement of fishings because as I read the provision to which he referred, it simply enables the Secretary of State to take account of conditions in areas other than the one to which the proposed protection order will apply. In that case I should have thought that whether and in what ways the areas round about would be improved is not very relevant and therefore it is probably right for it not to be mentioned in this provision. I have no rooted objection to the safety net of "any other matters" which the Secretary of State may consider to be relevant. I tabled the Amendment to try to find out whether the Government had any other matters in mind or whether it was just a safety

405
net. Lord Kirkhill has answered the question at any rate to my satisfaction and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"Access to fishings in protected areas.
On making a protection order the Secretary of State shall make up a list of all owners of land to which pertains a right to fish for freshwater fish in any inland area to which the protection order applies, and any occupier of such right, who did not apply in writing to the Secretary of State, in relation to the improvement of, or the giving or availability of access to, fishings; and may specify for such fishings after consultation with all owners or occupiers so listed the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would refer again to what I said earlier about the Bill —that I believe it has flaws. The Amendment is designed to remove one flaw which clearly exists in the Bill and which was tacitly recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in the Second Reading debate. It is that, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be possible, for persons who in no way contribute to the improvement of the quality or quantity of, or the access to, fishings, to participate in the benefits resulting from having a protection order within an area in which their fisheries lie. For instance, on a particular stretch of river, there may be one riparian owner who makes no move at all when the protection order is mooted, who does not appear at any inquiries and who offers to make no improvements and no increase of access to his fisheries. If all the ninety and nine just persons who own the rest of the river system agree on having a protection order, I assume from the way in which the debates have gone that the Secretary of State would not withhold it if one person had not come forward to take part in the inquiry or offered to take part in anything envisaged in the granting of the protection order. Once the order was granted for the sake of the ninety and nine the hundredth person would, in fact, receive protection. He would be able to regard
406
his fishery as a heritable property. He would be able to sell it and to do so as a piece of property on which there was no obligation to give anybody access. It would become very valuable for those who wanted to be restrictive.
I feel, and I believe that most reasonable people would feel, that it is wrong that anybody should be given such an advantage. It is against the spirit of the Bill that such an advantage should be acquired without the owner having had to contribute in some measure to what is being given to the general fishing public in exchange for the advantages gained under a protection order.
I quite see that there could be people who might simply, through default, absence or the fact that they were not aware of what was going on, miss the opportunity of being heard when the protection order was being considered. We have heard today that it will not in general be the practice, unless there is an objection, for a public inquiry to be held. In such a case, it would clearly be unfair to force such people to accept some form of condition along with a protection order without consulting them in some way. So far as I can see, if a person stays quiet, there is no machinery for actively consulting him.
The Amendment therefore seeks to lay upon the Secretary of State when making a protection order the necessity actively to consult anybody who has not come forward or has not been consulted up to the time when the Secretary of State is to make the order. It provides that the Secretary of State must make a list of such people and include them along with those who have asked for a protection order. Having listed and consulted them, they should be included and the part which they are to play specified in the general scheme which the protection order would envisage.
I do not believe that any reasonable owner of a fishery or any reasonable angler could object to this. If a river system is to have a protection order throughout its length, or if a drainage basin or a section of a river or drainage basin is to have a whole protection order applied to it, I believe that that protection order should apply to every part of it in an equal manner. Unless we specify something in this regard, I do not see how

407
we are to avoid the loophole whereby, simply by keeping his head low, somebody in the system can get away with all the benefits without any contribution to the improvement or increased availability in return for which the protection order is made. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount has greatly helped your Lordships' House and that we should be grateful to him for giving us this opportunity of further discussion of a point which, although it was raised during the earlier stages of the Bill, has not, I believe, been satisfactorily explored. The Amendment also gives the opportunity for the Government to explain how they think the scheme will work in practice.
I must remind the House that, in my White Paper Cmnd. 4821 of November 1971, which set out the proposals of the Government at that time, not only on brown trout but also on the reform of the fishery laws in Scotland as a whole, I described the scheme which was then proposed. There was a major difference from what has been adopted by the present Government in the proposals of that White Paper, in that it was not intended that protection orders should be only for whole catchment areas or large parts of catchment areas. The Government have made it clear that protection orders made under the present Bill must be for the whole or a very large part of a river, not for individual lochs or small stretches of river. That was one of the main differences, because in my proposals it was intended that protection should be extended gradually as conditions were satisfied by owners. As owners contributed by stocking and maintaining brown trout and by meeting other conditions which one would expect in return for protection, they would be granted protection.
I recognise that there could he an objection to such a method. The Government have argued that that would lead to a patchwork and would cause a considerable amount of detail to have to be worked out. However, I believe that there will in any case be a great deal of detail involved in these schemes. Dealing with a very large area through one protection order will not relieve those concerned of having to
408
look into the particular circumstances in different parts of the area. However, because the Government have adopted this difference and have decided that protection orders must be for very large areas, a situation could arise, as was pointed out earlier and as the noble Viscount has again underlined, where there could be owners within an area who had no wish to co-operate, no wish to be protected, and no wish to make any contribution to the stocking and maintenance of brown trout in their waters. They could then find themselves enjoying the benefits of protection without making a contribution, and indeed without even wanting the protection, because they were in the large area which the protection order covered. Those are the loopholes to which the noble Viscount referred.
When we were discussing this at the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, how the process of application for a protection order was started. Under the Bill it needs only one applicant, one landowner, out of perhaps 200 or more in a catchment area to start the process. The noble Lord replied that once that had happened the Government would have the duty of getting in touch with all the other owners in the area, which could be very large. All those other owners would be approached and that would start the consideration of a protection order for the catchment area or river.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to the difficulties about this because it would be a coincidence if every single one of those 200 owners happened to have the same view, and there could be a small number of them who were not interested in making a contribution or who, for some reason, simply were not in a position to do so. They might be in great financial difficulties, due to bereavements or one knows not what, or they may be abroad and not able to cope with the whole business of stocking and maintaining their waters, and simply not be able to co-operate, while others might not wish to co-operate. Under the Government scheme instead of extending gradually, admittedly in a patchwork, protection orders would be granted to a large area all at once and every body in that area would get the protection order whether or not they wanted it and regardless of whether they had applied for it.

409
Besides being a loophole I think that this could be a cause of some grievance among anglers because they could well resent the fact that an owner was doing nothing in a particular part of the area but was, none the less, enjoying protection, even though he had not wished to have protection. That is another aspect of the matter which could be unsatisfactory. But with regard to the new clause which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has just moved, I am not sure what he means by the word "specified". He is suggesting that there should be a list of all the owners in the area of a protection order, and then it is stated that the Secretary of State
"… may specify for such fishings after consultation … the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) …".
Section 1(5) is the one we have just been discussing about the amount of charges, the permitted methods of fishing or tackle, the maximum number of fish which may be caught, and so on.
I am not sure whether the noble Viscount is intending that an owner who does not want to make a contribution and does not want to be part of a scheme, and who makes that clear when approached, would then get less protection or, in fact, no protection and so would then be exempted from the scheme. That would seem to be the logical conclusion from drawing up a list. One could tick off the names of all those who wanted to be included in the scheme and who were prepared to make the necessary contribution to the scheme, while those who were not so prepared would have their names crossed off. But it is not clear whether they would then be deprived of protection or whether they would get less protection. I am not precisely clear what the noble Viscount, once he has got the list, is proposing should be done by the Secretary of State, though what his new clause has done is to draw attention to this difficulty when there is a scheme covering a very large area and some unwilling owners, or odd men out, cannot, for one reason or another, join in and contribute.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I should like to issue a word of warning and a little caution over this matter. I do not believe that all owners of rivers will have the same
410
view over improvement, especially in relation to stocking a river. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will know as well as I do the River Don in Aberdeenshire, and he will probably also know that after the war that river had its poorest trout fishing. The reason for that was that it was not fished during the war and there were far too many small fish. It was not until some years after the war, when the river had been properly fished, that the trout fishing improved immeasurably. Thus, do not let us think that everyone stocking a river will be the answer to improving trout fishing on a river.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, first I should like to make clear that I think the Government are quite right to have what I might call area protection orders rather than individual orders for individual stretches of river, simply because I believe that the latter would have been unenforceable and that it is far more convenient to have, if possible, whole rivers as protected order areas. But I believe that the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raises difficulties, because there are bound to be many places where, for very good reasons, people do not want access to be available for fishing. For instance, if one has a river at the bottom of one's garden it is not unreasonable to say that one does not want people fishing that part of the river from one's garden. There may be places where rather shy birds nest, and one would not want fishermen going up and down the river bank in such an area. Some provision must be made for what one might loosely describe as the awkward customers who are not prepared to enter an improvement scheme even though the stretch of water they own may be in an area which is to he protected. This is a difficult problem, and I believe that on the whole the Government have come fairly close to getting this part of it about right.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in responding I should like, initially, to reiterate yet again the Government's general view of this proposition in the Bill, fully appreciating that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and many other people would like to create a new situation in which the Government would be empowered to require access to be given to fisheries when this is not volunteered. I appreciate that there are strong feelings

411
about landlords who may hope to achieve protection without any contribution, and I shall touch upon this aspect of the matter shortly. However, the Government have made it clear that they are not in this Bill seeking compulsory powers over property and fishing rights. We are founding on a principle which I thought might be attractive to the noble Lord; namely, giving the protection of the law in return for voluntary co-operation. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that it would be a mistake at this stage to go for a mixture of the voluntary and the compulsory. In practice it would be a substantial administrative job to go out and identify every owner or occupier of fishing rights in a large catchment area, and it would be an awkward requirement to ensure, before taking action, that every last one of these people had been consulted.
If we were to go to such expensive lengths then there would be an unquestionable argument for making the whole thing compulsory; indeed, a very great many people would approve of that. One of the practical arguments that has held us off that course is that it would involve Government in considerable additional public service manpower commitment. In the first place there would be the work of identifying the owners and occupiers and the processes of creating a register, and after that there would be the processes of up-dating. Unquestionably, if the State were using compulsory powers there would be continuous traffic of appeals and complaints to be dealt with. All in all, the Government have decided that the time is not ripe for bringing the whole of freshwater sport angling facilities—and I suppose this would include salmon as well—under State control.
That is, I think, a restatement of the overall Government position, but a number of points were raised in the course of remarks in your Lordships' Chamber and perhaps I might deal with one of the points which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made initially. While agreeing that he gave a very fair explanation of what the Bill provides and how it stands as it has been debated thus far, I think, if I understood him aright, that he misunderstands the concept of the protection order. I should say to him that
412
the protection order will apply to the whole area which it specifies. Any other effect would, in the Government's view, result in piecemeal application of the law; and it is for that reason that no promise can be given that the benefits of the Bill will be withheld from the non-participatory owner—and, of course, this is the point of which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just spoken. Lord Campbell's own system was supported by provision for fishery boards, and these boards were to cover the whole country. I had already said that this was certainly, in the long term, desirable, but, in the Government's view, at this particular stage public sector commitments of an extent and nature of this character are considered to be too expensive, and they will not take them on board meantime.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke of the notification of non-proposing landowners, and I think he indicated that I had given an intimation that the Government would notify other landowners. If I gave such an indication and left it in bald manner like that, then I require certainly to condition that at this time. The provisions for publication of proposals are in Schedule 1. There is no requirement on the Government to notify individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also quoted me as saying that one applicant can apply, and of course the Government would require to find out about the others. This is not quite accurate. I doubt if I put it exactly in those terms, but so that the Record may be absolutely clear let me say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a plurality of applicants. The main thing is that at the end of the day the Secretary of State will be satisfied that, over an area to be specified by him, demands for fishing from persons wishing to fish can be met on reasonable terms.
I would of course agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that his scheme was to give protection only when access was offered, but I have already indicated that this Government have set their face firmly against piecemeal protection such as has been mentioned. It would lead to a situation where anglers did not know the state of the law in any one place; nor would wardens always know whether they should act or not. In addition, the administrative effort

413
required would be much heavier than for schemes for area protection, and this, of course, is one of the reasons why area protection finds favour with the Government. It would also require a very large number of orders to deal with the many different pieces of water involved. I freely acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, introduced a White Paper in 1971, but I cannot resist the temptation to say that this Government have introduced a Bill.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am delighted that my Amendment has at least provoked a good deal of discussion on this important flaw, if I may say so, in the Bill. To take some of the points which have been made, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested a patchwork approach. I must confess that I agree with the Government in the blanket approach. I think this is a better approach. I think the patchwork approach would be difficult to administer and would be a great problem. Certainly I would say that without the area boards it would be impossible to administer. Therefore, if, as we have discovered already in debating this Bill, it is going to be impossible to get any area boards out of the Government, it is obviously hopeless to try to get a patchwork quilt to cover us as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me what was meant in this Amendment by "specify". I meant and I mean, and I take the works to mean, that the Secretary of State would lay down
"for such fishings after consultation with all owners or occupiers so listed the circumstances in which fishing is made available in respect of the matters listed in section 1(5) of this Act".
In other words, he would seek to make those who had stayed out of the discussions at the earlier stage take part in the final arrangement, whatever the final arrangement was; because if we are to regard a whole drainage basin or a whole river as one for the purposes of protection, we must also consequently regard it as one for improvement and accessibility. You cannot regard it piecemeal for improvement and accessibility purposes and at the same time regard it as one for protection. I think you have to grasp the nettle, and this is a nettle which the Government are firmly refusing to grasp.
414
I really think they ought to grasp it; otherwise, the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will possibly come into disrepute.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and also for answering the questions I put to him, because what it means is that in the case of those particular owners who, for one reason or another, were not prepared to co-operate in a scheme the Secretary of State would have compulsory powers, but he would be specifying that they must do something, whereas I was asking whether there would also be the alternative, where he would just specify that those owners would not get protection. Because, as I think my noble friend Lord Forbes indicated, there could be places where, for one reason or another, it was just not possible for the owner to do what the Secretary of State was specifying. It would be easier for the Secretary of State to omit protection in that case, although, unfortunately, if there were many of them, one would then get a patchwork.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, as to what the Secretary of State is going to demand of people, I think I am right in assessing that what is in the Government's mind is that it should be fairly simple. The Secretary of State would not turn round and demand highly expensive and complicated schemes out of owners of fisheries; he would simply demand good housekeeping, good management and a reasonable share of access being given to those who might desire to fish upon those waters. I would hope that what would be specified by the Secretary of State in relation to any part of a protection order would be a thing which would be thoroughly acceptable by any reasonable person on any part of the area covered by that order. I am not expecting any unbearable conditions to be placed by the Secretary of State. I do not think his advisers would advise him so to do. I think that anybody wishing to see this Bill work when it becomes an Act is going to start by having conditions that are reasonable, so I do not think anything unreasonable will have been specified. But I think we may well run into difficulties if we cannot in some way coerce people who are going to get benefits to come forward to the table and discuss the position before the benefits are given. This is one thing that would certainly happen if we had this clause in

415
the Bill: that people who were seeking to stay out of the whole thing would be made to come forward and discuss it, and might even be constrained to object and, therefore, call down a public inquiry and have the whole thing aired in public.
Now the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, brought out some points which really might well have been brought out in the discussion on his Amendment, because these surely come under (h). The protection of birds and the protection of privacy are matters which come under paragraph (h), which the Secretary of State will in any case be considering in relation, we hope, to every fishery which has sought protection. I really think that if he is going to be sensible and reasonable about the way in which he specifies for a protection order, we could assume that in relation to somebody who required privacy on his front lawn, he would not enforce busloads of people to come and fish off somebody's front lawn. This would be unreasonable. Nor would he wish to disturb shy species of birds. I do not think that question will arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on behalf of the Government has referred again to the question of area boards and to the question of the expense of Area Boards. I was at some pains to say that I was sure that area boards could be made to exist without expense. Certainly, I hope that if and when we have a protection order on the Thurso we shall be able to produce a voluntary Area Board for him to see in action. We shall try to get something like this going. He also referred again to the question of wardens. Without Area Boards it is going to be difficult to know where the powers of wardens are going to be exercised; because it sounded as though he was envisaging wardens acting all over the protection area whether they acted on the fishing of the person or persons who employed them or not. I should be surprised if that would produce good will and a spirit of voluntary co-operation. What he was most at pains to point out was that this was to be an Act that depended on voluntary co-operation and not on State control. I am not asking, when I ask for Area Boards, for State control. I am asking for voluntary co-operation and for a slight tickle of the whip for those lagging in coming forward to co-operate
416
when the opportunity is given.
I think that the Committee have only to look at the existing position with salmon fishing to see that the district fishery boards do a lot of controlling and helping with management and have wide powers of management, of running hatcheries and so forth, without in any way exercising State control, and doing it entirely by voluntary co-operation.
I think that there is still a point here which ought to be looked at. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to look at this yet again. I do not feel that he has fully answered the problem here and I feel that there could be something done to improve this flaw in the Bill. Therefore, in the hope that he will look into this further, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Appointment of wardens to secure compliance with protection order]:
5.44 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert", and where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of the contravention is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within the prescribed area, the said warden may search that vehicle."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amenement No. 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mansfield and myself. This deals with the subject of wardens which we discussed in general at the Committee stage, on whether the clause shall stand part?, in order to elicit from the Government their views on how the system would work. The Amendment which I have tabled reads:
"… and where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of the contravention is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within the prescribed area, the said warden may search that vehicle."
When we had the earlier discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that the Government were aiming for powers to be possessed by the wardens limited to inquiring into the legal right of an angler to fish and to seizing tackle, provided the tackle was visible. There were no powers of search. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I pointed out at the time, that meant that the wardens were powerless if the tackle was invisible.
When this Bill started in the Commons it had powers of search in this clause. It went through five days of Committee in another place and still had powers of search. It was only in the closing hours of the last day in another place that the change was made by Government Amendment which removed those powers. The powers of search which then existed were to search a boat, a basket, pocket or other receptacle. I would point out that to search "pocket" meant being able to search a person. I should like to ask the Government why at the last moment in another place they decided to take those powers of search out of the Bill.
The result has been that problems and anomolies can arise and especially with the functions of the water bailiffs who are already enjoying certain powers under the 1951 Act, including the powers of search. The water bailiffs and the new trout wardens will, no doubt, be operating in the same areas or in overlapping areas or on opposite banks of a river. My Amendment would give the trout warden the same right of search of a vehicle, including the boot of a car, as is possessed by the water bailiff. The noble Lord will notice that I have taken the wording of Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act and adapted it. I suggest that this is the minimum of search that he needs. Your Lordships may think that he ought to have more powers of search; but as I am going to persuade your Lordships, I hope, the minimum power which I think he ought to have is the power to search a vehicle.
I would remind your Lordships that the 1951 Act gives protection to salmon and sea trout. It does not give protection to brown trout if fished for by rod and line; but it makes certain methods of taking brown trout illegal, methods such as netting or poisoning with cyanide. So the 1951 Act protects trout from certain methods of fishing which are thus illegal. Therefore, anomolous situations could arise like this. A water bailiff can at present search a basket, pocket, or vehicle in certain circumstances. He is not concerned with finding only salmon or sea trout. He is also looking for brown trout if he has reason to think that the brown trout were taken illegally, for example, by poisoning, so that trout are mentioned in Section 10 of the 1951 Act as well as salmon and sea trout. If he finds, say, 20 brown trout and a container of poison, he can
418
act. Even if he finds no salmon or sea trout, he can act on brown trout because he has complete evidence that they have been taken by illegal means. That is a power possessed by the water bailiffs at present. If he finds only brown trout in a reasonable number, say three or four, and a rod or line in the boot of a car, at present he takes no action; because trout are not protected provided they are fished for by rod and line.
But once this Bill is enacted, if the person who owned the car was not permitted to fish in that protected area, he would have discovered a contravention of this Bill when it had been enacted. If he were to find these trout and a rod and line and the owner had denied that he had been fishing or that he had caught anything and it was clear he had no legal right or written permission, what does the bailiff do? He is not a warden under this Bill, but he has discovered a contravention of it through using the powers of searching the vehicle, a power which is not possessed by a trout warden under this Bill.
I put this question because it is an example of the anomaly which may arise. Similarly, the bailiff's power of search of a pocket and a basket could produce the same situation. He may find no salmon or sea trout, but clear proof that brown trout have been taken in an area by rod and line but without authority because the person concerned did not have a legal right or written permission. Another anomaly can arise because the wardens are not only controlling whether anglers are fishing with permission with rod and line. If this Bill is to be effective when it has been enacted, the wardens must be equipped with enough powers to deter and detect major poaching raids by gangs, probably during the night, and probably using nets or poison. This can happen to a loch or stretch of river. During the night a gang who know what they are doing can take an enormous amount of fish; they can clean out a stock of trout in a loch.
If a warden arrives at the scene it might be obvious what is happening. If all that is visible by the time he has reached the spot is a vehicle and some men then, under this Bill, there is nothing he can do. Perhaps the men have discarded the net at the bottom of the loch or had time to get it into a vehicle before the warden arrived. If he had the power to look inside the boot

419
of the vehicle, if it is a motor car, he would find ample evidence. He would probably expose sacks of trout and a large net, or perhaps containers of poison.
If he were a bailiff under the 1951 Act he could take action to inspect the vehicle, to search it; but as this Bill is now drafted, the trout warden could not do so. He is helpless in that situation. That is no encouragement to the stocking of lochs and rivers in Scottish waters with trout in the future; that, after all, is what those of us supporting this Bill wish to see happening. Moreover, it is likely to lead to over-dependence on the water bailiffs who already have powers under the 1951 Act. They are the only people who in fact have these powers of search.
So we could find when this Bill is enacted—depending upon the answer we are going to get from the Government to the questions I have put—if the answer is the bailiff can take action that there may be a move for an increase in the number of bailiffs, extending their areas and generally overworking them. Clearly, this is not the intention of the Government otherwise they would not be putting forward proposals for trout wardens. I ask the Government to look again at this matter. This is not a subject in which in principle they have very decided views because they did have the powers of search in the early version of the Bill until the last moment before it came to this House. Unless the Minister can give us an adequate explanation of what is to happen in the circumstances I have described, I hope that before Third Reading they will think again about restoring at least some of the powers of search, particularly the one concerning a vehicle. I beg to move.
5.54 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in their Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was party to a discussion today which illustrated the problem that will arise. The type of problem that will undoubtedly arise is that people will use spinners on fly-only water. This is disturbing to the fly-only angler but is something which undoubtedly will happen. The noble Lord has clearly
420
answered my question and said that in his view if somebody was spinning on fly-only water they would be in breach of their permit and would therefore be in contravention of the law. It would be almost impossible to prove because all that the man has to do is to break off his spinner and put it in his pocket. Nobody will be able to prove a thing against him. The fact he was using a spinning reel could not be held against him because it is perfectly possible to fish a cast of flies off a spinning reel. He can claim he was doing this and say there was nothing on the end of his cast because he had broken his fly.
I have great sympathy with this problem; on the other hand, I find it difficult to see how one is to give greater powers to wardens without having a satisfactory body to supervise them. The great thing about water bailiffs, salmon bailiffs, is they are supervised by a district fishery board and they have probably a river superintendent or head bailiff over them who is responsible for seeing that they behave in a responsible manner. It is clear that although we may not have a patchwork system of protection, we are certainly going to have a patchwork system of wardens, good, bad and indifferent, large and small, all over the place. In these circumstances, it is going to be very difficult to support the powers of search of a vehicle any more than it is going to be possible to support powers of search of the person who is thought to be contravening the Act.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I feel that my noble friends on the Front Bench have asked for the very minimum here. I see two slight difficulties in their Amendment which I hope can be overcome. One is that a warden could be placed in an invidious position. What is "adjoining"? I am not sure that there is a clear definition of what this might be. That presumably could be put right fairly simply. The other difficulty arises with the phrase "any vehicle on private land". Only fairly recently road authorities started acquiring the land on which they were carrying out building work. It may be that a vehicle parked in a lay-by may be on public land or private land, depending on what age the land was and when the roadworks were completed. I feel this ought to he extended further. It seems pointless that if a vehicle is in a

421
lay-by near a loch the warden might not be able to search it. I hope that the principle of the Amendment can be accepted and perhaps on Third Reading we can tidy it up a little.
5.59 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and also the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, are worried about what can be regarded as the somewhat anomalous position of a water bailiff warranted under the 1951 Act who finds, for example, brown trout in the boot of a car and is unable to pursue the owner of the car respecting a suspected offence under Clause 1 of the Bill. Whatever one may think of this—and I do not really think it is the end of the world—the bailiff would nothave been searching the car boot unless he had suspected something far more serious than fishing for trout without permission. He must have suspected that the user of the car—if we are to continue with this example—was guilty of either gang poaching of salmon or taking salmon or trout by certain illegal methods, including, in some cases, the using of explosives, poison or electrical devices; otherwise he had no right to search the car.
So if he found brown trout in the boot he may have found evidence relevant to a charge under Section 3 or Section 4 of the 1951 Act. Whether he suspected that the trout had been taken without permission would seem of little moment in these circumstances. If he was also an appointed warden, in terms of this Bill, he could also produce the trout as evidence of an offence under Clause 1 of this Bill, if he had reason to suspect they had been taken without permission. However, I hope your Lordships will take the point that there is a great difference between poaching with explosives, and so on, and angling without a permit, and I do not think we should contemplate mixing them up. I also understand how it might be easy for a poacher with a motor-car parked conveniently near the spot to hide his tackle and his catch in that car and so frustrate a warden in proving that he had committed an offence under this Bill. But invasion of privacy is most serious and in the Government's view there is enough of it these days
422
without extending it unduly, except where the seriousness of the suspected crime would fully justify it.
No one could seriously argue that the taking of a few trout without permission constituted a sufficiently heinous offence to merit this serious step being taken. I do not think we should be mistaken about the offence to which we are referring. It is not that of taking trout by an illegal method, such as netting, gaffing or the use of explosives or poison. The 1951 Act, as I have just mentioned, already covers that for trout as well as for salmon and I understand that the relevant section is Section 2(2). The Government are not here aiming at the amendment of that legislation without full consideration of all the details, so I think we can forget about that point.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point may I ask him this. If a warden finds a person netting, gaffing or otherwise illegally taking trout, what does he do?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it is of course open to a warden to report the fact to his employer. I was talking here of the angler, the man fishing by a perfectly legal method; that is, by rod and line, but without the permission of the holder of the fishing rights. I think that distinction has to be made.
It was to answer intense and continuous pressure in another place that the less biting powers of searching boats, baskets, pockets, and so on, have been taken out of the Bill. The noble Lord, Campbell of Croy, who is associated with Lord Mansfield in this Amendment, mentioned that the Amendment narrows the provision in Section 11(4) of the 1951 Act. This is true so far as it goes, but I would submit that it misses the significant point that the powers in Section 11(4) are available to the water bailiff only where there is suspicion of poaching by concerted persons, for example, gang poaching or the use of poisons, explosives or noxious substances to take fish. These are substantial offences even in the salmon-fishing world, and in my view they probably argue themselves out of the world of brown trout fishing, which is still generally regarded as a fairly innocent sport.

423
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the question of action by wardens against gang poaching. This is not a new offence. It is dealt with by the Act of 1951 and is a matter for the police and bailiffs, but not, I would submit, particularly for wardens. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked a question regarding fishing with a permit but using a non-permitted method. For the Record, I should say that an angler who has a valid fishing permit and uses a legal method will not be breaking the law—which is not quite what I inferred earlier, and I therefore apologise to the noble Lord. May I just finish this by saying he will not be breaking the law even if, for example, he is spinning when the permit does not allow spinning, but the owner will be entitled to withdraw the permit.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, it seems to me that this cuts right across what the noble Lord has told us at every other previous stage of this Bill. The assurance he gave me on Second Reading concerning this point was that one would be able to prohibit the use of certain implements and methods of fishing which might, in other areas, be considered legal. The noble Lord now tells me that, notwithstanding this, we are back to square one and that one has to catch the man doing the thing before he can be stopped from doing it.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, presumably there was an element of confusion between the noble Viscount and myself. In my own mind, I was not making a distinction between different types of fly and such things, but I have tried to be as specific as I can on this occasion. The noble Viscount also asked: what does a warden do if he comes across a case of illegal fishing? I have to tell him that the warden would do nothing. He can, of course, report the matter to the police and, as I suggested earlier, to his employer as well.
The Duke of ATHOLL: My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friends will pursue this Amendment because it is extremely important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that someone without a permit fishing for brown trout in a large river probably will not do any great harm, and that this does not really
424
matter. I do not think the warden in the normal way would search a vehicle under those circumstances. If however, someone without a permit fishes a fairly small and recently-stocked loch, he can remove anything up to two-thirds or three-quarters of the trout with which the loch has just been stocked. This is extremely discouraging to the owner or to the club which has gone to great trouble to stock the loch and will have stopped members fishing in it for a considerable period afterwards so that the fish may have the chance to become acclimatised. This is normal fishing practice in such cases and it gives the fish more of a chance, which I think is in the best British tradition.
However, we do get people who come along and fish these lochs before they are ready—and of course I mean unauthorised people and not members of the club which has fishing rights on the loch and not people who may have got a day ticket from the club. These are the people we want to get at, and the only possible way to prove they have committed an offence is by having the power to search either their car or any haversack they may be carrying, because once they have caught their fish they do not leave them lying on the bank. They are going to put them in some sort of container and, if they know the law, they will soon transfer the fish to the boot of their car where they cannot possibly be seen. I think this Amendment is extremely important and in many cases the whole Bill will fall down unless this Amendment, or one like it, is incorporated into the Bill.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, since my name appears on this Amendment, perhaps I might contribute a little to this debate, which I have found profoundly depressing and indeed most unsatisfactory. If nothing else, it clearly shows this Bill for what it is becoming—that is to say, a nonsense. I do not want to be over-contentious or over-controversial and I should like to separate, if I can, the feeling which exists, not so far as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is concerned, but so far as some of his friends in another place are concerned, and also those behind them in the Golden Lion and other public houses. There are simply not enough salmon or trout or indeed any other fishable fish in Scotland for everybody who wants to fish at any particular

425
time and by any particular means to hoick them out. That is a law of nature and however enlightened or nationalised the fishing or riparian owners have become, this fact cannot be altered. There has to be some regulation of fishing, as otherwise there will not be any fish. I have already said that by the use of unfair methods over part of the Tay the large brown trout have been reduced to the point of disappearance; they do not exist any more. That is a fact which the noble Lord or any of his advisers cannot gainsay, if they have the faith and the necessary knowledge.
At the same time, one must realise if one is reasonable that there are many folk in Scotland who like to fish, who do not have access to fishing in the ordinary course of events, and who are concerned—and I should be the last to blame them for this—that what they regard as their traditional rights should be preserved in the future. They regarded this Bill as being a possible unjustified fetter or limitation of their rights. One has every sympathy with that point of view, and any enlightened riparian owner or secretary of a fishing club, or anybody who has the management of freshwater fishing for ordinary fish in Scotland, would agree with that point of view. But when one looks at Clause 1(5) and the various paragraphs under it, and at Clause 2 dealing with the powers of the wardens, one sees that because of the political feeling behind the tabling of the Bill, and more especially the Amendments on Report and Third Reading in the other place, the nonsense is revealed.
I want to go into less dramatic examples than my noble friend Lord Campbell, who talked about people with dynamite, poison or huge nets. But as my noble friend and kinsman has said, there will be examples of lochs which have nothing to do with salmon, which do not have bailiffs and will never have them in the ordinary course of events, and which will be stocked with fish for the public to try to catch. In Clause 1(5) we have the maximum of fish that may be caught and the permitted times of fishing. That is not just an archaic condition; in many cases it is vital to the proper preservation of a loch. There will be people who are not the jolly Lincolnshire poacher types who have been painted, and who merely wish to exercise the right of every Highland gentleman to seize a brown trout. They will be people who
426
flout the regulations, who take too many fish, who take them by unfair methods of tackle and—let us not beat about the bush—who take them at the wrong time and in the wrong manner, and by so doing they cheat other people who pay for the privilege of taking those trout. Therefore, this is not a case of some hard-faced riparian landowner preventing proper enjoyment of fishing. We are talking about people who are concerned to organise fishing in a just and, at the same time, efficient manner.
What are the powers of the warden? If he comes upon a crowd of men in the middle of the night and does not catch them in the act of fishing, although they may be fishing beyond the permitted hours, there may be too many fish or they may be using the wrong tackle, what is he to do? One has to ask oneself that question. If the men are in a position to put the offending tackle and the fish in the boot of their car, then according to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, they can laugh, and that is what they will do. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head and I am very grateful to him for having the honesty to admit it. But is a Bill in this unsatisfactory state the kind of Bill that the noble Lord and his friends wish to see go forth upon the Statute Book?
I have no doubt that in all probability, for the purposes of today's debate, my noble friend Lord Campbell will withdraw this Amendment put down in our joint names. But there is still time for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and his advisers to consider this matter, not in the spirit of vindictive landlords wishing to exercise ancient territorial rights over unfortunate citizens who happen to be out to try to catch a fish, but in the sense that persons who are charged with the management of fisheries to be improved under this new Bill will merely be trying, through the wardens whom they employ, to stop cheating. If the noble Lord views the matter in that light, maybe at the very last stage of this Bill, the Third Reading, we could have an Amendment which would commend itself to the House and also to the Government.
6.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think the debate on this Amendment has brought out the fact that there is a serious lack of powers where wardens

427
are concerned, if there is to be a satisfactory warden system. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has indicated that the reason why the Government changed their minds and took away certain powers just before the Bill reached your Lordships' House was pressure in another place. But it looks as though the wardens will find it very difficult to carry out their job. My noble friend Lord Burton inquired about the wording of the Amendment. I would say straight away that it is not perfectly drafted and I did not expect it to be accepted as such. I indicated that I had taken the language of the 1951 Act, and I took it precisely. Therefore, the words "vehicle on any private land adjoining" are taken from the 1951 Act, and if the principle of the Amendment were accepted by the Government it might need to be redrafted for this Bill, or there might need to be definitions put into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that it was not the end of the world if someone was caught fishing in a protected area, therefore contravening this Bill when it is enacted. Of course we agree with that, but in so far as the main purpose of the Bill is to protect trout we are now seeking to make sure that it is carried out. This is a conservation measure and I was drawing attention to an anomaly—in fact, to two or three anomalies. So I agree with the noble Lord that it is not nearly so serious as using illegal means to catch salmon. But I pointed out that in the course of his duty in investigating whether some more serious offence had been committed, a water bailiff could discover that there had been a contravention of this Bill, and in painting that picture I reminded your Lordships that only in defined circumstances could a water bailiff use his power to search in the boot of a car. I did not spell out all of them, but if in the course of his duties he suspects that illegal fishing has taken place then he can search a vehicle.
In the course of searching the vehicle, he may find an offence under the Bill. What does he do '? The noble Lord answered that question, and it seems that if he is simply a water bailiff he does nothing officially but he can let the owner of the land know. But if he also has the second capacity of warden, then he can take action under the Bill. So we did get from the noble Lord a clarification for which I am grateful; but all it did
428
was underline the anomoly, and I am sure that those who read the record of this discussion will see that it would be a good thing if water bailiffs were also made wardens, where that could conveniently be done.
However, because my Amendment was taken out of another Bill and not drafted to fit exactly into this Bill, but was tabled in order to draw attention to this matter and in the hope that the Government will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of ATHOLL The Duke of ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:"Introduction in inland waters of species of freshwater fish not normally resident in such waters

.—(1) Any person who releases in inland waters in Scotland, over which a protection order has been made, a species of freshwater fish not normally resident in those waters shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above the Secretary of State, after consultation with such bodies as he considers relevant, may issue a licence for the releasing of any species of fish in waters over which a protection order has been made, and no offence shall be committed by so doing."

The noble Duke said: My Lords, perhaps we move now into rather more tranquil waters. The object of my new clause is to prevent people from introducing unsuitable species of fish into waters which have been protected and which are being stocked. If I could take a small example, because this is the easiest way to deal with the point, there is a loch which is partly in my ownership and partly in that of the Forestry Commission. Both of us let the angling in the loch to a local angling club. With the agreement of both proprietors and the angling club, the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry are doing experiments on this loch, first to reduce the number and try to increase the size of the brown trout by preventing them from spawning in several of the streams which run into the loch, and secondly to introduce a species of fish called American brook trout, which looks as though it has a great future in Scotland as a stocking fish. I will not

429
go into the reasons why this fish appears to have such a great future. It is most interesting that the American brook trout has not been much used until now for stocking Scottish lochs, but it appears to have all the ingredients needed for stocking Scottish waters, including being very tasty when it is caught and put on the table.
By my Amendment the laboratory would have to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State in order to introduce into this loch the American brook trout, but I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty about this. Equally, if suddenly I took a vicious dislike to the angling club, to the Forestry Commission and to the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory and decided to do down their experiment at the moment, there is absolutely no reason why I should not introduce pike into this loch, which would, of course, reduce the experiment to a nonsense.
All I am suggesting in this Amendment is that it should be illegal for me to introduce foreign fish into a loch or, for that matter, into a river to which a protection order applies. I think that this Amendment is essential, because I foresee cases of two people who owned different parts of a river or loch pursuing totally different stocking policies. There is also the danger that too many trout might be introduced into a valuable salmon spawning ground. I admit freely that probably this point would not be covered by my Amendment. I find it difficult to think of a form of words which would cover this circumstance, but it is a danger and I should like to bring it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am sure that an Amendment on these lines would be helpful, in that it would prevent people from putting unsuitable fish into lochs and rivers which are situated in protection areas. We have only to look at the grey squirrel to see just how disastrous the introduction of foreign animals can be in the animal kingdom. I think it could be equally disastrous in the fish kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. He is absolutely correct in what he has said about pike. I believe that pike are not indigenous to the North of Scotland and that one can trace the
430
monastic settlements by the areas which were stocked with the pike which they needed for their Friday fish in the winter. They fished in various places as the fish moved up or downstream. It is very important that restrictions should be placed on people to prevent them from putting into rivers or lochs any kind of fish; therefore, I believe that this Amendment is well worth considering.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I support the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, in this Amendment. Not only can you do damage by putting the wrong kind of fish into inland waters; you can do damage by carelessly introducing disease into inland waters—disease which might come out of a hatchery bred fish which did not exist in that drainage basin. In certain waters this would be a very important point, and some kind of control over the introduction of fish into inland waters is very desirable, especially if one is to have a protection order.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, with his example my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has raised an important point, and I hope that the Government have taken it on board. It was referred to at earlier stages of the Bill but no proposal as to how it might be dealt with was put before us. At an earlier stage my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that his Amendments had been drafted by himself, and he has just told us that he has had to wrestle with the words to try to find a way adequately to add to the Bill in order to cover the case which he has described. With his ingenuity, I can see that my noble friend has used the words "fish not normally resident in those waters"; but whether or not these words would apply to pike is difficult to say. From the point of view of interpreting the Bill afterwards, that form of words might be difficult. However, it is quite clear that my noble friend has raised this as a general point which needs attention. As the Government have been given notice of this Amendment, albeit fairly short notice, I hope that they can comment now upon it and consider the matter seriously hereafter.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government are sensitive to the contributions which have been made this

431
afternoon in your Lordships' Chamber on this point and they see the attraction of the ideas underlying the Amendment of the noble Duke. The introduction of exotic species of fish presents hazards and should be done only with circumspection. It is not unreasonable to envisage some form of authoritative control eventually in Scotland, as elsewhere. There is, however, already a form of control on the disease side. The Diseases of Fish Act 1937 both prohibits the import of live salmonid fish and controls the import of live salmonid eggs. Also it regulates the movement of all live fish and eggs of fish within Great Britain.
The most notable disease of cultivated fish is, I am advised, infectious pancreatic necrosis. It is not rampant in Britain. Only seven fish farms in Scotland are known to be infected. In each case the disease situation is under control. The sale of live fish from any of these farms is prohibited by order under the 1937 Act. Such orders will not be lifted until the farm has been free from infection over a period of two years. Similar controls are exercised elsewhere in Britain. I believe that the disease situation is well in hand and I have no reason to suppose that it will get out of hand as a result of the stocking of natural waters.
As to the potential hazard from exotic fish as predators or competitors with native species, again I acknowledge that there is a potential risk, but I do not think it is a severe risk which is at all likely to result in widespread or sudden change in our fish population. If we had been at the stage where it was right to introduce a local administration—the idea we referred to as the Area Boards—then I think we might well have given the boards a power to control by licence the introduction of exotic species of fish, but I would remind your Lordships' House, as I have said on several occasions, that this is a first stage Bill. The Government are making a move in the direction of the protection order and at this time they are not going beyond that point in the Bill. But as I am attempting to indicate, that would have stood to be debated in the course of a more extensive Bill, and would have implied, in the Government's view, the necessity to create an administrative machine. Therefore, it follows from what I have said, and
432
because we are at the stage in the consideration of the Bill when it would not be possible—although the Government are not insensitive to the underlying thought behind the Amendment—that it is impossible for the Government to accept it.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will give further consideration to this. I was greatly impressed by the point made by the noble Duke that the loch which he gave as an example is working in conjunction with the Government Fishery Research Department at Pitlochry. Their work could be completely negatived by the introduction of pike or anything else. It could completely upset the results, which might be and almost certainly would be, of great scientific interest.
A second point along the same lines is that it is greatly to the natural advantage, and also to the advantage of fishers, that lochs should be differently stocked; that is, that they should not come down to one common denominator of the same proportions of fish in the lochs. It is a great advantage that the lochs should show variation of stocking and this Amendment is worthy of much greater consideration than appears to have been given to it.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support which I have received for this Amendment, even from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because although he did not say that he would do anything about it he appeared to show some sympathy towards its intention. I very much hope that he will reconsider this matter before the Third Reading. I appreciate that, having tabled this Amendment comparatively late yesterday afternoon, he has not had sufficient time to consider it fully. It obviously raises some difficulties, although I do not think that the difficulty he instanced—that is, that one needs Area Boards in order to administer this—really applies, because presumably the body which the Secretary of State would normally consult, would be the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Pitlochry. They have extensive knowledge of nearly all freshwater and its fish in Scotland and, I think, would easily give the Secretary of State extremely good advice about the

433
introduction of exotic species or, for that matter, any species. I do not think the pike is exotic but certainly the pike or the roach—a predator—could be a great disadvantage in what, until then, had been a loch that contained only trout.
I think this is a matter of some importance. Unlike the last Amendment, I think it is absolutely non-controversial. I agree that there are probably few occasions when people would attempt to introduce totally unsuitable fish into Scottish waters, but I still think that the grey squirrel is an example which we cannot ignore. The grey squirrel was introduced as a lovely little pet by, I believe, a noble Duke—I regret to say in order to improve the appearance of his park, and in my opinion the results of the introduction of the grey squirrel have been quite disastrous.
I appreciate that my Amendment is probably defective. I think no Member of this House or another place can possibly compose an Amendment running to 13 or 14 lines without it being defective. Therefore I have no hesitation in withdrawing it this evening, while at the same time expressing the hope that the Government may come back at Third Reading with an Amendment which does not have the defects of this one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Penalties for offences against enactments relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries]:
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that this matter has been mentioned several times before in another place and also in your Lordships' House but there is still considerable concern about it. Section 23 of the 1868 Act is of course now out of date and we are told that it cannot be amended in this Bill because it is a trout bill and not a salmon one. However, the penalties are being amended and I suggest that we should delete the increased penalties and leave the situation as it is. If we increase the penalties here, we appear to imply to the procurator fiscals that they ought to enforce this Section of the out-of-date Act. I would far rather this was deleted and perhaps some directive given to procurator fiscals that until such time
434
as it is possible to amend the 1868 Act any anomolies which might occur under this should be left in abeyance. I feel that by putting this in and drawing attention to it we are encouraging what could make, particularly net salmon fishing, extremely difficult.
This was discussed at some length during the Committee stage and I do not want to go further into it now, but I should like to hear what guidance the Government intend to give to the procurator fiscals on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not know whether I can quite answer the noble Lord in all that he asks of me. Certainly he has made clear his purpose in moving this Amendment and I fully understand his reasoning. Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 requires proprietors and occupiers of fisheries during the close season to remove all boats and oars, nets, engines and other tackle used in salmon fishing so as to prevent their being used in fishing until the end of the close season. Under the existing law, which of course has remained unchanged since 1868, any person who neglects to do this is required to forfeit anything not so removed. In addition, for every day during which he so neglects he is liable to a penalty of f10. In the Schedule the Government are putting in place of that daily penalty, the single penalty with a maximum of £ 100 for a first offence and £200 for a second offence. I do not think I can add anything to that.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, are we not therefore encouraging procurator fiscals to take action under that? I would point out that the law says that you must remove these things, but there is nothing to say that you cannot put them back 24 hours later, which shows how ridiculous it is. In this position surely we are wrong to increase the penalties.
Lord KIRK HILL: With the permission of the House, the Government's view is that penalties which have remained unchanged since 1868 require revision, and the Government have not been unreasonable in their revision.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I really cannot withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.39 p.m.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restriction of importation and exportation of certain animals and plants]:
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, after ("being") insert ("not").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss with this Amendment, 21 other Amendments, namely Nos. 3, 5, 34, 48 to 59 and 61 to 66. As the Committee will realise, this is not a wrecking Amendment, but a constructive one. At present, this Bill tells us in the Schedules what may not be imported. I want to put in some at least of the Schedules what may he imported. As a term of art, this method of showing what may be imported has been referred to as reverse listing, which is a handy term for what we want to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, knows, I put down this Amendment immediately after Second Reading so she could have ample warning that this was in our minds.
My Amendments are approved by the sort of scientific minds that the noble Baroness and the Minister at the time will ask to act as scientific advisers. I suspect it is approved by the Customs and Excise, but I have not asked them. I am going to speak for only a short time, and when I have finished I shall ask the noble Baroness either to accept the Amendments or to accept them in principle, and in any case to ensure that the Bill is so amended that reverse listing can be applied if anything goes wrong before the final stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put down Amendment No. 31, but I am not quite sure whether that applies, or should be applied, to reverse listing.
What is involved? We have to turn to the Schedules of my Amendments. I have done my best; they do not pretend to be either complete or accurate. I would ask the noble Baroness—and we must all thank her for giving us this very long list of scientific names with a commentary—when, as I hope, this Bill finally reaches the Statute Book, even though the scientific name may be the legal name, that the common name at least be also given, as a matter of reference, to help so many who do not understand the scientific names.
To turn to the Schedules, we come first of all to the mammals. In the Bill there are 234 names taking up six pages of what one may not import; in my Schedule are 37 names on one page of the mammals that may be imported. Furthermore, the 234 names are taken from the red data book issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. As the noble Baroness and all scientists know, this red data book is not complete, so there is danger in the listing of threatened species. In fact, to such an extent have the IUCN been unable to complete or correct this red data book that it is no secret that they have asked the Fauna Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be chairman, if they will take on the completion and maintenance of the red data hook. This shows that this type of listing in relation to mammals is extremely dangerous, whereas with reverse listing, the Customs can easily identify an animal. The danger is that unless we have reverse listing in the case of mammals, dealers will find some unfortunate, small, furry beastie not in the red data book, and will use the fur until the numbers are so depleted that the species is unnecessarily endangered. This cannot happen if we have listing the other way. It is not a prohibition; it is only a licence to import something, if so permitted. The lists are not a prohibition.
Going on from mammals to birds, instead of 183 names on four and a half pages, we have only 18 names that I can find. With regard to reptiles, I would be guided by the scientists. Reptiles are difficult to rear. We have not yet really learned how to rear reptiles. They are very easy to poach, and are very much in demand. Instead of 77 names of the reptiles that may not be

437
imported, in my Amendment No. 51, to which I am now speaking, I have recommended that no reptiles at all be imported without a licence. This would give us the protection needed, and we need that protection for two or three years until we know the situation. With reference to amphibia, I have made the same recommendation. So much for changing the Bill.
The present system in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, seems right for fish and I have left it as it is. It is right for insects; it is right for molluscs, and I am told that my friends, who know so much about plants that they would like to reverse list them, believe the present system is the best for plants. So finally we come to Schedule 4, which deals with parts of living things. At the moment we have a list of what may not be imported. This list has given rise to more criticism and difficulty than any other part of the Bill. There are serious difficulties in identification, and serious difficulties in description. I thought that if these difficulties were so serious would try my hand at reverse listing. I do not know whether I have done it very well, but in some cases it seemed easier to apply a reverse listing to some, at least, of these items. The Customs and Excise are then asked to say what an item is, and if they cannot recognise it they can reject it.
There is one main principle involved, on which I believe I am right, in my Amendment No. 53, Item 1, and my Amendment No. 66, Items I and 2. If a living creature may be imported, then I believe the Bill should apply to the items derived from it. If a living thing may not be imported, then neither should the parts of it be allowed to be imported. I know this is a blanket statement, but under the Bill, as long as there is permission to give licences, each case can be dealt with on its merits. I have moved 22 Amendments in a very short time, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give me some joy.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My noble friend Lord Craigton, put down these Amendments, and I have added mine to them to show that my noble friend has the support of the Benches around him. He has put the case very fully and very lucidly, and so I do not think it needs a long speech from me. I would merely
438
say that I thoroughly endorse the object of these Amendments, which is to simplify legislation by permitting the import of only a small number of any species, and the other species will require licences, subject to the approval of the scientific authorities, and of course, the Minister. Above all, as I said on Second Reading, I think the Customs and Excise authorities will be grateful if these Amendments are helped on by the Government. I would merely say that the principle of readily identifiable species should be permitted by the Government to stand, and I should like to endorse everything said by my noble friend.
Baroness STEDMAN: With the leave of the Committee, I think it would be helpful if I intervened at this stage, and before I deal with the particular purpose of this Amendment perhaps I may be permitted to make a general point about this and the other Amendments, including those I have tabled. Since we debated this Bill on Second Reading in February, my Departmental officials have had very extensive consultations with the voluntary conservation bodies and the trade interests. The Bill has also been examined a great deal by the scientific authorities we established to enable us to introduce import and export controls on an interim basis from 1st January. I should like to express my personal appreciation to the officials and to the members of the scientific authorities for the tremendous help they have provided.
Almost all of the Amendments I have tabled are a direct result of these consultations. So far as we possibly can, we have sought to meet the many suggestions and criticisms that have been put to us. I know that some of the voluntary bodies, and doubtless some of your Lordships as well, will feel that we have not gone far enough, and we shall be debating these matters. All I would ask your Lordships at this stage is that the House bears in mind the need for a practical and effective Bill, the provisions of which can be enforced.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for moving so many of the Amendments en bloc tonight. The principle, as I understand it, is that instead of listing the restricted species the Schedules should list those species or items which are common, which are regularly in trade

439
and which do not require licences. All other species or items will then require licences, whether or not the species concerned is at present endangered. May I say at once that I see many advantages in adopting this principle, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for suggesting it. For one thing, it will make the Schedules shorter and much more comprehensible. Since the species to be listed will be those that are commonly in trade, they will be familiar, and it should be possible to attach the English names to them, if only for descriptive purposes. Many of your Lordships are, I know, concerned at the length and obscurity of the Schedules, and this is likely to get worse as further species are added as a result of amendments to the Convention.
The chief advantage from the conservation viewpoint will be that the occasional trade in the more exotic species can be monitored through the licensing system. If there is any sudden increase in trade in a particular species that is not on the "free" list, or if a new trade develops, this can be considered and the appropriate action taken. Such an arrangement should not really hamper legitimate trade. Although reverse listing would appear to extend greatly the range of controls, the additional species covered would, by definition, only infrequently appear in trade. Only a few specialist dealers handling small numbers of a wide range of species are likely to be affected. Licences would be readily available, without conditions, until such time as it became clear that the species was endangered. If the volume of trade grew to the point that licensing was a genuine encumbrance to the trade, and there was no danger to the species, then it could be added to the "free" list by order.
A third advantage of reverse listing is that it should reduce the number of Amendments to be made to the Schedule by subsequent orders, whenever there are amendments to the Convention. Amendments will be necessary now only where by international agreement we are required to control something that has hitherto been on the "free list. We have given a good deal of thought to this idea and concluded that is is practicable in some cases, although it cannot be applied wholesale to the Schedules. It seems to
440
be suitable in the case of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, which are in Schedule 1. But we do not think it can be applied to the fish and the lower animals; nor does it appear suitable for plants, which are covered by Schedule 2. In the case of parts and derivatives, which are covered by Schedule 3, bird plumage is already in effect reverse listed, and we think the idea could be extended to reptile skins and possibly to mammal skins. But I am advised that it is not practicable for parts and derivatives generally. The decisions must depend mainly on how many controlled species there are relative to the common species in trade, and on the need to specify kinds and items in a way that is understandable to the traders and will enable the Customs to identify them.
The Government intend, therefore, to bring forward at a later stage—hopefully at Report stage in this House—the textual Amendments necessary to enable the Schedules to be in this alternative form. We intend also to table Amendments to the Schedules which will reverse list some groups of animals, as well as some parts and derivatives. This is, however, a complex matter. The scientific authorities are still studying a number of aspects, and I cannot promise that it will be possible during the passage of the Bill to adopt reverse listing in every single case where it is likely to prove practicable. If necessary, the job may have to be completed by order after the Bill has been passed. I hope, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will now be prepared to withdraw his Amendments.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I think this is one of those extremely satisfactory occasions when as a result of the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, by standing something on its head he makes it more sensible. I think it is a very desirable thing, and it is especially pleasing to this House that my noble friend Lady Stedman has found it possible to accept in principle exactly what is being proposed. I hope that the noble Lord is well satisfied with his activity.
Lord CRAIGTON: I have seldom withdrawn an Amendment with such great pleasure. I have much pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert ("or in Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: Quite clearly at the moment this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, and I shall withdraw it with the permission of the Committee, but perhaps I can just say one word to the noble Baroness. The reasons for this are quite obvious. I can only hope that administratively this will be kept in mind by the Department when licences are applied for. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): We have dealt with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 4 does not exist. We have dealt with No. 5. I now call Amendment No. 6.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall submit any application for a licence under subsection (2) above to whichever one of the scientific authorities (as defined in section 2 below) he considers is the best able to advise him as to whether a licence should be issued in pursuance of the application and, if so, its terms; and, before he issues or declines to issue a licence in pursuance of the application, he shall allow the authority a reasonable time so to advise him").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would require that all licence applications must be referred to the appropriate scientific authority for advice. The Convention requires each Party State to create one or more scientific authority to advise on the issue of licences, and the Amendment merely reflects what is clearly intended by the Convention. Where more than one scientific authority is formed under the Act, then clearly only the one with a particular interest in the type of species concerned will wish to be consulted in any individual case. It naturally follows that if the scientific authority is to give advice it must be allowed a reasonable time in which to do so. But arrangements can be made for emergency consultation if a quick decision is needed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 6, after ("above") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will also speak to Amendment No. 9, because this Amendment is merely a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 9. The effect of the two Amendments will be to impose a maximum time limit of 12 months on the validity of any import or export licence granted under the Bill. As drafted, the subsection specifies no time limit but allows for one to be specified in the licence. A limit is necessary to prevent licences from remaining unused for a long time, by when the threat to the species may have increased. The Convention requires a time limit of six months on export licences, but places no limitation on import licences, because the authorities in the exporting country must be satisfied that an import permit has been granted before they issue their own export permit.
The Secretary of State's current practice is to impose a six months limit on export licences, in accordance with the Convention, and a nine months limit on import licences. He intends to continue this practice, although a statutory maximum of 12 months may provide some useful flexibility in the case of import licences where the circumstances are exceptional. The need for a specific statutory limitation has been very strongly urged upon us by the voluntary conservation bodies, and the Government see no objection. I, therefore, beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 7, after ("degree") insert ("and in relation to any place,").
The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting point. We are moving in the conservation world into an area where the breeding of threatened species in captivity is giving us more of a particular animal in captivity than exists in the wild. Indeed, we have already reached the stage, I understand, where one breeder in a zoo in Germany is breeding what is an endangered wild cat of the cat tribe and is selling the skins, quite properly, for fur or selling the animals to

443
other zoos. The animals are not endangered in the wild and there is absolutely no reason why this should not be done, any more than it is done now with mink.
When I read the first two lines of subsection (3) on page 2,
"A licence issued under subsection (2) above may be, to any degree, general or specific",
I asked myself: Do the words "general or specific" allow me, as the licensing authority, to licence Mr. X, or Zoo Y, to import a certain animal only from that place, or even from that zoo or that person? Do the words "general or specific" refer also to a certain place, or a specified place or a specified person?
This is a drafting point. If the noble Baroness has any difficulty over it I should be quite happy that she should say that she would like to take it away and look at it, and I would abide entirely by her decision as to whether she chooses to add the words or not. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, wants an assurance that an import licence can carry a condition, for example, that an animal must come from a certain zoo in the exporting country. We can give him that assurance, but I shall be happy to take the Amendment back, and if it is necessary to alter the wording we will do so at Report stage.
Lord CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("specific") to end of line 9 and insert—

("(b) may be modified or revoked at any time by the Secretary of State, and

(c) subject to paragraph (b) above, shall be valid for a period of 12 months commencing with the date the licence is issued or such shorter period as is stated in the licence.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 8, after ("period") insert ("or periods").
The noble Lord said: This is much the same sort of point. Have the licensing authority, under the description:
"or such shorter period as is stated in the licence",
without the addition of the words "or periods", authority, shall we say, to allow the import of any particular animal in May and October only? I should have thought that they were "periods" and not a "period". Here again, if the noble Baroness would like to say something, I should be happy. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: We are really being most affable tonight. As I understand it, the noble Lord wants a further assurance that the import licences will be issued in such a way as to prevent the import of an animal during an agreed close season?
Lord CRAIGTON: That is right.
Baroness STEDMAN: That assurance I am perfectly prepared to give.
Lord CRAIGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("Provided that any licence issued to import a wild animal shall be subject at least to the following conditions

(a) that any premises on which the animal is kept after undergoing any period of quarantine as specified in section 4(1)(b) of this Act are so constructed, maintained and managed as to allow it—

(i) to enjoy a healthy existence; and

(ii) a reasonable prospect of breeding unless a Scientific Authority is satisfied that the importation of an animal of that species without any such prospects is desirable;

(b) that the owner of those premises or one of his employees is qualified to care for the animal; and

(c) that any Scientific Authority shall be given the opportunity of satisfying itself by such methods and at such intervals as it shall determine that the above conditions are being observed.").

The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to bring our legislation into line with that which is laid down in Article III

445
of the Convention, which says that regulation of trade in specimens of species included in Appendix I provides that a scientific authority of the State of import has to be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it.
I speak on this subject with experience, and from experience of having made a mistake when the 1964 Act governing the importation of rare animals was first brought in. I was the chairman of the Advisory Committee. At first we did not realise how important it was, when we issued a licence to import a rare animal, that we should assure ourselves that the recipient of the licence was a suitable person and owned suitable premises into which an animal could be placed and, moreover, that those premises were such as would allow that animal to join a breeding unit and produce young. If we are going to allow rare animals to come in, we are merely making a greater drain on wild animals in the wild if we bring them in just to exhibit and to look at them. It should not be allowed unless the animal is capable and likely, and has the facilities, to breed in captivity and so to build up the captive bred population of that particular species that, in case of necessity, it can be released again into the wild. Your Lordships will know of innumerable cases of rare animals where that has been done, and I need not bother to detail them. Further, it is essential that the person to whom they are going should be capable of looking after them properly. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: This Amendment would impose specific conditions upon the granting of licences concerning wild animals. It seems designed to ensure that any such animal which is imported shall be kept and cared for humanely, with a reasonable prospect of breeding. Clearly, these are highly laudable aims and the Government are in sympathy with them. But it does not seem necessary and, indeed, I think it is undesirable, to spell them out in the Bill. There is always a danger that, if certain conditions are spelt out, doubt is thereby cast upon the Government's power to impose others not so specified.
The Convention requires that the scientific authority shall be satisfied that the proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for
446
it before it issues an import licence for an Appendix I species. Breeding is not specifically mentioned in the Convention, but it is covered by the requirement that the scientific authority should be satisfied that the import of an Appendix I animal will be for purposes not detrimental to the survival of the species and that it will not be used for commercial purposes. Thus, in the case of Appendix I animals, we are already obliged, as part of our international obligations to fulfil the duties which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, wishes to impose by conditions (a) and (b) in his Amendment.
When we come to discuss the suggested Amendments to Clause 4, noble Lords will see that we propose to give the Secretary of State power to specifiy from time to time premises at which a live animal shall be kept. But condition (c) in the Amendment would give a scientific authority right of access to premises where live animals were being kept. They could then check that all the conditions laid down were being observed. Such an intrusion into the owners' right to privacy could only be justifiable for animals listed on Appendix 1; the Convention gives us no brief to probe into conditions in which legitimately imported animals on Appendix II are kept. But this condition also seems unnecessary. Noble Lords should bear in mind that many of these animals will be on public display, in itself a safeguard against ill-treatment, or will be imported by highly reputable public bodies. In practice it would clearly be in the interests of the owners of a live animal to allow the scientific authority to inspect his premises because anybody who was unwilling to do so would be unlikely to obtain any further licences. Therefore we believe that the aim of the Amendment is already sufficiently fulfilled by the existing arrangements and I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw it.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Would the conditions of an import licence apply, for example, to animals imported for circuses? I would be obliged if my noble friend could comment on circus animals in this connection. One sees circus animals boxed up and transported from one town to another with very little freedom except in the

447
circus ring. Where do they come into this, or arc they not covered in the Bill at all?
Baroness STEDMANOnly the circus animals which are contained in Appendix I of the Convention are covered by the restrictions on import licensing, but we are, of course, concerned to see that animals in circuses are being well cared for and I assure my noble friend that where any complaints are made to the Department we would certainly see that they are checked out; we would ask our scientific authority to check the conditions under which they were being kept and, if necessary, to see that action was taken.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not altogether satisfied with the reply of the noble Baroness. I entirely agree that we are under an obligation in this context only in respect of the rarer animals, but there is very much more than the question of preserving rare animals involved. Outside that scientific point of view there is the question of animal welfare and if we had, as we are bound to have, only the list of Schedule I animals, I would in any case have moved the Amendment to secure its extention to all animals. The time has come when we must treat animals more humanely. Any reputable zoo measures its capacity for keeping animals properly by whether it succeeds in keeping them under conditions which ensure that they breed in captivity; this is a sign that the animal is properly looked after, is content and is living a happy and successful life. I believe that that should apply to every animal kept in captivity. Clearly we cannot apply it to every Tom, Dick and Harry who buys one in a pet shop, but at least we can apply it to animals which have to be licensed before they can be imported; and that is what we should do.
I must, I am afraid, also tell the noble Baroness that she disappointed me, for after the way in which we dealt with the first Amendment today I felt that we were about to enter a golden age. It is wrong to wait until complaints are received before starting to take action. There must be a continual inspection so that the scientific authority can be satisfied that the places to which it gives licences to import animals are looking after them properly, and continue to do so, and that the
448
conditions under which those animals were allowed to be imported are still being observed. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment but I hope that the noble Baroness will look into the matter again and I reserve to myself the right to return to this subject on Report, when perhaps she may be able to deal with the matter rather better than she has been able to do tonight.
Lord WYNNE-JONESThe noble Earl says in the Amendment:
"…any Scientific Authority shall be given the opportunity of satisfying itself …"
Does he, by that reference, mean any body that calls itself a scientific authority or does he mean certain recognised scientific authorities? I should have thought that if he means any recognised scientific authority there would be no reason for the Government to oppose the Amendment, although there may be a certain ambiguity about the expression "any Scientific Authority".
The Earl of CRANBROOKThe phrase "any Scientific Authority" appears in the Amendment with the letters SA in capitals, referring to scientific authorities as defined in the Bill. I have had to use the word "any" because one can not tell at this stage to which scientific authority the Minister will refer for the importation of any particular animal, and perhaps the noble Baroness might consider that matter between now and Report; that is, perhaps she can find a better way of defining "Scientific Authority" to enable a right to pursue the conditions under which the animals had been imported. It might be confined to the scientific authority whose advice the Minister had originally taken before allowing the importation. I cannot conceive that a scientific authority advising the Minister on the importation of, say, molluscs would be likely to want to advise or would be useful in advising the Minister in respect of a licence to import mammals.
Baroness STEDMANI am sorry if my reply disappointed the noble Earl and I am grateful for his offer to withdraw the Amendment. I assure him that I will take note of the points he made. This is not an animal welfare Bill; this is an import and export licensing measure and is therefore rather different. We are conscious of the points he has made and

449
we share his concern for the treatment of animals where they are not being looked after properly or are not being kept in proper quarters. We will, without commitment, look at the matter again and, if necessary, come hack to it.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.19 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert —
(" ( ) Without prejudice to any penalty imposed by any enactment, and in particular without prejudice to the imposition of penalties under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (notwithstanding the provisions of sections 45(3), 56(4) and 304 of that Act), any person who, knowing of or reckless as to its nature, is in any way concerned in the importation or exportation of anything mentioned in subsection (1) above, except in accordance with the terms of a licence issued under subsection (2) above, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or to both.")
The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to invite the Committee to consider rather more closely whether the Bill provides adequately for the enforcement of its provisions. I should say at the outset that the question is one of some complexity and if my noble friend Lady Stedman, who opened the Second Reading debate with such an admirably lucid speech for which I am grateful to her, were able to tell me that between now and Report she would, with her advisers, further consider the provisions to see whether they are satisfactory, then I should not wish to invite the Committee to divide on the Amendment. I hope that she will, after hearing the anxieties which I shall put to the Committee, feel able to say that she will give further consideration to the matter.
Everybody agrees at once that the Bill we are now discussing is not just a technical, dry Bill dealing with some broad matter of policy, but is one which directly involves personal feelings —I might almost say emotions —strongly held about the way in which animals ought to be treated and which invokes a dislike of the idea that mankind for his possibly perfectly reasonable purposes should endanger species of rare animals which ought to be
450
kept alive. In saying that, I do not believe that I embark upon ground which any member of the Committee would challenge.
If I may invoke an analogy, when looking at the legislation which is designed to protect domestic animals from cruel treatment we are all very grateful for the activities of the RSPCA, which investigates individual cases and brims them to justice. These are cases which, if the RSPCA did not intervene, would go unnoticed. The police are heavily overworked and there is no other obvious authority. The RSPCA discharges a very necessary function and fills a vacuum in the arrangements which we have, and I believe that we all approve strongly of their activities.
One of the conservation organisations, the Friends of the Earth, handed me a note which I should like to read, for I think it relevant. They are very responsible people and I am sure that what they say is perfectly accurate. They say:
"The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds took nine successful cases which the police declined to take up."
That is another area in which one has semi-private societies, actuated by strong feelings, taking up cases which would otherwise almost certainly not be taken up. I hasten to say that i do not for a moment criticise the unfortunate police who are overburdened and who have to deal with the monstrous breaches of the law which take place only too frequently. They cannot be blamed for now and again not taking proceedings in the type of case of which I am speaking, whereas the voluntary conservation organisations would certainly do so. They would be ready and anxious to do it and to test the law.
The objective of the Amendment is to make certain that the enforcement provisions relating to the importation and exportation without licence of the matters described in the Schedules will be adequately enforced. I submit that they will be adequately enforced if the enforcement provisions enable the voluntary conservation organisations themselves to undertake individual cases and to bring them before the courts where they feel that that is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the Bill.
If that is right, the question is, what is the present position? The Bill creates a

451
prohibition against importation and exportation without licence of the relevant matter set out in the Schedules. The first change which it is respectfully submitted to the Committee ought to be made is that it ought to be an offence to import or export without licence not only if one knows that there is no licence —the word "knowing" in the Amendment brings that into operation —but also if one shuts one's eyes to the question of whether there is or is not a licence. The Amendment contains the words:
"…knowing of or reckless as to its nature"
in relation to this importation and exportation. The first and possibly rather subordinate change —but it is, I submit, one which is very important if we are trying to achieve the objective which we all have in mind —is to see that it does not have to be proved that a person knew that the importation or exportation was unlawful and that it is quite enough if it can be said that it was obvious but that the person in question chose to shut his eyes and was reckless as to whether or not it was lawful.
That is the first change. The second change is really far more fundamental. If one looks at the Bill, one searches for a provision which will indicate who is to enforce its provisions. One does not find it. The nearest thing to an indication appears in Clause 1(6) and is a reference to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and a power given to them under certain circumstances to forfeit a matter imported or exported under the powers conveyed on them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952. I have tried to decide for myself which is the enforcement authority under the terms of the Bill as at present drawn. That is the point which I should be grateful if my noble friend would look at. I believe that it is the Customs and Excise under the provisions of the 1952 Act. Again, I hasten to say that I meant nothing against that admirable department, which works conscientiously and thoroughly. However, it seems to me that the Customs and Excise are the only people, who, under the provisions of the Bill as a present drawn, are enabled and required to initiate prosecutions under powers which they have under the 1952 Act in relation to unlawful import and export.
If I am right in that, I submit that the position is really very unsatisfactory. It is not reasonable to expect that great Department, with all the burdens which are incumbent upon it and conscientiously performing its work as it does, to undertake the kind of personal interests and personal, immediate and direct activity which voluntary organisations concerned with conservation will regularly, gladly, anxiously and eagerly undertake. There are many admirable authorities of this kind. I have mentioned one. They are directly concerned with this very problem of seeing that animals are dealt with fairly and that endangered species are not driven out of existence. It seems to me that it is essential, if the objective of the Bill is to be achieved, not to leave its enforcement to a great public department which will not have the apparatus or the motivation and which will indeed very often conscientiously feel that it is unnecessarily and improperly wasting public money if it initiates prosecutions in a case where there is doubt and where the law is not quite clear for one reason or another because it does not immediately touch the general public long-term interest. A private conservation organisation would think it directly essential to look at the individual case, collect the evidence and, if it thought it appropriate, take it before the court by way of a criminal prosecution.
The object of the Amendment is to make sure that that is what the Bill provides. As I read it, I understand the Bill to provide solely for proceedings by the Customs and Excise. In my submission it ought to provide that proceedings can be taken both by the police who, as I say, though they are very heavily overburdened are very admirable but, in particular,by private organisations, the private citizen, who wishes to invoke the criminal law. That is the purpose of the Amendment which I have put down. I feel —and I hope that I do not exaggerate —that if it is not possible for private conservation organisations to intervene by way of assisting the implementation of the criminal law in this field, the Bill will largely lose of its objective. It will not be enforced; it will not achieve what everybody wants it to achieve, and that would be a disastrous pity.
The Amendment which I have ventured to draft does not take away any power now vested in the Customs and Excise. Your

453
Lordships may have noticed that in the terms of the Amendment it is sought to qualify the operation of Sections 45(3), 56(4) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952. The effect of that would be that there would be a dual system of enforcement. Where the Customs and Excise thought it was a proper case they would still have power to intervene, but where other circumstances, some of which I have tried to adumbrate before your Lordships' Committee, are present it would be open to any of the private conservation organisations to say that this was a case where there had been an abuse, a case where they would assemble the evidence, a case where they would endeavour to interpret the law and would ask the courts to interpret it if those organisations could not interpret it correctly. The organisations would start proceedings and hope that those proceedings would result in a conviction which would terminate the type of abuse in question.
That is the objective. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is obviously a matter of complication and as such I greatly hope that my noble friend Baroness Stedman, who has been extremely helpful to us in trying to alleviate our anxieties, will feel able to tell the Committee that between now and the Report stage she will go further into the matter with her advisers and consider whether something on these lines ought not to be placed before your Lordships for consideration.
Lord WYNNE-JONESThis Amendment, which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has moved, represents a very important matter. If I may anticipate for a moment what is to follow I should say that it has some relation to the Amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and myself, which is to be dealt with later, concerning the question of the point of sale. It is an attempt to go beyond the enforcement simply by the Customs authorities, and to ensure that the enforcement can be carried out throughout the whole of the distribution of any species. This is an important matter because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill pointed out, it can easily happen that too much is thrown upon the Customs and Excise, and it is vital that we should make it possible for action to be taken by any interested bodies.
454
Wherever any animal, parts of an animal, any flora, or anything else covered by this Bill is involved, it should be possible for action to be taken in order to ensure that the purposes of the Bill are properly carried out. I hope that my noble frietid will be able to give some assurance to your Lordships' Committee that she will be able to look at this matter and tell us that the Government will provide some means of dealing effectively with this question of enforcement of the Bill.
Lord CRAIGTONI, too, should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The noble Baroness will probably not know that the conservation societies themselves are already getting together and money is being put up to form a policing organisation to ensure that when the Bill is law we shall know that the law is being kept. It will add teeth to their efforts if they themselves can initiate a prosecution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment is designed to permit private prosecution for illegal imports or exports under the Bill. Under Customs and Excise legislation goods imported or exported illegally are liable to forfeiture, and the person responsible for their import or export, if he acted knowingly and with intent to evade, is liable to imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The powers to prosecute for an offence under this legislation are limited to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, as provided (as my noble friend said) by Section 281 of the Customs and Excise Act of 1952.
This Amendment seeks to avoid prejudicing the powers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and, in particular, it seeks to disapply those sections of the 1952 Act quoted in the Amendment, which all provide that penalties under Customs legislation shall not apply where specific offences in connection with imports and exports are penalised by separate legislation. I bow to the knowledge of my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill in his understanding of Customs legislation, which is far better than mine. I appreciate that members of the public will be concerned, and will wish to take action, if they see an animal, plant, or item in this country which they have

455
reason to think has been illegally imported. But virtually all the evidence required to support such a prosecution would be in the hands of Government Departments, so that a private prosecution would be less likely to succeed.
I should point out also that prosecutions brought under Customs and Excise legislation are often the result of a lengthy and painstaking inquiry, and the Commissioners' powers and resources are clearly far greater than those of any private individual. Although the Amendment may not debar action by Customs, there could well be practical difficulties if a private prosecution had been brought, and perhaps lost, while the Customs' case was still being prepared. I should like to emphasise that both my Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise value the co-operation of members of the public. We hope that the voluntary conservation bodies also will continue to give us their help, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, intimated, in implementing these controls as effectively as possible.
I am sure that the Customs would enforce this legislation conscientiously and effectively, as they have enforced similar legislation in the past. They have prosecuted on a number of occasions where restrictive animals or birds have been imported, and it must also be remembered that the evasion of these restrictions may be linked with evasion of duty and a private prosecution for evasion of a restriction may seriously hamper the Customs in the enforcement of the law relating to duty. I accept the concern of my noble friend, but I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment. I am always willing to consider and to reconsider, but I cannot offer very much hope to him that, if we take this matter back and reconsider it, we should be any more favourably inclined towards it at Report stage than we are now. I should be perfectly happy, if my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment now, to consider it and have talks with my noble friend again before the Report stage, but beyond that I am not prepared to go.
Lord STOW HILLI am most grateful to my noble friend. She admits quite frankly that the only enforcement authority which would have the power under the Bill as it stands is the Customs and Excise,
456
and I feel that in so doing she gives her case away. My noble friend has very kindly said that she will consider this matter but that she cannot hold out much hope to me. In these circumstances I am quite content to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment, but as my noble friend cannot hold out hope to me, I cannot hold out any hope to her of my being less tiresome on the Report stage than I have been today at the Committee stage. But I am most grateful to my noble friend for her undertaking.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBYBefore the Amendment is withdrawn, may I offer a suggestion? It is that the co-operation of the voluntary conservation bodies might he obtained in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. Speaking from recollection, I believe there is one precedent, if it is the only one: that of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who are given statutory recognition which empowers them to take action pari passu with the police in the enforcement of legislation about cruelty to children. I believe it is the only voluntary body which is given this special status in the eyes of the law. Anyhow, it might be worth exploring. It seems to me that there are difficulties, and even objections sometimes, about a purely private prosecution, a prosecution by a private citizen who may not understand fully the implications of the action that he is taking and who could get in the way of the Customs and Excise. He could "botch" the whole thing up for them by precipitate action or action through ignorance of the full implication of what he was doing.
Is it a possible way out here for conservation bodies to be named as organisations which have the right to prosecute? One assumes that they would be responsible and well-informed bodies which could work in close co-operation with the Customs and Excise and so ensure that what they proposed to do was not going to he obstructive to any action the Customs and Excise had in mind. Moreover, I think that if this provision were made then in most cases, if the vigilance of the conservation body led to a report to the Customs and Excise that they thought that there was a prima, facie case for a prosecution, they would probably be content to leave it to the Customs and

457
Excise to pursue the further investigations and, if necessary, take the action which the law enabled them to do.
This is just a suggestion; but I feel that to leave it to the Customs and Excise alone is to narrow the possible area of successful vigilance. I may be wrong about this, hut sometimes an animal of a particular species becomes known to be in somebody's back garden or in an attic and as being kept there for private exhibition to people who may be interested to see a rare specimen which has been smuggled into the country. Citizens may hear about this, and they may feel that there is some ground for investigation. If they can report the matter to a voluntary body which might first embark on preliminary investigations before putting the matter in the hands of the Customs and Excise, that might help. Sometimes the citizen is reluctant to call in the police or to bring in bureaucracy, from whose actions rather serious results may follow; and if the voluntary bodies could be, as it were, an intermediate point of information and of report to the Customs and Excise, in co-operation with them, you would have responsibility wihout officialdom, you would relieve the citizen of his anxieties and you would probably be of assistance to the Customs and Excise themselves. Anyhow, since my noble friend is going to consider the matter again I offer that as a possible addition to the matters she might take into account.
The Earl of MANSFIELDI have moved hastily to the Back-Benches because I was going to say that I hope the noble Baroness will bear in mind that there is, I think, quite a lot of support from these Benches, albeit the Back-Benches, for this Amendment; and I say that having started my legal career as a pupil in the chambers of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. There are many occasions, as I suggest, when it would be wholly inappropriate for a prosecution to be initiated by the Customs and Excise. They are mostly concerned with prosecutions which are in point of time probably placed, in relation to goods, pretty close to the point of entry. In those circumstances, if, for instance, the goods —and I use the word in its generic sense —are not near the point of entry, either in place or in time, it may well be far more appropriate either for the police to prosecute or for
458
a private prosecution to take place, whether or not that is under the aegis of a voluntary body; it really does not matter for the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment whether the prosecution is undertaken privately by an individual or by a group of individuals acting in concert. So I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter with her advisers with some degree of seriousness.
Baroness WHITEMay I also urge the noble Baroness to take account of the very ingenious suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because I think this might get her out of what I fully appreciate is a genuine difficulty. We can all see the apprehension that an ill-advised private prosecution might make things worse rather than better. On the other hand, if this analogy is a sound one —I have no notion whether or not it is, but it sounds to me prima facie to be a sound analogy —then one has very knowledgeable and very responsible organisations in this country which could be relied upon to undertake responsible prosecutions only, and I would have thought that this might well be a way out of what might otherwise be a difficult dilemma. We all realise that official bodies are most reluctant to undertake prosecutions unless, I would say, they are 98 per cent. certain of success, and that they will not chance their arm on something where they have doubts about it. We know this in so many spheres, where a public prosecution, because it is not virtually certain of success, is not undertaken even though one may be almost certain that there is an infringement of the law. So I would hope very much that my noble friend will consider this seriously.
Baroness STEDMANI was intending to consider it seriously in any case, but the more I have heard while the debate has gone on the more I have had doubts raised in my own mind that they might perhaps be able to make out a case for the private prosecution and we might perhaps be able to use the method suggested by my noble friend Lord Houghton: but we will certainly consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.48 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, after ("statement") insert ("or representation")
The noble and learned Lord said: In a very general sense, this Amendment is directed to the same objective as the last one, and I should be grateful if I might take it together with Amendment No. 17, which is in exactly the same form. The two Amendments relate to the provisions in subsection (4) of the Bill concerning the making of untrue statements, and what I would ask your Lordships to do by way of amendment is to include in line 13, after the word "statement", the words "or representation", and to make the same change in line 17. In other words, if I may take paragraph (a), the offence would be:
"makes a statement or representation which he knows to be false in a material particular ";
and a corresponding change would be made in the later paragraph.
What is pointed out to me is that you may well have a case where there is a blank in a form and the applicant is asked to say in the blank whether (a) or (b) is the case. He does not do so; he just does not fill in the blank. I should have thought that a "statement" connotes the idea of a more or less precise concept expressed in consecutive wording. It is different from an expletive; it is not the same as "representation". Representation may be included in the word "statement"; but a representation can take all sorts of different forms. You can wink or shrug your shoulders or do all sorts of things to produce a belief in the particular person to whom you make the representation without making a statement to him.
That is the point of these two Amendments. I should not be serving a useful purpose if I were to make a long and tiresome oration in support of each. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a sensible change; that it strengthens the enforcement provisions and cuts out from them a weakness which might otherwise be exploited by a person of ill faith. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN:I am advised that in legal usage the words "statement" and "representation" are very close in meaning. That being so, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.51 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("in a material particular").
The noble Viscount said: With the consent of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 14 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 18. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, my Amendments to omit the words "in a material particular" are also to do with getting the truth. I was rather emboldened to put down these Amendments by the fact that on 11th July 1974 the Government accepted Amendments of mine to omit these words from the Health and Safety at Work Act. I agree that the Health and Safety at Work Act has nothing to do with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill, but the principle is the same.
These Amendments make it an offence knowingly and recklessly to tell a lie when applying for a licence under the Bill. As the Bill stands, under this subsection deliberate lies are not punishable unless they are material. In principle, why should anyone tell a deliberate lie when applying for a licence to import an endangered species? The subsection as it stands does not create any absolute offence, but operates only when something is done knowingly or recklessly; so why turn a blind eye to a deliberate falsehood?
It may seem at first sight that material facts can be separated easily from nonmaterial ones; but I can give instances of where this is not so. Let us take the applicant's address as material —which I think one must. I can imagine a situation where an applicant puts down a friend's address as his own because his own address is known to the scientific authority as that of a limited company of which he is the sole director and which has been blacklisted for abuse of licences in the past. Is the date on the application form material? I should say that it is; because the case may occur where the scientific authority of a country decides not to issue licences for imports from a certain date, but decides also to allow existing applications before that date to be honoured. The date of the application is then very material. Is the man taken to commit an offence if he puts down deliberately an earlier date so as to avoid the ban? An applicant might perhaps be superstitious

461
and might put down an earlier date to avoid, say, "Friday, 13th". If so, that is surely anomalous.
As I see it, an additional problem is as to whom the mis-statement is to appear material. If it appears material to the scientific authority but not to the applicant —and this could genuinely happen —is there an offence? I am aware that other Acts refer to material mistakes. On the whole, they are absolute offences unqualified by the words "knowingly or recklessly", as in this case. I can give an example from Section 78 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, part of which reads:
"If any person does any of the following things, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act: …if, for the purpose of obtaining a licence, certificate, or instrument he makes a declaration or statement" —
your Lordships will note that there is no reference to "knowingly or recklessly" —
"false in any material particular, unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know of that falsity".
In other words, the burden of proof is reversed and the defendant must demonstrate his lack of knowledge.
I feel that these words ought to be omitted. They have been omitted from other Acts. I have referred to my Amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and I need not go into that; but I moved then to delete the same words, "in a material particular", on the ground that a person involving himself in the proceeding of that Act ought to warrant his own truthfulness. He should not be able to argue over the meaning of "material" in order to avoid the consequences of a deliberate lie on his part.
I hope that the noble Baroness has the gist of what I am trying to explain. The point is that these words have been omitted from other Acts and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is the principle that counts. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThe subsection as it stands would make it an offence when applying for a licence, knowingly or recklessly to make a statement or furnish information which is incorrect in a material particular. Courts are familiar with this expression which occurs in offences under the Perjury Act 1911 and many other statutes relating to false statements. It
462
means a relevant fact; one which if wrong could lead the Secretary of State to make a decision on the issue of the licence or its terms other than the one he would have taken if he had been given the correct fact. It is not the intention to penalize someone who makes a mistake in an unimportant detail.
These Amendments would make it an offence to make any mistake on an application, however trivial, whether it was done knowingly or merely recklessly. It would seem unduly harsh to penalise an applicant for a minor error which would not affect the decision on a licence application. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that and withdraw. I also accept I am surrounded by a wealth of legal knowledge, and if they come to the noble Viscount's defence and say his wording is right, I may be persuaded to accept it.
The Earl of MANSFIELDWould the noble Baroness agree that, if you tell a white lie, one will not be convicted, but, if it becomes black in the opinion of the courts, one will be convicted?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDI follow the point made by the noble Baroness; but I put down this Amendment because previously I had the same Amendment accepted on the other Bill. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I am not too happy about the authority being able to tell the difference between a white and black lie. Sometimes they may get confused as to what is a white lie and what is a black one. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 19, with which it should be considered. The effect of these two Amendments is to make it an offence to recklessly furnish false information or documents. As the clause is drafted, subsections 4(a) and 4(c) cover both a statement known to be false and a false statement made recklessly. In the case of information or documents, however, subsection 4(b) makes it an offence only where the falsity

463
is known. The Amendment will provide a parallel with subsection 4(c) by covering any false document or information furnished recklessly. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 17, after ("statement") insert ("or representation").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert
("or
(d) recklessly furnishes a document or information which is false in a material particular,").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this in moving the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. 8.5 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("£400") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: This is a very brief point. As the noble Baroness and your Lordships will know, for a clouded leopard, for example, one would have to pay over £1,000. But if anybody secures a clouded leopard for £1,000 and pays a fine of £400, they have made a nice profit out of it. I realise the difficulty, but I should like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThe present £400 maximum fine in Clause 1(4) is that which magistrates' courts can impose on summary conviction over a wide range of indictable offences (including theft and criminal damage). It is therefore by convention the normal limit of their fining powers in relation to purely summary offences or on summary conviction of hybrid offences; that is, one such as the present offence which may be tried summarily or on indictment, with maximum penalties specified in the relevant enactment for each mode of trial.
Maximum fines on summary conviction higher than the normal f400 are available in a limited number of instances; for example, where the illicit profit to be made from committing the offence would outweigh the maximum fine which could otherwise be imposed, or where the speed of summary proceedings is essential for effective enforcement of a relatively serious offence. But generally it is preferable that magistrates' courts' powers should be standardised on the basis of the £400 maximum. In the present case, if it seems desirable that a higher penalty should be available, it is open to the prosecution to proceed on indictment where, on conviction, an unlimited fine or a maximum of two years' imprisonment are available.
It may be objected that the £400 limit of the magistrates' courts' fining power, which was fixed hack in 1967, has been seriously eroded by inflation. This point is well recognised and the recently published Report of the James Committee on the distribution of business between the Crown Courts and magistrates' courts proposes that the limit should be increased from £400 to £1,000, and that all hybrid regulatory offences should in due course carry, on the summary limb, a new maximum fine of £1,000. When legislation to implement the James Report is introduced, the opportunity will be taken to review the penalties in existing legislation, including the penalty in this clause, in the light of the new maximum. But it would be wrong for this Bill to anticipate the Government's consideration of the James recommendations, while leaving unchanged those for offences in other legislation of the same or greater intrinsic gravity. To do so would leave the courts with little idea of the relative seriousness with which Parliament has decided that they are to be regarded and hence provide little indication for sentencing policy, of the aptness of a sentence.
Lord CRAIGTONI am grateful, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with the appropriate scientific authority regarding its disposal,").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point. There are cases regarding for-

465
feited animals of zoos having to accept for the sake of the animal an animal seized by the Customs which they really do not want. There are cases where an illegal importer claims that of course the bird which has arrived was not ordered by him at his address but finds himself given custody of the bird by the Customs and Excise which he knows perfectly well he has illegally imported. I am aware of the fact that this Amendment is incorrectly drafted; but there is nothing in this Bill which gives the Customs and Excise the powers, if they want so to do, to consult the scientific authority about the disposal of these creatures. It is an incredibly difficult position. There is a great deal of inside information that scientific authorities have. Would it not be an advantage for it to be put into the Bill that the Customs and Excise could consult the scientific authority about the disposing of the creature? I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANAs the noble Lord has accepted, the Amendment is defective in drafting. Noble Lords will observe that line 37 on page 2 of the Bill refers to liability to forfeiture and not the act of seizure. The liability arises at the time of importation, whether or not the actual seizure is effected at that time. This is a matter which has been decided by the Courts. Therefore it is clear that con- sultation of the kind envisaged in the Amendment cannot affect the liability to forfeiture for which the clause provides.
So far as the intention behind the Amendment is concerned, I am happy to be able to assure the Committee that where animals, birds and other goods restricted for conservation reasons are seized by Customs because they have been imported contrary to those restrictions, it has always been the practice of Customs to consult the policy Department, which is in touch with the scientific authority, about disposal. A legal provision for this purpose is not therefore necessary. It would, indeed, by positively undesirable and may hamper Customs in their task of enforcement.
Consultations as to disposal normally have to be conducted speedily —usually by telephone. In the case of live creatures, it is usually done before seizure takes place, for obvious reasons. The Committee will appreciate that the need for seizure may arise urgently during the
466
course of investigation. If consultation were a legal requirement, it would have to be on a more formal basis and the delay may well obstruct Customs in their enforcement activity. For instance, it might give the owner an opportunity to conceal or dispose of the animal or bird, so that it could not be seized at all.
I can assure the Committee that Customs will continue to act, as they have clone in the past, with every regard for the objectives of conservation. But we must oppose this Amendment, which is likely to impede the effective enforcement of the very controls we are discussing.
Lord CRAIGTONI, too, oppose the Amendment as I have drafted it. However, if the noble Baroness is satisfied that it is not necessary to write into the Bill that there may be consultations with the scientific authority, and in the hope that the Government may be able to look at this again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
("( ) Where anything is sold to which subsection (6) above applies, the contract shall be deemed to include a warranty that the conditions laid clown in this section and which refer to that thing, have been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the noble Baroness for having redrafted this Amendment. Whether or not it is improved, I do not know —it only came in the first Marshalled List —but, as now drafted, where it says that the contract should be deemed to include a warranty rather than "to include a warranty" as in the previous Amendment, it forces the seller to make certain that what he is selling is legally imported. This, to some extent, protects the buyer. It makes the seller very wary of advertising for sale something of whose legality he is not sure. So far as I can see it does not add anything at all to his paper work or the keeping of records at the ordinary place of a sale. If I go into a shop and buy something, I suppose there is an implied warranty by the seller that the goods are not stolen. This is all that this Amendment is saying.I believe it would be a useful Amendment, but am content to leave it to the noble Baroness as to whether she wishes to

467
turn it down or to have another go. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANIn discussing this Amendment, we shall be touching also on matters which affect Amendments Nos. 28, 35, 42, 69, 26 and 27A. The element common to all of them is that they seek to back up controls at the point of import with provisions relating to the point of sale. It is natural that people should be offended if they see apparently banned goods on sale in the shops and I can understand that they will want to take some action. But I do not think that this Amendment is the best way to go about it. First, it must be remembered that, even for the species and items in the Schedules to this Bill, there will be no bar to commercial trade in many of them. We are not required to restrict trade in the vulnerable species listed in Appendix II to the Convention, provided the exporting country has been willing to give a permit for export. And we have no intention of imposing such a restriction unless our scientific authorities tell us that the Convention has got it wrong and that the species really is endangered. Moreover some of the items listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill may be derived from species that are not even included in Appendix II to the Convention —they are not even vulnerable; they have simply been included as requiring licences to help us overcome the "recognisability" problem.
It follows that there will continue to be a good deal of commercial trade in many of the species and items covered by this Bill. We are stopping it only for the truly endangered species. This particular Amendment, of course, goes much wider than the controlled species, because subsection (6) covers all whole animals and plants of all kinds.
We believe it would impose a wholly unacceptable burden on retailers and other traders to require them to maintain records of all wildlife goods to show whether they were covered by the controls and, if so, whether they had been licensed. It must be remembered that a single large import of skins might be split up into a number of batches and treated in various ways by numerous traders before reaching the shops. Incidentally, I would have thought that the Amendment falls short
468
of its objective in that it covers goods for sale, but does not cover live animals and plants on exhibition.
I believe that the aim of this and the other "point of sale" Amendments can be met adequately by the use of existing powers and existing records. If, for example, someone were to report to the Department of the Environment that they had seen a leopard-skin coat, the Department could arrange for the species to be identified by an expert and check whether it was likely to have been covered by an import licence. If there then were reasonable grounds to suspect an illegal import, they could ask Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to investigate.
Customs already have considerable powers to investigate cases of suspected importation contrary to a prohibition or restriction. These powers have been found to be quite adequate in the past in connection with prohibitions and restrictions for conservation and other reasons, and have in fact been used on numerous occasions to good effect. The restrictions provided for by this Bill are similar to those we have previously exercised over imports of animals and birds and I cannot see that they change the situation in a way that calls for additional powers.
The Customs do not hesitate to use their powers to investigate cases where illegal importation is suspected and, where confirmatory evidence is obtained, the existing law provides both for forfeiture of the goods and for prosecution where there has been intent to evade a prohibition.
I can appreciate that anyone reporting a suspected illegal import will be interested in knowing what action has been taken. I certainly have no wish to discourage vigilance by the voluntary bodies and private individuals with an interest in conservation —indeed I welcome the help which they can give towards the effective enforcement of our controls. It may be that, in the light of past experience, we can improve the feedback to bodies and individuals who report suspected offences. I am certainly prepared to reveal in summary form figures showing the results of the action taken as a result of such reports. Moreover, officials will be willing to give a certain amount of informal guidance as to which types of

469
items are likely to be in the country legally and which are not. But I must emphasise that the Government cannot undertake to reveal the outcome of individual inquiries, except where a prosecution ensues.
We have every sympathy with the noble Lord's aim of stopping commercial trade of all kinds in truly endangered species of wild-life and I can assert that Departments will use the very extensive powers already available to them. I know the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, believes that his Amendment, as re-written, would not require the retailer to keep records. If it transpires that his goods were illegal imports and if he was sued by the purchaser he could get redress from his supplier. I know that is the line the noble Lord is taking. My advisers are at present unconvinced but we are willing to look at this again, and in the light of this I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CRA1GTONI am very grateful to the noble Baroness, as will be the conservation bodies, for the detailed and informative way in which she has said that she does not like my Amendment, and I am glad that she will be looking at the point again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" ( A person in breach of the terms of a licence issued under subsection (2) above shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and to a fine not exceeding £20 for every day on which the offence continues after conviction").
The noble Earl said: I find myself in some difficulty, because I am not certain which Amendments are to be passed and which are not to be passed, and I do not know what will be the condition of this Bill by the time when, sooner or later, we get to supper. But certainly at the stage when I put down this Amendment, bearing in mind the Amendment which I have already withdrawn, it seemed necessary that there should be some penalty for breaking any conditions which were attached to a licence under Clause 1(2).
still think that that is likely to be necessary, although I must confess that I am not certain in these circumstances what the words "general and specific" mean. But if they mean, as I assume they do, that conditions can be attached to the licence other than those mentioned in Clause 4(1), then unless this Amendment were accepted there would be no penalties applicable to a breach of any conditions attached to licences given under subsection (2) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would make a person who breached the terms of a licence liable to a fine and provide a cumulative penalty for retaining the animal, plant or item after conviction. The Amendment appears to be unnecessary. Imports and exports of controlled goods are already prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Secretary of State, under Clause 1(2) of the Bill. Goods imported contrary to these terms would he subject to forfeiture under Customs and Excise legislation and the importer could he liable to prosecution. To impose a line as proposed by this Amendment would thus entail a double penalty for a single offence. The proposed cumulative penalty would also seem unnecessary and inapplicable where the condition did not relate to a continuing state of affairs. The goods would be forfeited once the fact of illegal import was established.
There are already penalties relating to breach of conditions after import; for example, for moving the animal to premises which were not those specified in any direction by the Secretary of State. In this context I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whether he would be prepared to await discussion of the Government Amendment on Clause 4, from which he will see that it is proposed to introduce a penalty for retaining an animal at the wrong premises. I hope that when we discuss this point he will agree that it would meet most of his requirements. I imagine that the Amendment is primarily concerned with import licences. But I would point out that it would, in any case, be virtually impossible to impose such conditions on an export licence for an animal, plant or item which would have left the country. I hope that when we get to Clause 4 we might clear the noble Earl's mind a little.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I shall wait for Clause 4, and if I am not then satisfied I can always put the Amendment down again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.24 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" ( ) A person handles unlicensed goods if, knowing or believing them to be items unlawfully imported by virtue of this section, he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, dispersal or realisation by, or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, and it may be convenient if I also speak at the same time to Amendment No. 25. I move this Amendment from this geographical position in the Chamber, although I am painfully conscious of the presence of a Whip behind me and the possibility of my buttons eventually being snipped off. I appreciate that these Amendments are an attempt to invite the Government to consider widening the whole scope of this Bill. As the Bill now stands —and I appreciate the concern of the Customs and Excise to clutch on to it —it is concerned with the importation of goods (and I use the word "importation" as a convenient term) and is not primarily concerned with what happens to those goods once they have finally left the point of entry, although I bear in mind what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said in her reply to Amendment No. 22.
As I see it, the defects of the Bill are possibly twofold. Once goods have left the point of entry, and have left it for some time, it is wholly inappropriate for the Customs and Excise to pursue them very far. I know they will disagree, but I have considerable knowledge of their ways and workings from my past. They have neither the facilities to make a thorough-going investigation of this kind of problem, nor am I sure it is a very good idea that they should try. It is a matter which is very much better left to the police because, as noble Lords and Ladies who are criminally minded will already have perceived, these Amendments follow very closely upon the provisions in
472
the Theft Act which deal with honest handling
As the Bill stands, we reach the ludicrous position that if, for instance, someone imports goods which are prohibited under this Bill, and gets away with it —and we have to admit to ourselves, even if not to the Customs, that such will happen —and he thereafter sells those goods to a dealer who takes them in the knowledge that they are unlicensed, but not in the knowledge of how precisely they came into the country, I can see nothing that the Customs and Excise or anybody else can do to stop the subsequent sale. That is something which I apprehend the conservation bodies view with great alarm, because it makes nonsense of the whole Bill. Therefore, if the Government are going to put something on the Statute Book, making use of our very limited Parliamentary time, they should at least try to make it as effective as they possibly can. That is why I invite the noble Baroness and the Government to pay regard to this matter at this stage.
Of course, my Amendments go rather further than dishonest dealers who merely, as it were, buy from an importer or his agent. I anticipate that as the goods dry up, as one hopes they will, under this Bill it will become more and more profitable to undertake a dishonest exercise of that nature; this happened with birds' eggs and a number of things like that. Therefore, it will he worth more and more to dishonest men and crooks, not to put too fine a point on it, to engage in this kind of exercise. We then come across all the various people who are links in the chain between the original point of entry and the eventual suit made of vicuna cloth, or whatever it happens to be —and I quote that example facetiously.
As I read this Bill, there is no power, unless one brings them all in under some kind of conspiracy (and "conspiracy" is not a very popular word in Government circles these days) to bring into the net the man who stores the goods, the man who oils the wheels and makes the whole affair —I was going to use the word "conspiracy" —prosper, so that the crooks gain their unjust reward. So that, in the same way as the law provides for all the people who deal in stolen goods, my Amendments try to provide for all the people who may try to deal in unlicensed goods.
The Amendments emphasise the dishonest nature of the transaction. I want to emphasise that a person who is an innocent receiver or handler will not be liable to be convicted, so we are dealing here only with dishonest people. I am painfully aware that the Amendments are not properly drafted. I used the word "goods" because it came conveniently from the Theft Act, but if I had thought rather more about it I should have put down on the Marshalled List something more cumbersome but possibly more correct. I am also aware that as the Bill now stands, Amendments such as these could not be accepted, if only by virtue of the Long Title. Nevertheless, if the Government accept the spirit of the Amendments, and bear in mind that we are now in the very early stage of the passage of this Bill through Parliament, I have absolutely no doubt that these worthwhile provisions can be written into it.
Lord BROCKWAYI hope that the Government will give consideration to this Amendment, or to Amendment No. 25 which raises a somewhat similar point. I find that it is a little strange that I should be speaking in favour of an Amendment which is moved from the Opposition Front Bench.
The Earl of MANSFIELDWhy?
Lord BROCKWAYHowever, we are considering the most effective way to deal with the essentials of this measure, and I want to assure the Minister that we are doing so with very great appreciation of the purpose of this Bill and that our desire is only to strengthen it.
First, I should like to argue in favour of this Amendment, as I am in sympathy with those who are responsible for carrying out customs duties at Heathrow and at the ports. They have an extraordinarily difficult task to perform and so far as Customs and Excise are concerned I believe it is true that the conditions often make their task increasingly difficult. Often I come into conflict with the officials at Heathrow and at the ports and sometimes their decisions are remedied after an appeal to higher quarters. However, when I think of the duties which those officials have to fulfil it is too much to ask that in this Bill we should make them responsible for saying whether goods are
474
legally or illegally imported into this country..
I follow that appeal on behalf of the officials at our airports and seaports by suggesting that it is impossible to say that goods which have been accepted by Customs and Excise but which are contrary to the provisions of this Bill subsequently shall become legal in this country. We do not apply that principle to drugs. Drugs may pass Customs and Excise, but still they remain illegal in this country; and anyone who handles them, or who organises their coming into this country, or who sells them, or who is in possession of them is breaking our law. That same principle ought to apply to articles which escape Customs and Excise but which nevertheless are sold in this country. Although they have evaded Customs and Excise, they would have been illegal if they had been discovered by Customs and Excise. But having passed Customs and Excise, there are, so far as I can see in this Bill, no provisions by which they remain illegal when they are sold and no provisions by which those who facilitate their sale can be prosecuted.
When replying to this Amendment and considering other Amendments which have a similar purpose, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to say to us that this very important point will be considered before Report stage. I hope also that if the drafting of this Amendment is not acceptable, an acceptable Amendment will be produced.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment and Amendment No. 25 are variants of an attempt to extend control from the point of import to the point of sale. The Amendments would make it an offence for somebody to handle goods which he knew or believed to be illegally imported. I do not want to repeat again my lengthy reply to Amendment No. 22. However, the Government believe that the difficulties can be adequately met by our existing powers and records. These Amendments appear to be somewhat wider ranging, in that they would cover anyone handling the goods after import. On the other hand, unlike some of the other Amendments, they would leave the onus of proof on the prosecution. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will have gathered from the discussions and from my reply to Amendment No. 22 that in

475
our view this Amendment would create an undesirable overlap with the existing Customs powers and could well undermine the ability of Customs to take action. While, however, it will or may create problems and some difficulty for Customs in meshing them together satisfactorily with their present Customs legislation, I am conscious of the feeling of the Committee about the Amendment and am prepared to have a look at the drafting and the implications of it and to consult again with the noble Earl before Report stage.
The Earl of MANSFIELDFirst, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the generous manner in which he greeted my Amendment. On the very first occasion that I defeated a Government in 1973, of which my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton was a Member, I defeated it only because of the votes of the then Opposition who came flooding into the Lobby with me. At Report stage it would be nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with me, if that were necessary. More seriously, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness is prepared to look again at this Amendment. I say with sincerity that there comes a time for Customs and Excise, however worthy they are —I am not criticising, for in my day I used to prosecute for them —when the maintenance of the criminal law should he left to the police and the ordinary prosecuting authorities or, in proper cases, to private prosecutions, at least in England and Wales. As I said before, I am conscious that these Amendments are badly drafted, and never expected what I may say was a very flattering reception.
Before I withdraw Amendment No. 24, the only other matter I would ask the noble Baroness to consider so far as Amendment No. 25 is concerned —I am speaking immediately after the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill in order to throw a fly on the water in a titillating manner —is that in Amendment No. 25 there is summary conviction. But if one is to be consistent about this, provision ought to be made for conviction and penalty on indictment. When the noble Baroness considers the one point I hope she will also consider the other. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness WHITE Baroness WHITE moved Amendment No. 25A:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert —
(" (6A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

(a) to maintain a register of licences issued under subsection (2) above, and of certificates issued in pursuance of subsection (6B) below;

(b) to secure that the register is open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

(c) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Secretary of State, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25A which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and myself, and to speak to Amendment No. 25B which is part and parcel of the proposed procedure. I do this because in a completely different context, and one which I think provides a reasonable analogy, your Lordships' House has agreed that where one has registers of this nature it should be possible for the public to obtain access to them. We discussed this principle at considerable length when we were dealing with the Control of Pollution Act, and there it was agreed that where a Secretary of State, or the Minister responsible, licensed a particular action which was one of considerable public interest to those concerned —in that case with pollution; in this case with conservation —the information that a licence had been issued was, and should be, public property. It was recognised under the Control of Pollution Act, as I am suggesting should be recognised under this legislation, that there could be circumstances where someone might perfectly legitimately put a case to the Secretary of State that there were special reasons where, if it were known on what terms he had obtained the licence, or exactly what the licence covered, it might adversely affect his interests, and if the Secretary of State was satisfied that this was so he could then refrain from including the particulars in the register open to the public, but it would also be incumbent upon the Secretary of State to indicate to the public that such an exception had been made.
It seems to me that the principle concerned in these two situations is similar;

477
that the public are entitled to know if licences have been issued in such circumstances, that there is under Amendment No. 25B a procedure whereby if there were some genuine danger to the interests of the person concerned it could be impartially considered by the Secretary of State and those interests could be safeguarded. I am sure it would be of considerable assistance to the voluntary bodies and, in a few cases, experts in this particular field, if they were able easily to obtain this information, understand that until now the Department has resisted the suggestion that this provision should he included in the Bill. They have said, in effect, "Well, in certain circumstances we would probably be willing to let certain approved persons know whether so-and-so was licensed to import such-and-such an animal or object or product." At any rate it is suggested for the Appendix I animals in the Convention but not for Appendix 2.
I must confess that I have not been able to go into the details of exactly what this would cover, but it is the attitude with which I am concerned: that it should be regarded as some concession that this information should be available. I believe it is a right that this information should be available. After all, the Department will know perfectly well what licences have been issued. The onus of seeking exclusion from the register will be on a person who has some personal pecuniary interest in the matter. Therefore the onus should rightly he on that person, to be dealt with under Amendment 25B and not 25A.
I do not know whether or not my noble friend will, as I very much hope she will, follow up the proposals in Amendment No. 12, but if it is made possible for persons other than Customs and Excise in certain circumstances to initiate prosecutions, then obviously this is an item of information which would have to be available to them. It seems to me the arguments are strongly in favour of open government, a principle to which the noble Baroness and I are both committed, and therefore one ought to resist the very natural tendency of all Departments not to reveal information if they can possibly avoid it. So even if my noble friend has been advised to the contrary (as I suspect she may have been) I hope she will have a look at this. She has been extraordinarily
478
co-operative over this Bill and I am sure we all appreciate that very much indeed, but it seems to me that this principle, which has already been accepted by Parliament, that where registers of licences are compiled by the Department they should be open to public inspection, should apply equally to the provisions of the Bill before us. I beg to move.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI hope that my noble friend Lady Stedman will be able to meet us on this particular Amendment. As my noble friend Lady White has pointed out, what we are asking for is the supplying to people of information which in normal circumstances should not be regarded as secret, confidential or private. It concerns a public matter. However, there is in Amendment No. 25B provision for anyone who considers that his particular business would be affected by publishing this information, to ask the Secretary of State that it should not be published. That would appear to cover any legitimate cases.
Why do we want this? It is in order that the people of the country, the interested societies, and so on, should be able to know quite clearly who have licences to carry on this import and export. If they know this, they are in a very much better position to look at any infringements of the law. If they do not know it, they have to go round and try to find out in one way or another. It would seem that it is highly desirable that this information should be made public. My noble friend said earlier that she was looking forward to a greater feedback between her Department and the various societies. From my own personal knowledge I know she has gone a long way to encourage and help in this, and this is a desirable thing.
We would say that this Amendment goes a considerable way to help exactly this sort of feedback in order to supply the information which enables the various societies to take some policing action. My noble friend has indicated some two or three times this evening that her Department consider —or perhaps it is not her Department but Her Majesty's Customs and Excise —that they are already in a position to do the whole policing themselves. From what has been said by Members of your Lordships' Committee this evening, it is clear that this is not

479
accepted as being a correct reflection of the present state of affairs. I think most people who have any experience of it at all know perfectly well that the Customs and Excise are not in the position of being an effective police force throughout the whole country. No one can deny that they try to do —and they do —their jobs well at the points of import and export, but to imagine that they go all the way round the country and control everything that happens in every small shop, every small warehouse and every small factory in the country is really to suggest something which is patently absurd.
I suggest it is important that Her Majesty's Government should realise that we are serious when we suggest that the mode of policing should be made wider, and that this can be done only if information is available as widely as possible, with proper safeguards. That is the purpose of these two Amendments, so I hope my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance on this matter.
Lord CRAIGTONI am a little worried, especially about the words in Amendment 25B:
"to an unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a trade secret".
I have been thinking about the disclosure of information in the interests of the animals themselves, because I envisage a situation where a legitimate trader was exporting animals from a certain place where, if it were known that this were done too easily, the whole area would be subject to poaching. Therefore, if the noble Baroness is going to pass this, then I think one reason for not disclosing information should be that it affected the protection of the animals themselves.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBYI wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend. I am not even sure that I would concede the proviso in the second part of it under Amendment 25B, paragraph (b). When people are importing endangered species they are presumably putting that species in still further danger; or at least, if endangered species are thrown into this traffic too freely, then the species may be in still further peril. The licensing system is introduced in order to stop people from importing endangered species except for reasons which seem to be good to the Secretary of State, based on
480
advice that he will receive from the scientific authorities. Therefore, this may be on the whole an undesirable traffic.
What is it, and for what are our endangered species being imported? Here we come to the question of information. I have no doubt that if a Question were put down to the Secretary of State, "How many licences have been granted over a certain period for the importation of a named species on the list?", he would give the information. However, if you asked the Secretary of State, "To whom have these licences been granted?", the probability is that he would say, "It is not practice to divulge the names of persons to whom licences have been granted". He would probably not be disposed, either, to indicate in detail the purposes for which the species were imported. In other words, licences are granted within the discretion of the Secretary of State without any possibility of public information, or Parliamentary control of what is being done. It seems to me this is undesirable.
In certain cases, the names of people to whom licences are granted might occur to those knowledgeable of the people or of the species; it may be thought that there is something undesirable about the way these animals are being imported; one cannot say. Sometimes a little dust is thrown into the eyes of officials, and although we know that a false statement in any material particular puts a person in serious jeopardy, one cannot be quite certain in all circumstances that the full truth has been told to the Department in applying for a licence. I agree with my noble friend who moved this Amendment that there need be nothing secret about this. Why should there be? We are not prying into people's private affairs. We want to know who is engaged in traffic involving endangered species, the preservation of which is so important to those who believe these matters are important that not only do we give those species the protection of the law in this country, but they are the subject of international conventions. What is being done to safeguard the very existence of endangered species therefore is important.
I acknowledge freely and gratefully the way in which my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill has responded to proposals made to her already, and if she

481
goes on as she has done, she will earn some special order of merit from your Lordships' Committee for being so cooperative in dealing with a complicated Bill. But, quite seriously, I hope that she can feel disposed to allow a register to be kept and freely inspected without charge, knowing that this is not the sort of register that everybody will take a day trip to London to come and look at. It will be something that only those who have a special interest, and I submit a bona fide interest, in endangered species would wish to inspect, and thus find out a little more about who is bringing in these animals, a little more about the circumstances, and the reasons why they are being brought in. If the animals are being brought in for commercial purposes, one should, I think, look at the granting of a licence less favourably than if the importation is for some scientific purpose.
However, I hope your Lordships will feel that this is an important Amendment. If leave is asked to withdraw it, I sincerely hope it will be withdrawn only on one of my noble friend's firm assurances, which have been pretty plentiful up to now, that the matter will be given very careful consideration. If my noble friend can introduce the word "favourable" consideration, then all the more acceptable will it be.
Lord MOW BRAY AND STOURTONI should like to enter one small caveat. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, hit many nails very hard on the head. He macle some very good points, underlining what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, said previously. Let it not be thought that I am not in sympathy with what they are trying to do, but the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, himself pointed out that if the people inquiring were possible commercial trade rivals they should not be looked at so sympathetically —I think that was the gist of what he was saying. But how easy for a commercial concern to put up a person in the guise of an interested conservationist! I do not see how you would ever find them out.
Similarly, I am slightly worried, and I do not wish to make this a Party matter, but there has always been a slight difference in people wanting to know a little more
482
about everyone's goings on. I do not want all my tax affairs to be known to the total public, yet the tax inspector has a perfect right to see them. The Secretary of State is an honourable man, his Department officials are honourable people, the Customs are honourable people. I really see little reason for the doubts that seem to be implicit in this Amendment, that the Secretary of State will allow wool to he pulled over his eyes. With the passing of a Bill like this, I would think that the Secretary of State and his officials would welcome their attention being drawn to possible evasions, or what appear to be evasions, or what appear to be transgressions against the law. I imagine they will he more than willing to assuage or tell the informant with thanks that action is being taken firmly, but I see no reason to suppose that, with the passing of a Bill like this, the Secretary of State and his officers will become slack.
The second point other than commercial privacy, which I think is important, is whether this particular clause would cause a lot more people to be needed in the Civil Service. Would it be a costly business to implement? I should like to ask the noble Baroness that question. I sympathise with the point, but merely wonder whether noble Lords are right in thinking that it will be necessary.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not altogether satisfied with everything that my noble friends and noble Lords and Ladies on the other side have said in pleading these two Amendments and trying to encourage the noble Baroness to accept them. I have had some experience of dealing with licences of this nature in the importation of endangered species of live animals. I think this perhaps brings us back to the Amendment of mine on which the noble Baroness poured a certain amount of scorn. Those who are keen on conservation do want to be abundantly clear that when live members of endangered species are imported there is some such control of their importation as the Amendment which I moved earlier insisted on there being. If there is that control of importation of live animals, defining "animals" in its widest sense, I think it would be sufficient if there were information available every year of the number of animals imported of different species, so that we the general

483
public, and in particular those of us interested in conservation, could see whether or not we were satisfied that the Government of the day were allowing, or rather the scientific authorities were advising the Government to allow, a reasonable number of these animals to come in under appropriate conditions. With that I think I would be reasonably satisfied.
I think we have a right to be disturbed at the possibility that some of the products of these endangered species are being imported in too great quantities. There, within limits, you could get the same sort of information published every year, and could tell the general public and those interested whether or not they were coming in in too great quantities. I think one of the things we have to avoid at all costs is starting up a witch hunt by people whose hearts are perhaps more strong than their heads, when by and large the information of the total amount of imports coming in would tell us whether or not there was likely to be a strain on those species. That some sort of information has to be given I am quite clear. If I may go hack again to blowing my own little trumpet about my Amendment, I think we have got to be satisfied that these things are coming in under reasonable conditions. I certainly would not myself go quite as far as these Amendments.
Lord WYNNE-JONESDoes the noble Earl mean, when he refers to the overall numbers admitted, that it would not matter whether there were 1,000 mice or 1,000 leopards let into the country?
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am not concerned with 1,000 mice or 1,000 rabbits coming in, because the species concerned are abundant. Any question of animal welfare that comes into it can be dealt with under the 1911 Act. Whether they were originally wild or originally tame, once they come into captivity they are subject to that Act, and any ill-treatment can be dealt with under that Act.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment and Amendment No. 25B —it is probably convenient if we consider them together —would between them oblige the Secretary of State to make publicly available detailed
484
information about all licences, except to the extent that a licensee had obtained a certificate of exemption. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, that it is already the Government's intention to publish summary statistics showing the numbers of animals, plants or items licensed, imported and exported, by species and by country of origin. The United Kingdom is bound by Article VIII of the Convention to make such statistics available each year to the public and to the Convention secretariat. The figures will be reported to the scientific authorities at more frequent intervals and these reports will also normally be available to the public. In fact the first set of figures derived from our existing controls will be available in a few days' time.
These Amendments, however, would require disclosure of detailed information on individual licences, including the importers' names and their sources of supply. To allow this and to allow members of the public to obtain and keep copies of the entries in the register would seem to us to be an unwarranted breach of the normally confidential relationship between Government Departments and private individuals. It would obviously be damaging for the transactions of one trader to be known to his competitor, and we are therefore very careful to protect commercial confidence.
Noble Lords will appreciate that many of the species in the Schedules are subject to regular trade under licence, and it is only where no commercial interest is involved that I feel I can go any way to help the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady White. I can appreciate that certain individuals and bodies may well wish to know whether an item they see on display has been legally imported. Normally, I think, they should be content with the arrangements we discussed under Amendment No. 22. But I am aware of one circumstance in which an individual might reasonably wish to have information in order to avoid the trouble and expense of a fruitless private prosecution. If a private prosecution is contemplated under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 against someone in possession of a bird of prey of a species found wild in the United Kingdom, the person or body bringing the prosecution will want to establish that the bird was taken from the wild in

485
this country and was not imported under licence. To help in such a circumstance, I can say that if an individual or a body contacts the Department of the Environment, gives the name of the assumed importer and of the species, identifies himself and gives a good reason for his inquiry, he may be told whether or not a licence has been issued. I would stress though that these arrangements apply only to non-commercial trade, which means in effect trade in the truly endangered species of Appendix I of the Convention, and a few others including birds of prey, which we are treating in most respects as though they were on Appendix I.
Amendment No. 25B would allow any trader to apply for a certificate permitting the omission of any details of his licence from the proposed register, if he can satisfy the Secretary of State that such publication would jeopardise his commercial position. I appreciate that this is designed to meet the points I have made about the undesirability of disclosing confidential commercial information. But licences are already being issued under the existing controls at a rate that is not far short of 10,000 a year. The vast bulk of these are for normal commercial trade. As I have had occasion to say several times already today, there is no impediment to commercial trade in species on Appendix II of the Convention if the country of origin is willing to give export licences. Doubtless, the majority of traders would seek exemption certificates of some kind and the Secretary of State would be required, under sub-paragraph (b) of this Amendment, to make detailed inquiries in thousands of cases. Frankly, I do not think that the bureaucracy and the cost involved can be justified.
We introduced this Bill on the basis that it could be done with little extra cost and little extra manpower. I am prepared to be as co-operative as I possibly can wherever possible, but the Government must oppose these two Amendments. I hope that the assurances that I have given about the availability of information, where there is good reason to disclose it, will enable the noble Lords who have moved the Amendments to withdraw them. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject them.
Baroness WHITENaturally, I am much
486
disappointed in the reply from my noble friend. She will realise that if this was the United States applications for licences would have to be published, and not merely the licences which were actually granted. They seem able to cope with the situation, and I can see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not be able to be at least more generous than the noble Baroness has suggested. I still believe, in circumstances of this kind, that the public has the right to know what is being permitted in its name.
1 do not know whether between now and Report stage we might have some further consultations, because it appears from what the noble Baroness has said that even for Appendix I animals it is regarded as a favour, as a concession, that people should be given this information, and that it would he given only on the discretion of the Department to persons of whom t hey approve. This does not seem to be satisfactory. I can see the difficulty of numbers, and the weight of work concerned if the concession went perhaps as widely as we have suggested in these two Amendments. I still think that the feeling, as I understand, among at least certain of the conservation societies that they need this information in order to pursue their interests adequately, is something which should he taken further into account. It is plain that at the present time my noble friend is not prepared to accept these two Amendments, and there are some doubts on the other side of the Committee about them. Therefore, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendments, but I should like to have some further consultations between now and Report stage. At the moment I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
9.12 p.m.
Lord CHELWOODPerhaps as a silent Member of the Committee so far, I might be allowed to say a few words. I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her accommodating and understanding attitude to the most important Amendments which have been moved, apart from the last one, where I was disappointed. There are seven more clauses to go, and I hope that this will be maintained. I want to put one

487
point to the noble Baroness. I want to seek an assurance that there are no contradictions where this Bill is concerned now that the Schedules have been stood on their heads. I warmly welcome this, and it saves me making a powerful speech. Glancing back at the Marshalled List, I notice, for example, that in Amendment No. 2 my noble friend Lord Cranbrook had sought to make sure that there was no contradiction between this measure and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. I refer to Schedule 1 to that Act.
The fact that Schedule 1 to this Bill, just to deal with this alone, has now been stood on its head, does not mean that there may not he a number of contradictions and clashes with other existing legislation apart from that Act. I think particularly at the moment of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. Nobody knows more about that Act than the noble Baroness in the Chair, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, because it was her Private Member's measure in another place. Section 7 of that Act deals specifically with the importation of birds and eggs. I understand that a number of repeals are in the mind of the Government Department.
To give one example only not to waste your Lordship's time, I understand that the import of the common quail, whether alive or dead, is likely to be allowed in future, whereas at present it is banned under Section 7(1)(a) of that Act. Without giving any other examples, it will be seen that it is very important indeed that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should march accurately in step with any other measures which seek to deal with the same problems. I hope that the noble Baroness can give the Committee the assurances I am seeking and perhaps she will, in replying to this point, bear in mind that there is strong opposition to the repeal of those sections of the Protection of Birds Act, particularly Section 7, which control the import of birds by order. It is very much hoped that those provisions will remain on the Statute Book.
Baroness STEDMANI am sure that I can give the noble Lord those assurances. It is our intention that our legislation shall be improved, not made worse, as a result of this Bill and that our protection
488
shall be as good as, if not better than, it has been before. Our scientific authorities are going into the whole matter carefully and expeditiously and I am sure that we will find that everything is covered when we get the revised Schedules.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
9.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
"Trade in Endangered Species.
Any person who deals in, or invites dealings in, anything for the time being specified in the second column of Schedules 1 and 2, or in Schedule 3, to this Act, shall, unless he can show that its importation was not unlawful by virtue of Section 1 above, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal, plant or item shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs & Excise Act 1952."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is like some others we have considered; it deals with the problem of the point of sale. It has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and others that the Bill as drafted is designed essentially to deal with import and export, but the purpose of the Bill in its real intention goes beyond that. It is designed to stop the trade in endangered species. If we are to do this effectively we must ensure not only the control of the import and export of endangered species but also any attempt at selling endangered species in this country. In other words, the point of sale is extremely important if we are to control this trade. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it has become clear that to rely simply on Customs control is inadequate to deal with this problem and, thus, the Amendment would control the actual sale of endangered species and products.
Inevitably when people are trying to get into the country by surreptitious means the products of endangered species—of reptiles, leopards, crocodiles and so on—they will probably be brought in, to evade regulations, by methods which do not make it easy for the Customs to detect them. I remember that when the predecessor of this Bill was introduced by me two years ago the argument used at the time against the measure was that the Customs could not enforce it. It is, of course, very difficult to have every airport and seaport properly and effectively manned in such a way that every attempt at infraction of

489
Regulateons of this type is spotted. Indeed, very often these articles will be brought in as fakes. A man bringing in, say, leopard skins will not say, "This consignment consists of a couple of thousand leopard skins and I am bringing them in illegally." He will pretend that they are something else and he may get away with it.
It may be a mixed cargo and he gets the stuff in. It has come into the country and the important control is at the point of sale. It is at the point of sale that one can really have effective control. Therefore, the new clause is suggested in order to ensure that we can have this point of sale control. I hope that your Lordships will look at this favourably and that the Government will be prepared to accept it.
Lord CHELWOODI should very much like to support the arguments put forward—and very well put forward—by the noble Lord. He has left very little to be said. As I see it, the Amendment marches very much in step with Amendment No. 24 which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mansfield and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, showed an accommodating attitude, saying that she would give careful thought to it. I believe that the Amendment provides a second line of defence, so that the points of entry are not the only line of defence and the point of sale is a second and equally important one. The noble Baroness made a reference to the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as I did. There is one feature of that Act which clearly shows that a second line of defence is necessary. I shall be very brief in giving an example, but I should like to explain that one is entitled, if one has a licence, to own, for example, a peregrine falcon. One must have a licence from the Home Secretary. If one is accused of illegally owning such a bird, it is quite easy to evade prosecution by claiming that the bird in question was either imported before the restriction was imposed—and I believe that that was in 1970, as a result of amended legislation—or that it was a gift from a stranger. As a result, prosecutions which ought to be followed through very often cannot be.
believe that exactly the same may very well arise in many instances where the present Bill is concerned. That is why the noble Lord and I felt that there was a
490
need to impose a duty upon the defendant to prove his innocence by producing the necessary evidence and documentation—the sort of evidence which will stand up in court. Of course we fully understand that this is contrary to the generally accepted principle that one is innocent until proved guilty, but there are healthy precedents. For instance, the 1954 Act provides precedents in Section 4(2) (a)—(d) and in Section 6(1) (d) and (e). The defendant has to prove that he has lawfully imported a bird or an egg or he must prove in court that he has not contravened the Act itself or any order made under the Act. I remember the arguments with the Home Office at the time as to whether that was acceptable. It is only one of a number of examples which could be given as to why this should be done. There are exceptions which prove very good rules and I believe that this is one of them.
I feel very strongly that the onus of proving innocence should be put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the accused, who would have to show that his action was not unlawful. There would be no problem in producing the necessary documents and II believe that the provision would involve the retailer in protecting the species in which he trades and from which he makes a profit, and that would be a good thing. I believe that it is essential that we should have really effective controls not only at the ports but at outlets as well.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI should like to make one point to my noble friend. The Amendments of my noble friend Lord Mansfield did not make a man guilty unless he knew that the items were unlawfully imported. Under the present Amendment, one would be guilty though innocent. I do not personally believe that the Protection of Birds Act is a good parallel because the bird has to be alive and the egg must be fresh, so that it is therefore a matter of much more recent importation. Here we are dealing not only with what could be alive but, far more probably, with skins, feathers or some other material. It would not be half as easy. I beg noble Lords not exactly to equate live birds and fresh eggs with all the matters which we are now dealing with. Certain goods could have been here for some time—

491
and I am not expert enough to know whether one can tell the age of skins which have been dried and cured. I suppose that it would be quite hard and I believe that we should think twice about something which would automatically make a person guilty.
Lord BROCKWAYMy noble friend Lady Stedman agreed when we were discussing the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that she would consider the point before Report stage. I hope that she will at lease consider the point of sale, which seems to me to be the most important point other than import and export.
Baroness STEDMANWe have had a number of these various Amendments on imposing controls at point of sale, and as has been mentioned I have agreed to take back Amendment No. 24 and see whether we can consider that matter. But the present Amendment would put the onus on a retailer or anyone dealing in an animal, plant, or item controlled under this Bill, to prove that it was legally imported, on pain of a fine, and make the thing in question subject to forfeiture unless such proof was forthcoming. Many of the comments I made on Amendment No. 22, moved by the noble Lords, Lord Craigton and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, are applicable here also. As I indicated, the Government consider that this could be an unacceptable hindrance to legitimate retail trade. Customs already have power to investigate cases where there are strong grounds to suspect illegal import.
It would in any case be inappropriate to provide in this clause for forfeiture of the goods under the Customs and Excise Act 1952. If the goods were imported contrary to a prohibition, they are already liable to forfeiture under that Act, and there is no need to restate this. But I must emphasise that the liability to forfeiture arises from the importation contrary to a prohibition, and liability under the Customs and Excise Act 1952 cannot arise from sale in this country. Nor does it seem appropriate to hold a retailer liable for an offence committed at the time of import and to penalise him, when he has already suffered forfeiture of the goods. In view of these points and of our earlier debate, I hope that the noble Lords who have proposed
492
this Amendment might feel disposed to withdraw it. I have said that we shall reconsider Amendment No. 24 very carefully, but I believe that this Amendment would prove to be an unacceptable hindrance to legitimate retail trade, and we must also consider that matter in terms of our present economic climate.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI am faced with a somewhat difficult position here because if I may take up the last point of the noble Baroness I should say that we are not really discussing the present economic climate; we are discussing, very definitely and clearly, as she has done all along, the question of trade in endangered species, and we must be really clear about this point. Naturally I accept that the noble Baroness is herself very much concerned with the problem. She has already given us an assurance that Amendment No. 24, which raises much the same point, will be carefully considered by her and her Department, and if she were prepared to look at the whole situation, then I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Baroness STEDMANYes, I certainly give that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELLI wonder whether your Lordships would allow me to intervene. As I understand the situation, allowing for the 22 Amendments which were moved at the very beginning, there are still 26 Amendments to be dealt with. I do not know how long your Lordships want to go on, whether it is felt that the Committee stage can be finished tonight or whether it is felt that it would be appropriate to call a halt at a quarter to 10, or perhaps 10 o'clock. The Government can find time on Thursday for the Committee stage of the Bill to be completed. There will be time available on Thursday.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONWe are in rather a quandary here. My noble friend Lord Craigton, who has been taking such a leading part in the discussions on this Bill, is unfortunately unable to be here on Thursday. He is content to go on; and, so far as I am concerned, I am happy to go on. I do not know the feelings of other noble Lords.
9.31 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 27A:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
" Representation as to Endangered Species.
. If any person advertises, or attaches a description to, goods, in such a manner (including the distribution of material to persons he has no reasonable grounds to believe would be specially interested in them) as to be likely to be seen or heard by the general public, and representing the goods as comprising or including any part or product of any animal for the time being specified in the second column of Schedule I to this Act, or the whole or any part of any item for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to this Act, then, whether or not the goods are as represented, the person so offering them for sale shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, No. 27A, is to introduce a new clause which is really one dealing with the problem of advertising. It is an Amendment which is, I think, of some significance, though I would not myself regard it as so important an Amendment as the previous one, to which I must confess I attached a good deal of significance. This Amendment deals with the problem of advertising those goods, including animals, of course, which have been imported into the country and which are on sale. These may be on sale perfectly legally, but if one is dealing with endangered species it is important that their sale should be restricted to those people who are purchasing them for a perfectly legitimate purpose. For example, somebody may be selling something to a museum, and it may be a perfectly legitimate activity; but the advertising of it should not then be wide general advertising in the Press, it should be restricted to those people who are interested in purchasing that sort of thing.
The reason for this is that if a species is endangered and you allow the species or its products to be imported for a particular purpose, and if there is then a general advertisement of these things, it is made much easier for people who have got the things in an illegal way to get away with selling them. In other words, here is an attempt to put a restriction on the scope of advertising those things which may have been legally imported. The Amendment is one which I think goes a little way further towards helping to restrict the whole trade in endangered species. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANAgain, this is another attempt at "point of sale" control, although it is directed at advertising and is no doubt designed to damp clown the demand for products of endangered species. The Amendment would make it an offence to advertise, presumably for sale, any item which was claimed to be derived from a controlled animal, whether or not it was in fact so derived, and any item which was claimed, rightly or wrongly to be the whole or part of an item included in Schedule 3 to the Bill.
The first point to understand about this Amendment is that it covers all parts and derivatives of the animals listed in Schedule 1, not just the readily recognisable ones that have been included in Schedule 3. It would thus prohibit advertising goods, the trade in which the Bill does not even seek to license, let alone ban. As I have already explained in connection with Amendment No. 22, there are many species in the Schedules to the Bill that cannot yet be regarded as endangered. They have been put on Appendix II of the Convention to enable the trade in them to be monitored so that it can be restricted if it proves necessary. So long as they remain on Appendix II and are not transferred to Appendix I, we have no remit, as an importing country, to restrict trade. Moreover, the Convention makes a clear distinction between whole animals and plants and their parts and derivatives. It sensibly recognises that only some of the parts and derivatives can be identified without detailed expert examination and, in many cases, laboratory analysis.
Even if this Amendment were restricted to the items specified in Schedule 3, it would prevent advertising of many things for which licences for commercial trade will still be readily available. An essential difference between this Amendment and the others we have already debated about sales of controlled species and items is that it is directed not only against anyone who promotes by any form of advertisement any part or product of a Schedule I animal or the whole or part of a Schedule 3 item, but also against anyone who so advertises when the subject of advertisement is not as represented. The latter is, I suggest, a matter best dealt with under the Trade Description Acts. I urge the noble Lords to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONESI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 2 [Scientific authorities]:
9.37 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
(" (1A) Without prejudice to his power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable after this subsection comes into operation,—

(a) establish at least one body under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, or

(b) assign to at least one body, under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the duty referred to in subsection (3) below.")

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment will make it mandatory on the Secretary of State to have at least one Scientific Authority to advise him. The Bill as drafted gives him permissive powers both to establish new bodies and to assign the duties concerned to existing bodies. However, the Convention requires that each party State must designate one or more scientific authorities and there would seem to be an advantage in reflecting this requirement in the Bill.
If the Amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State will still be empowered to have more than one scientific authority and to choose, for each authority, whether to establish a new body or to assign the duty to an existing body. Provided that at least one authority is formed, either or both methods can be used. The Secretary of State has already appointed three bodies to act as Scientific Authorities: the Nature Conservancy Council; the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as Scientific Authority for Plants; and a newly established Scientific Authority for Animals. It is his intention to "designate" these bodies formally after the Bill becomes law. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTONThe noble Baroness said that she was proposing to designate scientific bodies. Would she think, before that is finally decided, whether such scientific bodies should not be specifically referred to in the Bill or in a Schedule that the Minister has power to amend? I am not sure that it is acceptable simply to designate, without putting them in the Bill, the scientific bodies to which she referred.
The EARL of CRANBROOKWhen
496
answering my noble friend, perhaps the noble Baroness can consider this point also. I think it is wise to appoint the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. They will be essential as advisers on the importation of plants. Surely the Natural History Museum is as essential in advising on the importation of wild animals and, to a considerable extent, on plants as well; because the two divide up the world between them. One takes one half, as it were, and the other takes the other half. Can the noble Baroness tell us why she mentions only Kew and no specific authority for animals?
Baroness STEDMANI think the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has probably established my case for saying that we shall have scientific bodies but not designate them. A future Secretary of State may have other ideas about which bodies he wants. We have at this point of time, because they were doing certain jobs in Government fields before, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Botanic Gardens at Kew and the Scientific Authority for Animals. The Natural History Museum is not named as such, but I understand we make tremendous use of their staff and resources. They give us a lot of scientific help. I am sure they will continue to do so in the future. It may be unwise to name these specific bodies when we might, in the light of how the Bill works, want to alter, extend, or add to them in the future. We should be tied if we had them named in the Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI am only concerned that the noble Baroness mentioned two bodies, one which—as a zoologist—I think is more important than the lowly botonists.
Lord CRAIGTONI agree with what the noble Baroness says. These scientific bodies, such as the Natural History Museum, may require exemption from the Bill and so it is in effect giving exemption from the Bill to a body which is out-with the Bill and in the power of the Minister. I ask her to look at this. I will accept her decision but it is an important point.
Baroness STEDMANI follow the noble Earl's argument. We will reconsider the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("endangered") and insert (", or to be likely to become, endangered as a result of international trade,")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment will make it clear that the scientific authorities can give advice in respect of species which are likely to become endangered. Subsection (3)(b) as drafted gives a scientific authority power to advise generally on species which they consider to be endangered. But the aim of the Convention is to protect not only those species which are already endangered but also those which may become so as a result of international trade. The Amendment thus brings the Bill into line with the Convention. I beg to move.
Lord CHELWOODI would ask the noble Baroness whether she is entirely satisfied that the words "as a result of international trade" achieve their object. It seems to me their effect is to reduce rather than increase the power of the Secretary of State when a species is endangered and perhaps put him in a position of not being able to take action until the damage has been done. Perhaps I have misread the Amendment. I should like to ask whether the word "likely" refers to "endangered" or to the likelihood of international trade. We all know that quite minor transactions can endanger a rare species. Therefore it is essential to be able to anticipate trade in the species concerned, and not merely to take action to restrict or prevent imports after the damage has been done. Are the words "as a result of" and those immediately following them really necessary, or was the Bill better drafted previously? Did the Bill as drafted previously give the Secretary of State the wide scope which he ought to have to deal with the restrictions that are necessary?
In any case, international trade, as we all know, is only one of the factors that endangers rare animals or plants, though it is an important one which can sometimes be decisive in actually making extinct a plant or animal. An equally important threat arises, for example, through natural or man-made changes in a habitat. I feel that the Amendment is unnecessarily restrictive, albeit, I am sure, unintentionally.
498
All I am really asking is for the noble Baroness to be good enough to look at this again between now and the Report stage. I am no lawyer and I may have misunderstood the implication of these words. However, I think that the Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State the right to control animals and plants because they were endangered or because dangers were on the increase, and he could do so for any reason without any special emphasis being put upon international trade, which I fully accept is one of the ways in which difficulties can be produced.
Baroness STEDMANWe are advised that this Amendment is correct and is an improvement on the original drafting. Our scientific authorities will have the task of monitoring what is happening to all these species, and it will be for them to advise us, when we know the result of the imports and exports of the species, which ones are not only endangered but which are likely to become endangered because there is the trading in them. I think it is important that we leave this Amendment as it is.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN: moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
(" ) In so far as it does not have power to do so apart from this subsection, any scientific authority may publish reports relating to the performance by it of its duty under subsection (3) above.
( ) Before appointing a person to be a member of a scientific authority established under subsection (1) (a) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies, or persons and bodies, as he thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would introduce two new subsections into the Bill. It might be convenient if I were to describe them separately. Subsection (3) (a) would give a scientific authority power to publish reports about the performance of its functions under this Bill. Under the Convention, the Department of the Environment, as principal management authority for the United Kingdom, is required to send periodic reports to the international Secretariat about the United Kingdom's implementation of the Convention and to publish the reports in this country. However, the activities of the scientific authorities themselves may also be of public interest and it seems reasonable to empower them,

499
if they wish, to publish independent reports of their activities. Of the three scientific authorities that have been established, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, already have powers of their own to publish reports. But it is necessary to provide a specific power of publication for the scientific authority for Animals, which is to be a specially appointed body, and for any other body that might be established or designated in future under Clause 2 which did not otherwise have such a power.
Subsection (3) (b) would require the Secretary of State, before making appointments to a scientific authority established under subsection (1) (a), to consult such other persons or bodies as he thinks fit. Clearly, consultations with appropriate scientific bodies is desirable in this specialised field and, before the members of the Scientific Authority for Animals were appointed, the Secretary of State did consult widely in order to ensure that the new body should be representative of a wide range of expert knowledge. The Secretary of State fully intends to continue this practice with later appointments to this or any other specially established scientific authority, and the Government are prepared to see this requirement written into the legislation.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI think this is an exceedingly important Amendment, because it is of fundamental importance that where the Minister disagrees with a scientific authority the public should be informed, and indeed everybody concerned should be informed, of the fact that the Minister has disagreed with them. In this way, those concerned may take what action is possible for them in order to try to persuade him to do better in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to modify Schedules 1 to 3]:
9.50 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
500
("(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting any scientific authority or authorities, by order make such modifications in any of the Schedules to this Act as he considers necessary or desirable for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) to give effect to any amendment to the Convention made in pursuance of its provisions;

(b) to give effect to the inclusion of anything in or the withdrawal of anything from Appendix III to the Convention (kinds of animals and plants the trade in which a party identifies as needing international control) at the instance of any party to the Convention;

(c) to promote the conservation of animals or plants of any kind which appears to the Secretary of State to be, or to be likely to become, endangered as a result of international trade;

(d) to remove any restriction which is for the time being imposed by virtue of this Act on the importation and exportation of animals or plants of any particular kind or of any particular items and which does not in the opinion of the Secretary of State promote such conservation as is referred to in paragraph (c) above.")

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment recasts the whole of the subsection, to clarify it and to ensure that it embraces all the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may need to amend the Schedules. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State power to modify the Schedules by order after consultation with the scientific authorities. He can make additions if it appears to him that a species has newly become endangered or that the danger has increased. Conversely, he may make deletions if he considers that a species is no longer in danger or that the danger has decreased. But there are other circumstances in which changes may be needed.
Paragraph (a) of the Amendment will permit additions to or deletions from the Schedules to reflect any amendment to Appendices I and II of the Convention; for example, to include species added to the Convention Appendices by Conferences of the Parties, the first of which is to be held in November of this year. The United Kingdom, as a party State, will be obliged to implement controls on such species unless it enters a formal reservation. Similarly, paragraph (b) will permit Schedule alterations to reflect changes to the Convention's Appendix III. This Appendix differs from the others in that species are placed on it by unilateral action on the part of one

501
State, not by international agreement; although, again, there is provision for any country to enter a reservation.
Paragraph (c) would permit other additions to the Schedules in the interests of conservation of endangered species. A scientific authority might recommend the control of a species not as yet covered by the Convention, because they considered that it was none the less threatened by international trade or was likely to become so. It might also be desirable to control a non-Convention species because, although not itself endangered, it was not easily distinguishable from one already controlled. There would be no intention to restrict trade in such a species in practice but, by subjecting it to licence, the enforcement problems faced by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would be lessened and evasion of the controls would become less likely. This principle has already been adopted to some degree under existing controls; for example, licences are required for furs of all the spotted cats, including those not listed on the Convention, because they form a readily recognisable group. The wording of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) all allows species to be added in the interests of enforcement. I beg to move.
Lord CRAIGTONI would ask the noble Baroness once again to look to see whether this clause enables her to enact reverse listing, because in paragraph (c), for which I am very grateful and thank her, she promotes the conservation of animals likely to become endangered. But, as I said in moving Amendment No. l, there are many animals which she does not even know exist at this moment. So I should like her to look at the wording to be sure that it is all right.
Baroness STEDMANI am advised that the paragraphs in the Amendment have been drawn up in such a way as to facilitate reverse listing in the Schedules, as we discussed on Amendment No. 1.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONClause 3, as now amended, gives the Minister greater control over international
502
and transit trade in endangered species. Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund and many other conservationists would like an assurance from the Government that the Customs and Excise will fulfill their duties in controlling international trade in scheduled species. They argue that there have been cases when Customs and Excise have not used their authority to control this trade. Underlying the Bill now before us, and the Convention that it seeks to implement, is the increasing rate of disappearance of animals and plants in the wild, whether from habitat destruction, pollution, taking live for zoos or pets or taking for their products. A significant part of this taking, and indeed of the destruction of habitat, occurs because of international trade. Not only was the orang-utang depleted in the wild by excessive collecting for zoos, but now that it is more scrupulously protected from that threat it is endangered by destruction of its habitat for wood to be sold abroad by, for example, Indonesia for foreign currency earnings.
It is recognised that the first duty of this country is to restrict its own import, export and trade in endangered species and their products. But just as it would be ridiculous to continue to ignore the loopholes created by allowing in large quantities of manufactured products, so it would be unthinkable that we should allow rare animals to pass through areas of United Kingdom jurisdiction if their export had not been sanctioned by the country of origin and their import by the country of destination. It would equally be wrong not to take whatever steps might be deemed to be necessary if the animals passing through came from and were going to non-signatory countries.
No problem exists in law, which is why I have not tabled an Amendment on this subject. The Customs and Excise Act quite clearly bestows powers to control animals or any other goods in transit. It places no obligation on Customs to do so, however, and they have stated in relation to this Bill that they do not intend to take action, even if informed of the consignment and the need to prevent its passage. Thus, if the last pair of clouded leopards in this world were known to be on their way from India to a non-ratifying country, or to a country that had ratified but with forged documents, we understand that our

503
Government would not be prepared to act. Or if those self-same animals were passing through but were labelled as being ocelots (which are at present on Appendix II of the Convention and thus allowed for trade) and Customs were informed, we also understand that they would not act. To show that this is not imaginary, may I quote the fact that on 3rd February, 10th February and 30th March of this year three consignments of lugger falcons, which are on Appendix II, passed through Heathrow on their way from India to Frankfurt, labelled as being ravens.
I am raising this issue to seek a statement from the Minister that Customs will act, at the very least when informed by reliable sources, to control abuses of this kind. We are told that a very large percentage of international trade in animals passes through Britain's ports and airports. Thus, the consequences of our controlling this trade would be of considerable benefit to conservation. The Minister may feel, however, that she may not give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
However, I quote from a recent Question in another place, which asked under what circumstances the Customs and Excise waive the powers vested in them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952 to stop the import and export of rare animals. The reply was as follows:
"In exercising such discretion as the powers vested in them by the Customs and Excise Act 1952 allow, the Customs and Excise take account of individual cases and of the policy adopted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of his responsibility for the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species."
Objections to controlling transit have been raised also on the grounds that it is not practicable. But there is a case here—namely, that certain rare animals in transit will be travelling through our country perfectly legitimately, and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention—and it is claimed that if the documents are travelling with the animals to show that all is well, such documents will be susceptible to forgery. However, this is already an established practice. tinder the Diseases of Animals Acts—for instance, the Equine Animals Importation Order of 1973—papers must travel with the animals, and
504
even if the animal is diverted, say by fog, to some other airport, it is not allowed to land unless it has the necessary papers. Also we understand that several other countries require that papers travel with the animals. As to forgery, that is not an argument sufficiently strong in itself to invalidate the proposal.
It is not intended that Customs should be asked to board aircraft which have touched down merely for refuelling—at least not at present. What is very badly needed is that transhipment should be controlled when necessary, and it is worth pointing out to this Committee that the first EEC Government to ratify this Convention, the Federal Republic of Germany, has stated in its legislation that it will cover transhipment. If two developed countries are prepared to take this step, then others may surely follow. We should always seek to give a lead. It may be objected that the EEC would not agree to control of transit by individual countries, but as I have said, West Germany has done so. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, pointed out at the Second Reading of the Bill, Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome specifically allows member countries to control import, export or transit for reasons such as those embodied in the Convention.
Many of the developing countries are quite unable to control poaching, smuggling and straight corruption, and will remain in this situation for some years. In the Serengeti National Park in 1975 some 2,700 animals were poached, compared with only 960 the year before, according to the Director of Tanzania National Parks. The tighter the controls become, the greater will be the incentives to break them. The scandal of corruption in other African countries, particularly as regards ivory, has recently been aired in the Press. Many developing countries would probably acknowledge freely the impossibility of avoiding smuggling or the issuing of forged export documents. Action on the part of developed countries is going to be the major contributor to conservation. While control of transit will not affect those animals exported with forged documents, it will affect those animals exported as being something else and those coming from the non-Convention countries, whether directly

505
or having been smuggled out of the Convention countries. I apologise for that rather long statement, but I think it was worthwhile getting it on the record in order to obtain the answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
Baroness STEDMANI am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice that he was going to raise this point. I have been able to have some rather hurried consultations about it and there has evidently been some misunderstanding. It has been stated that transhipments will not be subject to the normal restrictions; they will not require licences. The Convention specifically exempts transhipments from licensing controls. They would not be practicable since the export and import permits provided for in the Convention would not normally be available at places where transhipments occur. Nor would there usually be anyone in this country responsible for the transaction, except as carrier. To impose transhipment controls generally would simply cause delay in transport, with consequent distress to the animals, and incidentally would divert transhipments from this country to other countries. But we have never said that action would not be taken in any circumstances.
There is no doubt that Customs have a legal power to take action in the case of transhipments. If reliable information were received that a particular consignment had been exported in contravention of the Convention, and this information were given in sufficient time, then Customs, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, would act accordingly. So far as the legislation in West Germany is concerned, we have not had time to check on that and to find out what the position is, but certainly so far as the transit and the taking of proceedings is concerned, that is the position in this country.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I think everyone will be made much happier by her answer.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
10.4 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
"Restriction of importation and exportation to specified ports

—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the importation or exportation of any kind of live (or dead) animal shall, in any or specified circumstances, be prohibited, unless landed or despatched at one of the ports as specified in the order.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.

(3) A person in breach of an order made under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400, and the animal shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952.".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides the Secretary of State with the power, but not the obligation, to restrict the sea or air ports through which species under this Bill may be imported. This Amendment would make it possible to concentrate the expertise of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in matters relating to this Bill, thereby minimising the possibility of smuggling. It would also make it easier for Department of the Environment appointed experts to be made available to resolve cases of doubt on identification before delay, suffering or death is involved. It also has the advantage that animals entering through these ports are properly cared for, thereby minimising the risk of death to rare species. This is particularly true where these ports coincide with those currently designated under the Rabies Act for mammals and the Captive Birds (Importation) Order 1976, where facilities for animal welfare are expected to be constructed. Such considerations have obviously weighed on other Departments in restricting ports under the two pieces of legislation mentioned above. Therefore most species imported are, or will be, controlled in this way and it seems ridiculous to except other species. Supporting evidence for the usefulness of these permissive powers is also given by the fact that again the German Government—the first EEC country, as I have said, to ratify this Convention—has already taken powers of this nature.
I would point out that under the second of the three subsections in this Amendment the order would be subject to Statutory Instrument, which could be altered, varied or revoked by any subsequent order. The initial suggestion in the minds of my friends and experts who were advising on this subject was that something like nine seaports and eight airports would probably meet the case.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment is evidently intended to give the Secretary of State power to restrict ports of entry or exit for any kind of live or dead animal. It has been suggested that restriction on ports would enable Customs to build up skills and expertise in identification in certain places. United Kingdom Customs officers are generalists who work by following general guidelines and by calling in expert advice when they require it. The volume of trade is not such as to justify resident experts in each of the many specialisms with which we are concerned. If experts can be called upon, there is no advantage in restricting ports. Indeed, there could he positive disadvantages. There is the danger that restricting ports might encourage attempts at evasion. Unscrupulous importers might attempt to import controlled species at ports not designated to receive them and then mis-describe them in the hope that the Customs staff, unfamiliar with such imports, would not detect the attempted evasion.
It has also been argued that for live animals only, ports should be restricted on welfare grounds. It is true that reception centres for this purpose may he available in due course at the busier ports, but there is the need to ensure that animals spend the minimum possible time on the journey. This seems best achieved by using ports nearest to the eventual destination and by flexible arrangements when aeroplanes are diverted because of adverse weather conditions. For live animals, if the welfare argument has any force at all, the restrictions should apply to all animals. In our view, to restrict ports would impose a substantial impediment to trade and, if anything, would tend
508
to weaken the arrangements for enforcing these controls without really achieving any worthwhile benefit. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already restrict ports of entry on health grounds, for all live mammals and for birds, and have laid down conditions on welfare grounds for the import and export of live animals under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973. Therefore, it does not seem to the Government necessary or desirable to make any extra provisions in this Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOKI find that a most profoundly disappointing reply, and if it were possible to divide the Committee on it at this moment, I would be very much inclined so to do. It seems to me that this is one of the things which all of us concerned with the importation of animals have been wanting for a very long time indeed, partly because we know that it is extremely difficult for a Customs officer to identify animals which should not be imported. I readily admit, however, that now that the noble Baroness, I.ady Stedman, has accepted the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton, that difficulty will be largely obviated, because we know that if there is an importation of an animal which is difficult to recognise, the Customs officer will know ahead that this animal is likely to come in and will be able to get an expert there to advise him.
The fundamentally important thing is that the importation of all live animals should be restr icted to ports where there are reception centres available to receive them. It is quite ridiculous to allow an animal to come in and possibly to die because, for some reason or another, it is not collected, or because there is no reception centre available. The only really effective reception centre available at the moment for every kind of species of wild animal is the RSPCA centre at Heathrow, which does immensely good work. There should be a similar centre at every place where exotic animals are brought in. I can see no reason why the importation of wild animals should not be restricted to places where there are reception centres.

509
It is the thinnest possible excuse—if the noble Baroness will excuse my putting it like that—to say that the place of importation should be near the ultimate destination. The ultimate destination is going to be all over the countryside. We know that already a very large proportion of the smaller wild animals imported comes in at Heathrow, and those that come in by ship come in very largely at Southampton, where there certainly used to be quite a good reception centre organised privately, locally. I hope the noble Baroness will think again, and will think again after consulting a number of the societies concerned not only with the welfare of animals but with the general risks Sattending the importation of real wild animals. I hope the noble Lord will put this Amendment down at the next stage of this Bill, if he feels bound to withdraw it tonight. I would always be perfectly ready to divide the Committee if it was my Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTONThis may be the first occasion on this Bill on which the noble Baroness, taking over the whole Bill for the Department of the Environment, has not really got together with the other ten Ministries, I believe, who previously handled this subject. I was told by one of the eleven Ministries to which I wrote about it that there was no proper accommodation except at very few of the ports of entry, that there was not enough money to pay for proper accommodation, and that the same applied to proper veterinary services. They would try to better the situation, but it was going to take a long time because of the difficulties. This is not a frivolous idea at all. If the noble Baroness gets together with the other Ministries, she may find that there are several Departments of the Government who would like to see the ports restricted. While she is doing that, would she remember that if action is taken on this Amendment, or something like it, for example, the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge have to import flamingoes from Scandinavia to Bristol, because they cannot travel for very long, so there must be exceptions permitted by the Minister if the number of ports is restricted.
Lord de CLIFFORDI join my noble friends in supporting this Amendment.
510
I am afraid I cannot see the noble Baroness's argument very clearly. The importation of these animals to a limited number of ports must enable us, in the present economic circumstances, to produce the best conditions in which to import them. I am afraid that if noble Lords wish to divide the Committee I shall be with them.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI think the noble Baroness will have taken the message of the Committee. It has been one of the occasional pieces of legislation on which the Committee would probably have been nearly unanimous. I think there is more to be said on this. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, probably hit it on the head when he said the Department of the Environment in this case were probably acting on their own without full consultation with the other Departments concerned. There are arguments I should like to put to refute those of the noble Baroness, but bearing in mind the time I will reserve that right for Report stage, when I can assure her we shall be pressing this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMANI am grateful to noble Lords opposite. I told your Lordships earlier that I was open to be very co-operative where I was asked to do so and where possible. I think we might have another look at it and perhaps consult with the noble Lord. We might perhaps be able to restrict the ports for live animals. It is the dead animals and the derivatives which raise problems. We might be able to have some sort of permissive power to restrict ports in respect of the live animals. If the noble Lord would like to have consultations with us between now and Report stage we might be able to do something.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Restriction of movement of certain live animals after importation]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("such premises as may be specified in the direction") and insert ("the specified premises").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to talk to Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 41. These four Amendments, taken together, give the Secretary of State power to specify, at any time after import, the premises at which a live animal should be kept. Under subsection (1), as drafted, the Secretary of State may make a direction specifying the premises to which a live animal imported under licence shall be taken. The animal must then remain at those premises until the Secretary of State gives permission for it to be moved. However, once such permission has been given, the Secretary of State's control over the animal's movements ceases. The Amendments provide that the Secretary of State may specify the premises either by a direction under Clause 4(1) at the time of import or subsequently. Thus all the movements of an animal for which a direction had been given could be subject to the Secretary of State's permission. The penalties already provided for would continue to apply to offences in connection with the possession, movement or retention of the animal.
There will probably not be many cases in which this power will be needed. Normally it will be sufficient to specify the initial premises by direction. A situation might arise, however, where for example a zoo closed or it came to the notice of the Secretary of State that an animal was not being properly cared for, in which it would be desirable for the Secretary of State to have power to direct that the animal should be moved to some other premises. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.17 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall keep available, for public inspection at all reasonable times, a register of directions given under subsection (1) above.".
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment No. 44, which merely complements this Amendment. This Amendment is to allow conservation organisations to monitor the traffic in animals. At present most prosecutions are brought about by notifications by independent bodies. The directions referred to in the first Amendment are as to where the animals may be moved to, and are relevant to, say, a safari park owner who wishes to put one of his animals into a circus which he also owns, or somebody who wishes to import young animals to run with older animals of the same species in order to make it look as though he is successful in breeding that species. The latter example is not hypothetical. Such things do happen, though it would be difficult and possibly out of the question for us to supply the names of the persons involved. It is a fairly simple Amendment but it is not unimportant. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to make publicly available the information given in directions under Clause 4(1). It has a bearing on Amendment No. 25A which was withdrawn earlier this evening. My officials will of course be keeping a register of directions to enable them to keep track of imported live animals and to ensure that they are not moved without permission. But we cannot see any purpose in allowing the public to inspect the register. Moreover, the register will contain information about importers' names and addresses; it would be an invasion of privacy to reveal them.
If members of the public see in a zoo, or elsewhere, an animal of a species which is normally banned, it would be most helpful if they would report the matter to my Department. We could use the register and other information to check whether the animal was likely to be an illegal import, and if so we would ask Customs to take appropriate action. I hope that this assurance might persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONI do not accept that this Amendment is in parallel with Amendment No. 25A, which had all sorts of implications in the commercial field. Live animals will hardly be a commercial proposition, except from the point of view of advertising them to the public, which will be helping rather than hindering, so I do not think that there is the same objection in principle, However, the hour is late and I will look at what the noble Baroness has said and consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("premises specified in the direction") and insert ("specified premises").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 35. I therefore move it formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.21 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 26, leave out second ("or").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 40 because No. 38 is a paving Amendment to it. The two Amendments together would create a new offence of knowingly retaining an animal at premises which are not those specified. Subsection (2) as drafted makes it an offence to take an animal to premises other than those specified or to move it from specified premises; but it would not be an offence to continue to keep it at premises other than those specified. This means that someone could be fined for moving an animal to unsatisfactory premises, but could not then be forced to return it to the specified premises. Some of the animals involved will be extremely valuable and an initial fine for
514
disobeying a direction might be an inadequate deterrent. It could also happen that one person was responsible for moving the animal while another was responsible for its retention, and the Amendment, by creating a separate offence, would cover both cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("premises specified in the direction") and insert ("specified premises").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 30, at end insert ("or
(c) knowingly retains it, at premises occupied by him, at a time when he knows that those premises are not at that time the specified premises,").
The noble Baroness said: I have also spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
"(2A) In this section "the specified premises" means, in relation to an animal, such premises as are for the time being specified in relation to that animal by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section (whether in a direction under subsection (1) above or otherwise)."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Citation, interpretation, repeals, extent, etc.]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 17, after ("(2)") insert (", (2A)").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is simply consequential upon Amendment No. 6 and applies the latter to Northern Ireland. It places an additional duty on the Secretary of State as Management Authority. Clause 8(2) specifies references in the Bill to the Secretary of State which need to be read as references to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, as Management Authority for Northern Ireland, where appropriate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 46, with which it needs to be taken. The two Amendments will bring the Act into operation six months after Royal Assent if the Secretary of State has not brought it into operation by order on an earlier date. When the Bill was drafted the date of operation was left to be appointed by order, because it was then thought that some time might be needed to make all the necessary administrative arrangements. However, the controls were substantially introduced on 1st January of this year and six months would now appear ample time in which to make the necessary administrative changes to exercise the controls under the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
(" (5A) Any provision of this Act not previously brought into operation, or not previously brought into operation for a particular purpose, shall come into operation or, as the case may be, shall come into operation for that purpose on the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.").
Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord de CLIFFORD Lord de CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is hereby repealed to the extent that it gives powers to suspend the whole or any part of this Act, or to exercise controls over anything for the time being mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak very briefly. The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 was used in January to suspend the Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act. Your Lordships' House has had this Bill before it on many occasions and has discussed it thoroughly. I am merely asking the Committee whether it agrees that the threat of this Import, Export and Customs Powers Act, which was brought in in 1939 as a wartime measure, should not apply to this Bill any further and that any alterations which might have to be made to the present Bill should not be made under it but should be brought before Parliament so that Parliament can discuss them. At the moment alterations can be brought in solely at the whim of the Secretary of State.
Baroness STEDMANThis Amendment would have the effect of disapplying the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 in so far as the present Bill is concerned. I must urge the House in the strongest terms not to adopt this Amendment. The 1939 Act was an emergency measure which gave the United Kingdom Government wide powers to restrict imports and exports of any kind. In the Government's view, it is most desirable to leave the Act undisturbed, so that it is available in the event of any future unforeseen emergency.
I presume that the fear underlying this Amendment is that a future Government might use the 1939 Act powers to suspend, or modify disadvantageously, the measures we are now considering. But I sincerely hope your Lordships will agree that this denotes an excessive suspicion of Government. It is true that we used the 1939 Act powers to introduce most of the controls embodied in this Bill from 1st January last. But this was a positive

517
act to enable us to honour the international Convention which our predecessors had signed in 1973. It was an interim step made necessary by the pressure on the Parliamentary timetable. It was one which we felt confident would have, so far as it went, the full support of this House in view of our earlier debates on the Bills on the subject brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones.
I do not really understand the dark suspicion that seems to underlie this Amendment. In any case, once we have ratified the Convention—which we have undertaken to do in time for the United Kingdom to be represented at the Conference of the parties this November—we and any future Government will be bound by its terms. I do hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, will accept my assurance that we fully intend to implement these controls effectively and that he will withdraw this Amendment.
10.35 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORDI am fascinated that the noble Baroness thinks that I have suspicions of the Government's actions at all. I am suspicious of all of them, including those of my noble friends at times. I am afraid that part of the argument does not convince me, but I am prepared to accept what the noble Baroness says, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Animals the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord CHELWOODI wish to take this opportunity to say a brief word on Schedule 1 to the Bill, as I did not have an opportunity to do so at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill. I wish to say how immensely pleasing it was that the noble Baroness agreed to the reverse
518
listing proposed by my noble friend. I am sure that this is an excellent concept, because it allows the monitoring of all rare species and concentrates trade on the common or commoner species.
I felt that my noble friend's list of domestic and other animals—the common ones—was unnecessarily restricted. I should like to give two brief examples of what I mean. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the list must be a reasonable compromise between what I call sensible conservation and the legitimate activities of the trade, however much some of us may deplore some of their activities. The first example is that of love birds. I hate to see birds in a cage, but 12,000 were imported in four years through the RSPCA hostel alone. These figures are taken from All Heaven in a Rage, the publication of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Sad though it is, they are very commonly seen in cages. What about, for example, racing pigeons or domestic pigeons? I am sure that it would not be the intention of the Government or of my noble friend to prevent the import of common birds, such as I have just mentioned, and that a very careful look will be taken at the list of common animals—I am not talking now about plants—so as to strike exactly the right kind of compromise. I should like to say how enormously welcome is the attitude the Government have taken to the suggestion for reverse listing.
Baroness STEDMANI am sure that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in reversing the Schedule to debar us from having love birds or pigeons.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Items the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
10.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
" . Yarn made wholly or partly of hair of any animal of the species Vicugna vicugna.

519
Fabric made wholly or partly of hair of any animal of the species Vicugna vicugna.".
The noble Baroness said: This gives me the chance for an almost final fling to show how co-operative I am. This Amendment will extend the existing controls on hair of the vicugna to the yarn and fabric made from it. Noble Lords will probably recall from our discussion on Second Reading that the main threat to this animal is the demand for its hair to be made into cloth. Peru have banned all exports of vicugna products with the intention of conserving the species. The Government have recognised for some time that there is a strong case for prohibiting commercial trade in vicugna yarn and fabric, as well as the hair, but have been hampered by the difficulty of distinguishing it from other fabric. We are now satisfied that the recognition problem is not insuperable and that these controls can be enforced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
In the Preamble:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 67:
Line 2, after ("Flora") insert (" (in this Act referred to as the Convention) ").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 together because these are simple tidying up provisions to avoid the need to repeat the full title of the Convention where references are made to it in the body of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 68:
Line 9, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
In the Long Title:
Lord CHELWOOD Lord CHELWOOD moved Amendment No. 69:
Line 2, after ("items") insert ("and trade in them").
The noble Lord said: Although the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is not here, I believe I am allowed to move this Amendment on his behalf. I do so simply in order to give the Government an opportunity to express a view about it. All I have to say is that it would of course be necessary to alter the Long Title if in fact, as many of us hope—and this view has been expressed on both sides of the Committee—Her Majesty's Government find it possible to set up some sort of second line of defence, as I have called it; that is to say, at the outlet, rather than only at the ports. This would be consequential upon the acceptance of any Amendment which did that in any way. I therefore beg to move this Amendment formally.
Baroness STEDMANI referred to this when speaking to Amendment No. 42. I should like to remind your Lordships again that the Bill which the Government have introduced is intended primarily to operate the import and export controls required by the Convention, and we think it most undesirable to extend its scope to the control of trade within the country. It is unnecessary for the objective which noble Lords have in mind, and I would hope that the Amendment would not be pressed.
Lord CHELWOODI beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Long Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL (Petition for Bill)
Examiners Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; the Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
WRITTEN ANSWERS

  REEF TARGET AND INTERVENTION BUYING-IN PRICE
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the beef intervention buying-in price of £26 ·76 is to be constant throughout the 1976–77 livestock year and if not with what notice and by whom any alteration will be made.
  Lord STRABOLGIThe price of £26 ·76 per cwt. is an average of the buying-in prices for seven categories of animals which were fixed for the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 1976–77 marketing year. Given the rate of the green pound the buying-in prices can be altered either by a change in the coefficients used to derive buying-in prices for individual categories of cattle from the intervention price; or by suspending the buying of one or more categories. Such changes may be brought into effect at short notice in order to avoid disturbing the market. Decisions on these matters have to be settled within the EEC framework. The Government have recently announced that buying of steers (M) is to be suspended in Great Britain from 3rd May for a temporary period. While this measure remains in effect the average of buying-in prices is reduced from £26 ·76 to £26 ·43 per cwt.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, should there be a revaluation of the green pound, the beef target and beef intervention buying-in price
  522
  would be raised by the full amount of any alteration with effect from the revaluation date.
  Lord STRABOLGIThere are currently no proposals for a change in the green pound. If such a change were at any time to occur the Government would consider the possible implications for the present level of target and buying-in prices for beef. Account would need to be taken of the beef market situation, the balance within beef support arrangements between premiums and intervention and other important factors.

  ACCUMULATED DEBT SERVICE AND INFLATION RATE
  Lord BARNBY Lord BARNBY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What the £6,461 million estimate for Accumulated Debt Service (Budget Report 1976–77, page 15) represents per capita per annum; and what is the authoritative rate of inflation recorded during the last Budget period.
  Lord JACQUESThe forecast of public sector debt interest in 1976–77 of £6,461 million shown in the Financial Statement and Budget Report represents about £115 per head of home population. The retail price index for April 1976 is not yet available. The increase in the RPI between March 1975 and March 1976 was 21 ·2 per cent.

  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will specify the difficulties raised for Britain by ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import and export of cultural property.
  Lord GORON WY-ROBERTSMHer Majesty's Government would find difficulty in carrying into legislative and practical effect those provisions in the Convention concerning import control and related measures. There is no provision in the laws of the United Kingdom for proceedings to be taken against persons

  523
  suspected of having infringed the export controls of other countries, unless there are grounds for believing that a particular object is stolen property or that the law of the United Kingdom has been otherwise broken. The Convention calls for the implementation of measures to supplement the export controls of other countries. The difficulty would be to distinguish at the point of importation those goods which have infringed the laws or export controls of other countries.

  LIBRARY SERVICES
  Lord CHAMPION asked the Leader of the House:
  What proposals he has for a review of the House of Lords Library services.
  Lord SHEPHERDAs I outlined to the Offices Committee on 30th March, I am setting up a small Working Group under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to report to me with the following terms of reference:
  524
  "To review the future of the House of Lords Library and to consider the needs of—

  (a) all Members of the House for a general reference library and information service; and

  (b) the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chancellor's Office for a specialized library.".

  After consultation with the Chairman, I have invited the following to be members of the Group and I am pleased to say that they have agreed to serve:

  V. Eccles

  V. Norwich

  Bp. Rochester

  L. Ashby

  L. Darling of Hillsborough

  Bns. Elles

  Bns. White

  L. Wilberforce

  with the Principal Clerk, Information Services.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.