Lords Sitting of 2 February 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Temporary Short-Time Working Compensation
The Earl of Shannon: 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 it would not be more nationally beneficial if employers, who currently receive funds partially to compensate them for their employees' working short time, could receive similar assistance when their employees are attending approved training courses instead of only when they are sitting at home.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): No, my Lords. Most training is, in effect, an extension of employment and we could not accept that workers being trained at their employer's expense were genuinely on short-time working. It follows that no compensation could be payable under the Temporary Short Time Working Compensation Scheme on days on which workers are being trained. An exception can be made in the case of English language courses run by the Industrial Training Unit, provided that these courses are not held on the employer's premises.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does it not sound rather unreasonable that money should be made available for workers only while they are staying at home? If they are being trained for the future benefit of our industry, should not the same money be made available?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that it sounds unreasonable until one considers that because the Government, in effect, are paying the employee's wages, it would give the employer in question an unfair advantage over employers not benefiting under the scheme. I would point out to the noble Earl that there is nothing to prevent the worker seeking training under a Government training scheme while he is off work.

Burglaries: Prosecutions and Convictions
2.38 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 how many burglaries and housebreakings were reported in the Greater London area during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; how many of these have resulted in convictions of one or more of the people concerned; and in how many cases are prosecutions pending.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the latest year for which all the relevant information is available is 1979. In that year in the Metropolitan Police District about 118,000 offences of burglary were recorded by the police; it is not known how many of these offences resulted in convictions but in the same year the number of persons found guilty of burglary in the Metropolitan Police District was about 8,700. Information is not collected centrally on the number of cases in which a prosecution is pending. There is no separate offence of housebreaking.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the enormous disparity between the number of these offences and the number of convictions for them over the same period indicates that perhaps more police effort needs to be concentrated on the protection of the home and property of the citizen than is done at present?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that there is a double responsibility. There is—this is a matter for the chief officer of police of the area—the question of the police responsibility, and in this connection I know that the Commissioner is anxious to take steps, and is taking steps, that will result in more officers being released from administrative duties. This policy, combined with the increase in the strength of the Metropolitan Police that has taken place, means that there will be more policemen on the streets preventing crime. The other responsibility is a responsibility of members of the general public to make houses more difficult to break into.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, why are the Government surprised that there is more robbery on the streets when so many people are unemployed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not aware that there is a direct connection between the two. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to draw the connection to my attention.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the suggestion made by the noble Baroness a very grave slander on the unemployed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at the present time I do not think that we should pursue this.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are any figures available for the detection rate in respect of these crimes? Of course, such figures would not, unhappily, always coincide with the conviction rate, which is rather a different matter. But if information is available about the detection rate, am I right in

907
thinking that, broadly speaking, the percentage of detection has kept pretty well in line with the percentage increase in crime? If that is so, we may be reasonably reassured about the efforts of the police.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I did not give the clear-up rate, as we call it, to my noble friend in reply because my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the number of convictions and, as the noble and learned Lord says, the clear-up rate does not, of course, always equate with that. But, broadly speaking, what has happened is that, taking the 10 years 1969 to 1979, the number of offences committed has increased enormously, from 77,000 to some 118,000. Therefore, the clear-up rate has declined from some 18 per cent. in 1969 to some 12 per cent. in 1979. However, I would just add that over the last five years, 1975 to 1979 inclusive, the number of convictions secured has averaged about 8,900, which is very much in line with the figure which I gave to my noble friend in my first reply.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to say how many crimes are committed by persons who are already on bail awaiting trial?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, not without notice. However, if the noble Lord would care to have a word with me about this, I shall see whether I can help him.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many of these offences were committed by children?
Lord Belstead: Again, my Lords, not without notice.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what is meant by the "clear-up rate"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the clear-up rate indicates to what extent offences are finally cleared up. That does not always mean securing a conviction.

Nuclear Missiles: Siting
2.42 p.m.
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 it is their intention to site nuclear missiles, when distributed from storage depots in England, in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the planned deployment of United States ground-launched cruise missiles at RAF Greenham Common, Berkshire, and RAF Molesworth, Cambridgeshire. My noble friend Lord Strathcona made clear in the House on 17th June 1980 (Hansard,
908
Vol. 410, cols. 987–998) that during times of tension it is the intention that the missile launchers would disperse by road up to about 50 to 100 miles from these peacetime bases. The Government cannot, however, give an undertaking that these forces will not be deployed anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they will very seriously consider not placing these missiles in Northern Ireland for three reasons: first, they would intensify the sectarian confrontation in Northern Ireland; secondly, the radioactive fall-out would almost inevitably penetrate the Republic of Ireland; and thirdly, as Sean McBride, that great international figure, has pointed out, all Ireland might become a target in the case of a nuclear war?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I cannot go further than my first Answer. The Government will not give an undertaking that these forces will not he deployed anywhere in the United Kingdom for, I think, fairly obvious strategical reasons and reasons of security. Nevertheless, the first part of the previous Answer of my noble friend Lord Strathcona makes clear that the normal dispersal of these weapons is by road to a distance of 50 to 100 miles.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that at present there is a substantial preponderance of Soviet theatre nuclear weapons distributed in Europe? Is it not in Britain's and NATO's interests that these missiles should be deployed as quickly as possible and as widely as possible throughout Western Europe, including the United Kingdom?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those questions. Yes, there is an enormous preponderance of Soviet theatre nuclear weapons in Europe. Yes, I believe it is very important to the whole alliance that the countries in it, and ultimately five countries in Europe in the alliance, should he prepared to allow these weapons to be deployed. At the moment the main American long-range theatre nuclear weapon in Europe, the FI-II, is of course deployed only in this country, and therefore this modernisation programme will spread the basing of these weapons to a greater extent.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the final sentence of his original Answer to my noble friend—a sentence which he deliberately repeated, quite rightly—will be carefully studied on this side of the House officially with a view to ascertaining, perhaps later on, that it is not part of the Government's policy of the immediate future to spread these very dangerous weapons in every part of the country; that the 50 to 100 miles limitation will be applied as long and as meticulously as possible; and that the possibility of the missiles being sited in additionally hazardous areas, as my noble friend has described Northern Ireland, will only be taken into consideration in exigency, which would mean of course the direst possible exigency of all?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that the security of the United Kingdom and its allies is the dominant question here. I cannot go any further than I have already answered in relation to the likelihood of dispersing these weapons to any part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would agree that the strong line now being taken by President Reagan about Soviet activities in various parts of the world may prevent missiles of a nuclear character ever being used at all? Does that not indicate that more is likely to be gained by strength than by weakness?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, we all agree, I think, or nearly all agree, with those sentiments.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: Nevertheless, my Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to convey to his Secretary of State the views which were expressed by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which we on this side feel to be of the greatest importance?

ILEA Schools: Books and Equipment
2.47 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 are satisfied that schools under the jurisdiction of the ILEA look after their books and other educational equipment.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, the maintenance of books and equipment in the Inner London Education Authority schools is the responsibility of that authority. My right honourable friend was however concerned at the evidence in Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report on the ILEA that school libraries, books and educational equipment were not always used to the best advantage. The Department of Education and Science will shortly be discussing the report's implications with officers of the authority, and this matter will be one of the items for consideration at that meeting.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that, whereas there are some councils and some educational library services which are meticulously careful about the use of books and other public property, there are others who are exceptionally lax? Would it not be in the interests of the good, as opposed to the bad, if comparative figures were published so that we could see those areas which were careful in maintaining and looking after their books and show up those areas which are slapdash and which do not seem to mind if books are taken out indefinitely and even lost?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the inspectorate's
910
report on the ILEA addressed itself primarily to the questions of the quality of educational provision. However, my noble friend has drawn attention to the fact that the report also said that the inspectorate found cause for concern at the way some of the resources were actually used. The department has no evidence on comparative use of resources, but there are of course comparative statistics produced by CIPFA on capitation allowances which make it quite clear that the amount available in the ILEA is very considerably above the national average.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, do we not have our priorities somewhat addled, when many schools do not have enough books? Surely we should not bother too much about how children all over the country care for their books. Is the Minister aware that, as in the past, some children will look after their books and others will not?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is always a matter of great concern that children in school, whatever authority or school they are in, should learn to look after the books and equipment in their school, and that the teachers should be encouraged to make the best use of the resources available. The concern in this particular case was about the very considerable resources available to ILEA, and I will give the figures: the capitation allowance in primary schools in ILEA is £29 per head per year and in secondary schools £58, whereas the average for England and Wales is £15 in primary schools and £28 in secondary schools. Not always in every school is it used to the best advantage.
Baroness David: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there were some flattering comments in Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report as well as a few criticisms? They said, regarding nursery schools' equipment and their range of resources, that it was
"… impressive, with plenty of books and materials. The premises and equipment are usually well cared for".
So far as primary schools were concerned, they said:
"Some schools have outstanding collections of resources of all kinds, well catalogued and well used".
As for multi-racial education language centres, they said:
"The language centres are ample and generally in good condition. The range of books is sometimes outstandingly good and, often commendably, feature a number in the pupils' native language".
Would the noble Baroness agree that ILEA needs rather better capitation than some areas, bearing in mind the many difficulties they have, and would she further agree that some authorities are extremely mean in their capitation allowances?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am prepared to agree that the inspectorate report indicated that parts of the ILEA service were satisfactory, but it was very critical of the secondary schools, a most important area of school education. It is, therefore, only right that these matters should be discussed with the authority, which is the usual way of proceeding on an inspector's report, either in the case of an individual school or, in this case, of an authority. The point at issue is not whether

911
or not the capitation allowances are right; the point at issue is that with large capitation allowances, very considerably higher than in other authorities, we are getting the best value for money in ILEA in all schools. I think that is a proper question which needs to be addressed to ILEA.
Lord Hale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to explain why it is necessary for ILEA to have twice as much per head for its elementary school children as Oldham?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me to explain why ILEA should have the capitation allowances it has, but in fairness to them there are considerable problems in London. They are, however, better off than other authorities which also have major inner city problems, and the capitation allowances in London are considerably above those of metropolitan districts, which average £14 for primary schools and £26 for secondary schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that is hopelessly inadequate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we all wish there was more money for education than there is. The Government have made allowances, within the amount of money the Government have agreed within the block grant arrangements, for there to be an increase in the amount of money for capitation allowances of 2 per cent. in real terms for this year. How that money is distributed is of course a matter for the local education authorities.

Statement
2.54 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on escapes from Brixton prison.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately one hour, and the debate on the report of the European Communities Committee on Education in the Community will be taken during this adjournment.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in the name of my noble friend, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds]:
2.56 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order adding any method of killing or taking any wild bird shall be made under this subsection unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the order is necessary for the purpose of conservation.").
The noble Earl said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 182. It is not for me to suggest that Parliament's supreme authority to stop any form of sport, indeed any form of activity, should be impugned. The clause as drafted says:
"The Secretary of State may by order, either generally or in relation to any species of wild bird specified in the order, amend subsection (1) by adding any method of killing or taking wild birds or by omitting any such method which is mentioned in that subsection".
Later, power to amend the schedules is also given in the Bill. It follows that that would give a Secretary of State power to abolish or change any form of field sport or venery. I accept that Parliament has such a right, but at present it can be done only through a proper, full-dress Act of Parliament, and not by the back door. These fears are not totally groundless and I shall suggest two examples where Ministers did something they were either not supposed to have done or did not have the right to do.
My first example is the occasion when the late John Davies introduced his Industry Act 1971. It was enacted as a supportive measure for British industry. When the Conservative Government fell in 1974, what Mr. Weighell called,
"that silver spoon Socialist, the erstwhile second Viscount Stansgate",
moved into the Ministry of Industry and proceeded to use that Act in a way it was not intended to be used; it was used as an Act to further nationalisation, to enhance various powers and so on. It is not for me to blame the erstwhile second Viscount Stansgate for using for his own and his party's programme a measure enacted by his political opponents. In a way, that is part of the art of government or politics; if somebody hands you something on a plate you would be slightly dotty not to use it. I am suggesting however that this Bill as drafted would enable an anti-venery Secretary of State to ban venery.
My second example is the time when Mr. Peter Shore took away permission for Sir Freddie Laker to run his Skytrain. To the surprise of many people, Sir Freddie took Mr. Shore to court and won, and showed that the Minister did not have power to do what he wanted to do. This amendment together with Amendment No. 182 is designed to make it impossible for a Member of any party who feels so inclined to move for the abolition of field sports by the back door.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl sits down will he interpret for me—it is my own

913
ignorance—the word "venery"? I have not the slightest idea what it means.
The Earl of Onslow: The word "venery" has two meanings. I am using it in the meaning of hunting, shooting or fishing. Since we are all supposed to be brief in your Lordships' Chamber, I thought it better to use one word as opposed to three, five, or seven words. The other meaning of "venery" means having one's hand stretched out for grubby pound notes to be put into it. I am certainly not suggesting that grubby pound notes are the object of the Bill.
I think that I have made myself clear on this matter and that I have put the point to your Lordships' Committee. It is a very clear and important point, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Avon will bear it in mind when he replies. Even though we have not perhaps drafted the amendment altogether correctly, I hope that the proposal will be put in the Bill, so that venery is protected, and venery in another sense cannot be practised. I beg to move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I rise for only a moment to support my noble friend Lord Onslow and to congratulate him on having made the journey here today, in the face of a certain amount of pain and illness. We should be grateful to him for having come here today; it would have been much easier for him to have remained in bed, as his nurse and doctor have ordered. My noble friend has made the case for the amendment absolutely, totally. As the provision stands it would be far too open, and I believe that the limitation that we are seeking to insert is moderate and sensible. I wish merely to second what my noble friend has already said.
Lord Melchett: I can see that some limitation along the lines that the noble Earl has suggested would be welcome to him and others who take his point of view. It would be a pity if we lost the very useful provisions in parts of the Bill because people were frightened about the degree to which they might be extended, no matter how desirable or indeed undesirable one thought such extensions to be. However the two mechanisms by which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, have chosen to try to meet the point seem to me themselves to give rise to problems, and I shall welcome hearing what the Government have to say on this. First, it seems to me that the proposal in Amendment No. 61 would rule out some of the provisions already in the Bill. The EEC directive clearly contains some methods of killing which are banned on grounds other than those of conservation. I think that it was clear from the first day of the Committee that a number of noble Lords shared views across the Chamber on a number of methods of killing things which they thought should be outlawed by the Bill for other than simply conservation reasons. Whether the reason might be that noble Lords did not like themselves or their families being shot at with air guns, or whether there were other reasons, there were other factors which we wished as a whole to take into account and which it seems to me the amendment would simply rule out. I think that the noble Earl was also speaking to Amendment No. 66—
The Earl of Onslow: I was speaking also to Amendment No. 182.
Lord Melchett: I was wondering whether noble Lords were going to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 66, which it seemed to me had the same objective, though I might be wrong about that. I think I have said enough on Amendment No. 61, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has to say.
Lord Renton: I, too, desire to support the amendment and I think we should be quite clear in our minds that these are necessary words of limitation. I have a confession to make to the Committee. The other night, when we were last discussing the present clause, I was supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swansea, who wanted repeater guns used in certain circumstances, and I suggested that when enormous flocks of pigeons were stripping a field of brussels sprouts, for example, it would be legitimate to use a repeater gun in order to reduce the numbers of pigeons. However, if the Secretary of State is to make an order making it legitimate for repeater guns to be used, the order should be confined to a particular purpose. The question of whether the elimination of excessive numbers of pigeons can be said to be necessary for conservation is very arguable indeed, but I submit that it would be utterly wrong for repeater guns to be used for any purpose except that of destroying pigeons or other pests. Therefore, when the Secretary of State is required to consider making an order under Clause 5(2), it would be as well for him to have regard in particular to conservation, and indeed the order should be limited to that, but there might be very rare exceptions when within the terms of the Bill he should have regard to some other purpose, such as the destruction of pests. At the moment the Bill has not made that clear either way. I think it right that my noble friend's amendment should be embodied in the Bill but that further consideration should be given to the question of the use of weapons for the destruction of pests.
The Earl of Avon: Taking first the point of my noble friend Lord Renton, I would say that we shall come to the question of licences when we reach Clause 15. A great number of amendments have been put down regarding that, and I believe and hope that when I speak on Clause 15 I shall to a large degree be able to make my noble friend happy on that point.
Turning to the subject of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Onslow, supported by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, I would say that the Government recognise the fears expressed this afternoon that some future Government might choose to use the power to make an order to amend the list of prohibited methods to prohibit the use of sporting firearms, which we have heard described by a word which is new to both the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and myself.
We should like carefully to consider the implications of the proposal made today, and we think, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett mentioned, that the amendment as it stands would be too limiting. However, it should be possible to insert a restrictive

915
provision which would be acceptable to all of us, and that we should like to do. In giving the assurance that we shall look sympathetically at the problem presented to us this afternoon, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I am perfectly happy with that suggestion and I am delighted that my noble friend has taken the point on board. I wish to comment that I think the danger here is underlined, and I see that there is a later amendment to debar one of the approved methods by, I think it is said, "hound or hounds". I hope that that cannot be other than a rather good joke by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in regard to abolishing fox-hunting rather quickly, late at night, with no one noticing, while all your Lordships are either asleep or in other parts of the building. I am delighted that my noble friend has seen the force of our arguments and I am equally delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, considering that I am sure that, as it stands, the wording is not satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My earlier amendment, Amendment No. 42, sought to delete Clause 4(1)(d), on page 5, which made it legal for an authorised person to take a wild goose or a wild duck for the purpose of ringing or marking it, or for examining any ring or mark on it. That amendment was quite sympathetically received by the noble Earl, who undertook to refer it to the advisory committee. This paragraph goes a little further, because it states that nothing shall make unlawful the use of a cage-trap or net for the same purpose of taking a wild duck or wild goose for ringing purposes, but this time it is not confined to authorised people; it makes it legal for anybody to use a cage-trap or net for those purposes. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Earl will regard this amendment even more sympathetically, perhaps even to the extent of accepting it.
Since I have referred to the advisory committee, perhaps I might ask the noble Earl whether he can tell the Committee at this stage if he has already had discussions with the advisory committee, or how soon in the near future he expects to do so; whether this will be in time for the Government to put down any amendments upon which they decide as a result of such meetings; and whether he really will take seriously what the advisory committee recommend to the Government-in other words, an assurance that we on this side of the Committee are not being palmed off with statements that the advisory committee will be consulted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that when I say we consult the advisory committee I mean exactly that. They are meeting as we are going through this very Committee stage and all the points that we took on board last week will have been discussed by them with our officials before we get
916
to the next stage of this Bill. Therefore, quite honestly, I cannot say any more to the noble Lord on this particular amendment than I said when he moved Amendment No. 42. We are considering this, we will also consider what he said today with the advisory committee, and we will come back at the Report stage with more information. I hope that with those facts the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I will of course withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62A not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: I found the use of the word "subsection" difficult to understand. It is probably my fault, in that I cannot read the Bill properly; but I take it that the prohibition on the use of rocket-propelled nets and cannon nets, which does not seem to be in subsection (1), should also apply to subsection (1). If I am right, it would be much clearer if these few words applied to the whole of Clause 5, and not merely to subsection (4). I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I disagree with my noble friend for much the same reasons as he has put forward, but let me try to explain. My noble friend's amendment seeks to apply the prohibition on the use of any net for birds in flight, or the use of any rocket-propelled or cannon net for taking birds on the ground, to the whole of Clause 5, and not, of course, merely to subsection (4). As a matter of drafting, it will not work to say in subsection (4) that nothing in the "section" shall make lawful the use of any net for taking birds in flight or of any rocket-propelled or cannon net for taking birds on the ground. The reason is that subsection (1)(b) prohibits the use of any net whatsoever for taking wild birds. It follows, therefore, that the amendment would be inconsistent with the express terms of subsection (1).
I might also point out that subsection (2) is a mere power to vary subsection (1), and subsection (3) is a defence which has no relation whatsoever to nets. So it really does apply to the subsection in which it appears. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether I am right in thinking that the word "section" has no significance in this or any other Bill? If it has significance, is it simply a synonym for "clause", or has it some other meaning? Because if it is a synonym for "clause", I think it is a great pity to use it.
The Earl of Avon: I think I agree with every word that the noble Lord has said. "Section" is a clause, and therefore we do not use it.
The Earl of Onslow: Could my noble friend tell me why people are not allowed to use rocket-propelled

917
nets? I know this is slightly outside this amendment, but, in films, one has seen Peter Scott using them for perfectly good conservation reasons.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Earl must be aware that we are going to discuss Clause 15, when all this kind of thing can be dealt with; and I hope that we shall not, every time anything is raised this afternoon, have to say that.
Lord Craigton: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("of any rocket-propelled or cannon net")
Page 7,line 19, at end insert ("of any net which is projected or propelled otherwise than by hand").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Onslow was a little premature, because here we are going straight into rocket-propelled or cannon nets. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 64 with Amendment No. 65. These amendments would extend the prohibitions on the use of nets for the killing or taking of wild birds from rocket-propelled and cannon nets, which were specified in the 1954 Protection of Birds Act, to all nets projected or propelled otherwise than by hand. Nets currently specified were included because they are dangerous to both birds and humans, but there are also other types of mechanically-propelled nets which are dangerous, and it is likely that those so minded could devise different means of propulsion in addition to those specified in the Bill. The amended provision, by not specifying the types of net to be prohibited or its propulsion, should be more effective than would the prohibition as originally drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: From this side of the Committee we are happy to support these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 7, line 19, at end insert—
("(5) An order under this section shall not have effect unless or until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment very like No. 61. It is asking the Government to agree that an order may not be made under this section without an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I will not say any more because it has already been said by my noble friend Lord Onslow in a different way, but we should like the Government to look at this, particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Avon said last week at column 728. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I nearly got on to this when we were discussing Amendment No. 61. Again, we on this side of the Committee do not have any strong objection to the point which noble Lords opposite are getting
918
at, but I must say that it seemed to me a little heavy-handed and I would myself have preferred the suggestion which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made, that he should take away Amendment No. 61 and have a look at it to see whether we cannot find an acceptable form of wording. If that were possible, it would seem to me that this particular amendment would be unnecessary and that it would really be a little too restrictive for the purposes for which the clause is designed.
The Earl of Avon: I think we are all going along the same route. I should like to concede to my noble friend that we now believe in the need for a Negative Resolution for all changes to orders, schedules and regulations, and what we should like to be able to do is to bring this forward as a Government amendment at Report stage. I hope that with that in mind my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to my noble friend, and in view of that assurance—although he has not given us a whole cake he has certainly given us half of one—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In page 6, line 26, why "tape recording"? There are different methods of recording sound and surely we are concerned with the whole principle. This is just a small drafting point, but is there any explanation for restricting recordings to tape recordings? Perhaps this is now accepted as a generic term for every kind of recording whether one is using tape recording or not. Can we be told what the explanation is?
The Earl of Avon: As nobody seems to be coming forward to help me on this I must say that it is a very intriguing idea. I have managed to talk for long enough to get a note which says that the suggestion to insert this provision arises from part of a European Community directive. With that in mind, I hope the noble Lord will accept it.
The Earl of Onslow: On that point, I think it is worth while bearing in mind that there are large numbers of decoy sound devices, especially for ducks and geese, on the market. If we are going to say that it is wrong to ban sound decoying at all (which is what the implication of "tape recording" is), why not ban all sound decoying and not merely one present method even though it is in an EEC directive? Or has the directive got it wrong?
Lord Craigton: I should like the Minister to look at it again. I agree with my noble friend.
The Earl of Avon: I shall be happy to look at it again. Clause 5 shows how the world moves on and the list of prohibited methods has increased greatly since 1954; so much so that we thought it prudent to

919
allow for addition in the years ahead. I will take on board what the noble Lord has said.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Sale etc. of live or dead wild birds, eggs etc.]:
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 7, line 26, after second ("egg") insert ("or part of an egg").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has had a fall and gone to hospital. He will probably be here later. As the amendment was inspired by my normal inspiration, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I thought it would be appropriate if I were to move it in his place. It is a technical point. Clause 6(1)(b) makes illegal the offering for sale or the possession for sale of eggs, including blown eggs, of any wild bird. This amendment is put down so that one cannot have a defence for selling or exchanging part of an egg. Noble Lords may think that this is a rare occurrence. I can say that there was an instance which gave rise to this amendment where a so-called scientist, whether a competent one or not I do not know, was buying birds' eggs, and often rare birds' eggs, in order to do experimental work on the yolks and the whites. This is a perfectly legitimate piece of research, but clearly it should be covered by permission under Clause 15 and should not be open for anyone to do. I think that although this is only a small point it is a real one and I should be happier if the noble Lord who is to reply would accept this amendment as something which adds to the strictness of the Bill for protecting birds from the human predators who collect their eggs in a way we are trying to control. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I am sure that the Committee will regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has been unable to move this amendment. We hope that his rapid return from hospital to this Committee may be possible later on. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for bringing the amendment forward. I must admit that we had not realised that the sale and exchange of parts of eggs other than blown eggs occurred. The amendment is defective if only in the sense that a consequential amendment will be required to Clause 6(4). The Government will seek to bring forward a suitable amendment or amendments on Report. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the leave of the Committee, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert (", invites offers").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 68 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 120, 194, 233 and 234, all of which cover the same point with the same wording. As the Bill stands, offering certain things for sale is an offence. However, the courts
920
have interpreted this in a restricted way which derives (as I remember from the dim past when reading law at university) from the technicalities of the law of contract—the principles of which escaped me then and certainly would do so now. Under contract law, an offer of sale can be accepted and immediately upon acceptance a binding contract exists. Displaying goods is not an offer; otherwise customers in shops could insist upon buying anything on display, and that is not so. Displaying goods is described in legal terms as an invitation to treat. The customer says to the shopkeeper, "I should like to buy those goods", and the shopkeeper can accept if he wishes. Possession for sale is covered under Clause 6, but that does not cover advertising of goods that you do not have or even goods which the prosecution cannot prove (as they have to prove) that you had at the relevant time. Therefore, the amendment covers a pretty narrow point.
The amendment would prohibit, for example, advertisements from advertisers simply asking for orders for goods which the advertiser would then go and obtain. It is a fairly important point. There has been a case involving somebody who advertised in a fairly well-known journal and was found not guilty. The grounds on which he was found not guilty were that there was no offer for sale although he had advertised in that particular newspaper. It is something which happens. Although it is a narrow point, I hope that the Government will be able to accept this series of amendments.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord has given a very interesting description of the circumstances in which the use of this amendment might be available. All that I can say at the moment is that we are not entirely convinced of the need to make this amendment. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it on the understanding that we will consider what action, if any, is needed to meet his points. Particularly in view of the examples that he gave, I think it deserves further study.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that offer, and will certainly withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 7, line 33, after first ("bird") insert ("killed after the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment which is concerned with drafting rather than with substance. There are certain ambiguities in this clause—if I may begin with a matter outside my amendment—beginning with the word "who" in line 2 of subsection (2). It is not clear whether it refers to the taxidermist or to "any person". I noticed it yesterday and therefore have not tabled an amendment about it. Perhaps my noble friend will look at this and consider whether an amendment is required at a later stage.
My actual amendment deals with one of the three offences identified by the clause. It is the second one,

921
having "in his possession"—which may or may not mean having "in his possession" for the purposes of sale. The meaning is not clear, although it makes little difference when one analyses it because it says that it is an offence to have "in his possession" any wild bird other than those mentioned in the schedules. If I may take an example, an owl is not included in the schedules. A dead owl therefore is not included in the schedules. Therefore, it is illegal to have a dead owl in one's possession. There are stuffed owls all over the place in glass cases. In my own home there are a couple of them. I cannot believe that when this Bill becomes an Act my wife and I will be hauled off to the courts.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, the clause says,
"for the purpose of sale".
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: With deference to the noble Lord, if he goes round to the antique shops and the junk shops he will find birds for sale-stuffed owls in cases-and these must have come from people who were keeping them or who had them in their possession with the idea that they would sell them sooner or later, otherwise they would not get into the shops.
This cannot really be intended by the Governent. If it is meant to be made illegal to have such birds in one's possession, it is not reasonable that the Bill should cover birds killed before the passing of the Bill into an Act. I am not sure that my amendment is the best way to make a change of this kind, but this is what I have suggested. We will then have a reference to any wild bird
"… killed after the passing of this Act".
That will come in in line 33. I hope this may be thought to be the case. I beg to move.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In the supplementary list of amendments this is shown as under Clause 5, but it is in Clause 6. I think that should be noted. We are not entirely happy about this amendment. Of course the general point is sound; but this clause applies to eggs as well as birds and it is easy if somebody is dealing illegally in rare birds' eggs to say, "My grandfather had them", and you cannot prove it either way in the face of it.
In the ordinary course of events, if you could prove it in a court of law this would be an absolutely adequate defence and it need not be put in the Bill. On the other hand, unless you can prove it, a number of speculators and predators of this kind might slip through collections of eggs that they had made after the Act was passed, claiming that the eggs had been collected by somebody earlier. That could not be disproved. I am not happy about it. The general point is clearly right, whether this applies to a stuffed owl or a blown egg. I should like to know what the Government think. We are a little uneasy about this.
Lord Sandys: This amendment seeks to allow the sale of birds or parts or derivatives of such birds—and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, rightly referred to this—killed before the enactment of
922
this Bill. The Government must oppose this as it would create a loophole for the unscrupulous by allowing them to claim without any corroboration that the bird was killed before the Bill became law. Provision has been made in Clause 6 to allow taxidermists to sell dead birds which they have set up and other birds which pass through their hands. They will be allowed to register with the Department of the Environment provided that they keep records to satisfy office inquiries that the birds being set up have been legally obtained and they have marked by an approved means those birds that have been sold.
Any person who sells dead birds can apply to register. However, we have recognised that some people only sell birds infrequently or on a one-off basis, such as the example which my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery gave. A person disposing of birds that have been in the family for some time was the example that he dealt with. Accordingly, a suitable licensing purpose has been included in Clause 15 to cater for these people. Provided they can show that birds are in bona fide collections, they will have no difficulty in obtaining a licence. I hope this reassures my noble friend and that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Have the Government any idea how large this particular problem is? I know that at my home—and probably in the homes of many other noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord Cork has said—there are glass cases with stuffed birds in them collected by one's Victorian great-grandfather. If I want to sell one of those for some reason—I do not know how much they are worth or anything like that—will I have to get a licence as a general dealer, and will every Member of your Lordships' House have to do that? It seems there is a problem which my noble friend's reply does not appear to satisfy, although of course one sees the danger of driving a coach and horses through the Bill if it is amended as my noble friend Lord Cork wants.
Lord Renton: Surely the answer to my noble friend Lord Onslow is that the position is very much affected by the invention of the deep-freeze which enables game to be kept for a very large number of months—indeed for a year or two if necessary. It is perfectly edible and almost as good as when eaten when killed fresh and hung for a few days. Unscrupulous people have a large vested interest in keeping large numbers of birds in deep-freezers, especially commercial freezers. Therefore, I have some sympathy on this occasion with what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Sandys: My noble friend Lord Onslow asked the Government whether they would quantify it. We are unable to do so. My noble friend has raised a real problem of whether in a one-off situation, as he described, it would be necessary to apply for a licence. I will look into that matter and advise him. Regarding the emergence of the deep-freeze into this situation, I can only advise my noble friend that game from a deep-freeze of the particular birds concerned is still not available for sale outside the season.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Could we be advised equally when the noble Earl receives his reply?
Lord Sandys: Certainly.
The Duke of Atholl: Many of us have several stuffed birds dating from the last century or a little longer which are in the old inventories of our houses. If we wish to offer them for sale, and we do it through one of the more reputable auctioneers, would we have to obtain a licence, or would the auctioneer obtain a licence, having satisfied himself that these birds did date genuinely from before the date of this Bill?
Lord Sandys: I shall advise my noble friend whether there is a problem.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: There is an element of heavy weather blowing up over this. I am not entirely certain—and I say this with respect—but I think it was started by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, with all this talk about eggs. This amendment has nothing to do with eggs. It is purely to do with any dead wild bird, not parts of the bird or the egg, blown or otherwise. It is simply to do with dead birds. Whether the bird is edible or otherwise has nothing to do with it, either. There seems to be an idea that many of these birds are going into the deep-freeze. I should be sorry to discover a stuffed owl in my deep-freeze. It is clear that the Government have in mind the matter of stuffed birds, otherwise they would not have included in the clause a reference to taxidermists. The business of a taxidermist is to stuff birds and to sell them. When this Bill becomes law taxidermists will have to sell to other taxidermists because nobody else will be legally allowed to buy the stuffed birds. I do not know whether it is intended that taxidermists should go round selling stuffed owls to each other; but I do not think life is like that. It is all very well to say that you could get a licence to sell one of these creatures, but it says in the Bill that you also must have a licence to buy it. It says that you are committing an offence if you have it in your possession. You must have a licence to buy a stuffed owl, or any other bird, and you must have a licence to sell it, as though it were a firearm. It is going too far altogether. I am really inclined to think that this is rather a good amendment, and I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: The noble Earl has made some very worthwhile and humorous comments, but I might advise him that anybody, and not just another taxidermist, may purchase or sell them.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Earl of Avon: It might be to the convenience of your Lordships to take the Statement now. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed

Brixton Prison Escape
3.40 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"On 16th December, I asked the Deputy Director-General of the Prison Service, Mr. Gordon Fowler, to conduct an urgent inquiry into the circumstances of the escape of three Category A prisoners from Brixton prison earlier that morning. I have now received Mr. Fowler's report. Because of the criminal proceedings in connection with the escape which are being taken, I am advised by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General that it would not be right for the report to be published at present. But I propose in my statement to give the main findings of the report and to indicate the action that has been and is being taken in consequence.
"The main conclusion of Mr. Fowler's report was that the escape was made possible by human error, specifically by serious weaknesses at all levels in the establishment in the application of the security procedures laid down for Category A prisoners. Mr. Fowler has made a number of recommendations to rectify these deficiencies and the Director-General of the Prison Service has instructed that these should be implemented immediately.
"Before coming to that conclusion Mr. Fowler inquired into all the various factors which could have made the escape possible. He concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that there was any conspiracy or collusion in the escape by members of the staff of Brixton prison. As regards the fabric of the prison, he found that, although Brixton prison was one of the worst examples of the inadequacies of the worn-out and antiquated part of the prison estate, the physical fabric was not in itself a principal factor in the escape; but we must all acknowledge that when we contain high-risk prisoners in far from ideal, though not insecure, conditions we increase the weight of responsibility on the staff concerned. He also reported that, with a senior officer and seven officers responsible for supervising 15 Category A prisoners in D wing, with one officer responsible for their surveillance during the night hours, the staffing level was entirely adequate. Further, he found that industrial action did not impinge on security at the establishment or affect staffing levels in D wing. Nor did he find that the security procedures themselves were defective.
"Mr. Fowler's clear view was that the failure to prevent the escape was due to a number of specific human weaknesses occurring over a period of time, at all levels of staff concerned.
"The Director-General of the Prison Service and I accept these conclusions, and the specific recommendations for restoring a satisfactory level of security that flow from them. The Director-General of the Prison Service has instructed that they be acted on with all speed.
"I turn now to the action that the Director-General has taken in view of the main finding in

925
Mr. Fowler's report that the failure to prevent this escape arose from human errors in the establishment over a period of time at all levels. In the circumstances the Governor, Mr. Selby, must himself accept, and very properly does accept, the principal responsibility. The Director-General has accordingly appointed Mr. Anthony Pearson, at present Governor of Gartree high security prison, to be Governor in charge of Brixton prison, with immediate effect, in succession to Mr. Selby, who has been moved to a post in the Prison Service regional office structure.
"The responsibility for what occurred is not one which can, however, be laid only at the then Governor's door. The weaknesses and errors in performance of all members of staff concerned have been brought home to them; where appropriate, they have been transferred to other establishments, or other duties within the establishment.
"Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one more word about the staff aspects. The responsibility for the custody and care of prisoners, including high security risk prisoners, is a very heavy one. We are entitled to require it to be discharged to the highest standards. The House will wish to recognise, however, that the record of Brixton, including Mr. Selby and his staff, has previously been one of real achievement in difficult circumstances, which I believe it is right for us to acknowledge.
"The Director-General of the Prison Service, in conjunction with Mr. Fowler, the Regional Director and the new Governor, will carry into effect the recommendations on security in the establishment. Any wider lessons for the Prison Service, which has had a good security record in recent years, will also be followed up.
"Finally, I have thought it right to ask H.M. Chief Inspector of Prisons, who reports directly to me and not to the Prison Department, to inspect Brixton prison, paying particular regard to security matters, so as to ensure that I personally can be satisfied that the report has indeed been effectively followed up in all respects. The inspection will take place later this year."
That, my Lords, was my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Home Secretary. Of course we fully understand why the full report of Mr. Fowler cannot be published at this stage in view of pending criminal proceedings arising out of the escape, but it is useful that the Home Secretary, nevertheless, has given the main outlines of the report, because there is no doubt that there has been grave public concern about this escape of Category A prisoners, an escape of a particularly serious kind.
The failure is attributed in the report to—
"human errors in the establishment over a period of time at all levels".
What was the nature of the human errors involved? Were they errors due to lack of attention, incapacity,
926
failure to follow procedures, inadequate drill or inadequate supervision? What was the nature of the human errors? I do not like using the word "scapegoat" in relation to Mr. Selby. Your Lordships may recollect that when in this House we debated the problem of remand prisoners, tributes were paid to Mr. Selby by Members of the House who had been to visit Brixton. One sees a slight contradiction between the tribute paid to Mr. Selby in one part of the Statement, congratulating him on—
"a record of real achievement in difficult circumstances",
and the fact of his removal from his position.
There is one other matter in the report about which your Lordships may like to know a little more. It is said that,
"although Brixton prison was one of the worst examples of the inadequacies of the worn-out and antiquated part of the prison estate, the physical fabric was not in itself a principal factor in the escape".
That is a rather unhelpful piece of "double-speak". Was it a "factor"? Was it easier to bore a hole in the wall of Brixton in the security wing? What has been done about that? It really will alarm the public that this escape should have been possible.
Above all, what the public would like to know is whether the lessons—and it is not very clear what they are, except for undefined human errors—that should have been learned from the Brixton experience will be brought to mind not only in Brixton, but in other security prisons up and down the country. It would be tempting, also, to comment on the fact that the escapees had been in prison awaiting trial for over a year. One can think of the connection between that and, at any rate, the will to escape. But, of course, a Category A prisoner must be kept in confinement until he is brought to trial, and the public will be glad to know that at any rate some steps are being taken to see that this kind of failure will not occur again, so far as human judgment can prevent it.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister. First, are there not other prisons, both in the London area and within daily travelling distance of London, which are structurally far more suitable for housing maximum security prisoners? And will the Government consider, particularly in the case of such prisoners as IRA prisoners on remand, using those other prisons in future rather than Brixton?
Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord this question—and I do not want in any way to seem vindictive about this matter: Does this Statement not really amount to the simple fact that there has been demonstrated to be gross negligence by a number of Government employees over a period, leading to the escape of a potential mass murderer? Would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that, if similar negligence were proved in the private sector, far more stringent steps would be taken than the Government appear to have taken in this case?
3.54 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the questions which

927
they have put on what was, of course, a very serious matter involving men who were on remand on very grave charges. The noble and learned Lord asked me to give more details about what the Statement calls various "human errors". Mr Fowler's recommendations were directed towards securing the appropriate application of security procedures—that is his main recommendation as recorded in the Statement—within Brixton prison.
Since my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has advised that publication of the report at present might prejudice criminal proceedings—a fact which the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say he perfectly understood—I do not think it would be satisfactory to go into further detail on that particular matter. The noble and learned Lord referred particularly to the former governor of Brixton prison and mentioned the possibility of using the word "scapegoat". It is made clear, I think, in my right honourable friend's Statement that there were major failures in the way in which security procedures were carried out at Brixton—I repeat, the main recommendation of Mr. Fowler's report—and that Mr. Selby, as governor in charge, bears, and very properly has made it clear that he accepts, the main responsibility. However, Mr. Selby has a future in the prison service and I think those noble Lords who know Mr. Selby will endorse the view which I have just expressed.
The noble and learned Lord put to me a question about the security of the fabric of Brixton. I should not want to add to the words which I used in the Statement, and which the noble and learned Lord repeated, but I would remind the noble and learned Lord that in the past Brixton has had a good security record. For example, until the escape in question only two prisoners had escaped in the previous four years, despite the pressures of an increasing prison population. The failure to maintain that record was, as Mr. Fowler has said in his report, a lapse from the professional standards expected by the prison service—and, of course, a very serious lapse indeed.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord asked me about the lessons for the prison service, which was, if I may say so, a very proper question. I accept that the main lesson of Mr. Fowler's inquiry is that the existing security procedures must be applied rigorously. The whole prison service has been forcefully reminded of this by the Brixton escapes.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me about the use of other prisons in the London area for remand prisoners. I think it is worth repeating for a third time that, if the main recommendation of Mr. Fowler's report is put right, as we are now taking steps to see that it is put right, then it is perfectly proper for remand prisoners to be kept in Brixton prison although, as my right honourable friend's Statement accepts, Brixton is a very bad example of the worn-out state of many establishments in the prison service.
I should not want to make a comparison between this unhappy story and what might have been done by way of reparations in other walks of life or in other occupations. I think that this matter has been dealt with with promptness by my right honourable friend, and with correctness by the Director-General of the prison service.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, when the Minister was referring to Mr. Selby, the former governor at Brixton prison, he looked in my direction as though inviting my comments, as I was one of those who, during the debate on remand prisons and prisoners, spoke very highly about Mr. Selby. I take this opportunity most gladly to repeat that my opinion of that officer is a very high one and I am glad to hear that he has a future. As I am on my feet, and without wishing to probe the Minister any further on the details of the circumstances in which these escapes took place, it may help the House to assess the extent and magnitude—if that is the right word—of the errors and omissions if we had some idea of over what period of time things had been going wrong, and when things started to go wrong at Brixton prison in regard to security.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I am sure there are others who will be grateful as well. I do not want to appear unhelpful, but as it is not possible, for the reasons I have given, to publish Mr. Fowler's report at the present time, it really is not possible for me to start to go into the details which, quite naturally, I know the noble Lord would wish me to do. I am afraid that I really cannot be any more helpful on the particular point which the noble Lord has put to me.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the House will, I am sure, appreciate the difficulty of the Minister in replying in regard to Mr. Selby. But I hope the Minister will appreciate that, until all the facts are known, Mr. Selby is in a very difficult situation. I therefore hope that the Minister will undertake that, once the court proceedings have been concluded, the Government will consider making a full statement on the whole situation, other than that which has arisen in the courts. May I ask the noble Lord whether there is not an officer superior to Mr. Selby who must, equally, carry the responsibility of Mr. Selby in this respect? It seems to me that the responsibility is being placed very prominently upon one individual, whereas the whole service might perhaps be involved.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the first question which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has asked me is concerned; namely, his call for a further statement after court proceedings, what we are really talking about is whether or not publication of the report should take place. Again without in any way wanting to be unhelpful, I know that my right honourable friend would have to say in answer to that question, and I must say in your Lordships' House, that it will be necessary for the Home Secretary to take the advice of the Attorney-General at the relevant time.
With regard to the noble Lord's second question, again at the risk of repeating what I have already said I must say that the operational responsibility in the establishment is a matter for the governor to accept and, very properly, Mr. Selby has made it clear from the outset that he accepts it. However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am most anxious to say that the Statement makes it clear that there are others all the way through the establishment who did not put into effect the procedures which are necessary with reference to Category A prisoners. So far as those

929
officers are concerned, the appropriate action has been and is being taken.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as a fellow visitor to Brixton with my noble friend Lord Hunt, I should like to be associated with his tribute to Mr. Selby, who seemed to us then to be doing a very remarkable job in appallingly difficult circumstances.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I be allowed to join in these tributes? I paid a tribute to Mr. Selby, after long conversations with him before a debate in this House. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to repeat those remarks now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
Committee stage resumed on Clause 6.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 7, line 33, leave out ("Part II or III of Schedule3") and insert ("Part II of Schedule 3 or, if killed outside the close season, Part III of Schedule 3").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish also to refer to Amendment No. 107. It is quite clear that the species of birds shown in Part III of Schedule 3 may be sold only in the close season. Although this is clear from the heading to the schedule itself, there is nothing in the main body of the Bill which says so. I think there should be. My amendment would bring that about.
A second point is that Part III of Schedule 3 is headed "Dead from 1st September to 28th February". In fact, however, the close seasons for different species vary. It is during each bird's close season that that Part is effective. I am therefore proposing in my later Amendment No. 107 that those words should be replaced by the words: "Dead outside the close season". Therefore, the same words would have to be used in Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has said, the intention of the amendment is to make it an offence to sell between 1st September and 28th February specimens of species listed in Part III of Schedule 3 killed outside the close season: that is to say, killed illegally. The noble Lord said that in the body of the Bill there is nothing to express this. May I remind him that Clause 6(6) already makes such an action an offence. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should like to look at that; I am quite sure that he is right. Therefore, I have no hesitation in begging leave—does the noble Earl wish to intervene?
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could explain to me something which I do not understand; namely, what is the position of legitimate game dealers who are selling, say, deep frozen mallard
930
to the Continent? Let us say that they buy up during the shooting season of 1980–81. They will keep them in deep freeze until July or August of next year, then take them out of their deep freezers, pluck them and sell them on the Continent. I know that this happens. This is what a gamekeeper told me he was going to do. They sell these birds frozen to the Continent to catch the Continental Christmas season. Those ducks must taste quite disgusting, but that is neither here nor there. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate trading purpose. How would it be affected by the Bill? Are they acting illegally at the moment and, if so, could we have an answer, please?
Lord Sandys: I understand that the action described by my noble friend Lord Onslow is illegal in this country. I should have to take advice as to whether it is illegal on the Continent. Selling out of season is illegal, for broad purposes, until the next season opens. Then, of course it becomes legal.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting that question because it has enabled me to look at the point made by the noble Lord. I agree with him that it makes the main point of my amendment unnecessary. None the less, it seems to me that it is not very satisfactory to have in Clause 6(6) a reference to a period commencing 1st September and ending 28th February when the close seasons already vary for different species and when there may be further amendments in the future which would make them vary even more. I should have thought that what is required is a close season rather than any particular dates, because it is the close season which matters.
Lord Melchett: I think my noble friend is right. Another answer to this would be for the Government, as we hope they will, to accept our series of amendments, which received widespread support, on rationalising the close season for a number of species. That would very satisfactorily deal with this matter. Then we could have a common date in this part of the Bill. This seems to me simply to support arguments which a number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee put forward last week. Perhaps the Government could also consider that matter when they consider, as they promised to do, a number of amendments on that aspect of the Bill.
Lord Sandys: I regret that there was a small pause while we were taking advice. In this particular situation there is a case for considering varying the dates and I am prepared to do that. On that understanding, while giving no commitment whatsoever that the Government are prepared to do more than consider the point, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, will the Minister say whether the close season is in the interests of the birds or in the interests of people who wish to shoot them at another time?
Lord Sandys: It is in the interests of the birds and their breeding.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendments Nos. 70 and 71:
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("at")
Page 7,line 39, after ("competition") insert ("or temporary exhibition").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 6 obviously and rightly sets out to prevent the exhibition of birds not listed in Schedule 3 Part I (which can be found on page 47 of the Bill) in any competitive exhibition. I emphasise the word "competitive". Obviously it has no reference to Schedule 4. In other words, only birds that are commonly bred in captivity and have a "self-sustaining population in captivity"—and those words are in inverted commas, to use the DOE's own definition—may be shown in competitive exhibitions. The words that I quoted come from the information paper issued by the department on the 28th August last year.
But what about showing caged birds where there is no actual competition, no prizes, not even in public maybe; just as a public attraction or even a private attraction and for the prestige and the fun of it? The rarer such a bird shown in these circumstances, perhaps the greater the prestige and even the greater the attraction. Surely, therefore, that too should be against the law. The intention surely must be to prevent the exhibition of any caged birds not listed in Schedule 3 Part I, otherwise there would be a large loophole in the law of which advantage would quite certainly be taken. The words in my amendment "temporary exhibition" are intended to exclude zoos, wildlife parks, pet shops, bird gardens, aviaries of certain kinds, and perhaps they would need defining if these amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I expressed concern at Second Reading that non-competitive exhibition was going to be allowed under the Bill, and for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, we should like to support his amendments.
Lord Sandys: I understand the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Chelwood and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I believe that the fears which have been expressed are exaggerated. We have had very long and detailed discussions with the National Councils for Aviculture, the British Birds Council and other avicultural organisations who were legitimately concerned at the very far-reaching changes we are proposing in this clause. We believe that the Bill as drafted gives considerable additional protection to birds from those who might be tempted to take them from the wild to win a competition. It should be remembered that most of those species meriting special protection and listed on Schedule 1 are also listed on Schedule 4 as being required to be registered and ringed if kept in captivity.
932
We feel that by restricting what may be shown competitively to those birds which we are advised breed readily in captivity and for which there is now a sufficient captive population to satisfy demand without much need for any further replenishment from the wild, and registering the rare species, we have given a sensible level of protection without hampering a hobby which I am reminded has been practised in these islands since before the Romans came. I do not believe these amendments are required and I ask my noble friend to withdraw them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord either agrees or does not agree, I should like to raise a question about ringing, which is relevant to this question because the birds in Schedule 3 Part I have to be ringed. The problem is the difference between close ringing and the broken ring which is more often used. I do not want to go into the technical details of this, but I hope that when making regulations in connection with this clause the Secretary of State will not allow the use of split rings until a satisfactory and tamper-proof one has been found. The reason is quite obvious; it is easy to take off a split ring or to put it on, which suggests that a bird has been bred in captivity which in fact it was not.
A second point is that there seem to me to be a number of birds in this schedule—and I am not going to give names; people can make their own selection—which do not accord with the statement in the information paper of the Department of the Environment, which are commonly bred in captivity and have a self-sustaining population in captivity. I have never seen blackbirds bred in captivity, although they probably are from time to time, but they certainly are not self-sustaining. The yellowhammer also is most unlikely. I think this should be looked at very carefully because I feel that the whole subsection is liable to confusion, but above all I should like to feel sure that any regulations reflect careful thought towards the type of ring used.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said about close ringing. As your Lordships know, the object of close ringing is that the ring can only be put on when the bird is immature, thus proving beyond all doubt that it had been bred in captivity and not taken from the wild and then ringed. I think it is worth while commenting on his remarks about the blackbird not having a self-sustaining breeding capacity in captivity. That is because nobody has bothered to do it. Whether a blackbird is something from which one can make mules with canaries I am not absolutely certain, but bullfinch mules and goldfinch mules are certainly produced in the canary exhibiting world and produce very special song birds and rather pretty variants. I think probably the reason is that there are so many of them in the wild that nobody has actually bothered to go to the trouble of introducing a self-sustaining breeding population in captivity. That is merely an observation, but I think it bears a little on what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said.
Baroness David: The Minister gave a list of societies which have given advice on this subject. Was the

933
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds included in that list?
Lord Renton: I will try not to widen the discussion too much, but I have always had an aversion to seeing birds of any kind kept in small cages. I remember annoying one of my constituency agents very much by refusing to present the prizes at an annual show of a cage birds society. Is there anything in this Bill which will ensure that if birds are bred and kept in captivity they will be kept in reasonable sized cages?
In this connection, I feel bound to invite the attention of your Lordships to the Notes on Clauses, which make it clear that birds may be shown non-competitively even if they are not listed in Part I of Schedule 3. In this respect there seems to be no limit whatever upon the number of birds which may be kept in small cages so long as they are kept non-competitively. This is a matter on which Parliament perhaps needs to lead public opinion. I should be grateful if my noble friend could let us know whether there is anything in the Bill, other than what is in subsection (3) of Clause 6 (which does not go very far), which could set at rest the kind of fears that I have mentioned.
Lord Chelwood: Now that my noble friend Lord Sandys has heard the anxieties expressed on both sides of the Committee, which I think are clearly fairly widely shared, perhaps he will be good enough to say that he will at any rate look at this again, even though he is prejudiced against the amendment at the moment. I fully realise this is a very prickly and very complicated question. It would have been tackled in 1954 and 1967 under the Wild Birds Protection Acts had it been easier to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the immediate past President of the Royal Society for the Protection for Birds, of which I was once President, is only too well aware how anxious the RSPB is that it should be tackled.
Therefore, of course, the Society, which is I believe the biggest voluntary conservation society in the world, will be glad that we are debating it, but they do have serious anxieties. They were not mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Sandys, who gave the names of three societies he had consulted, all of which, I had the impression, were perhaps to some extent prejudiced, in that they were interested in the very widespread hobby of showing caged birds, which is obviously going to go on whether we like it or not. It does seem to me extremely important, now that we have a chance to tackle this question, that we should get the law right, particularly in view of the fact that this is such a very widespread hobby.
As I understood my noble friend Lord Sandys, he was telling us, although of course it is not for him to interpret the law, that under the Bill as drafted it would be against the law to show caged birds not on Schedule 3 Part I in an exhibition in which there was no open competition. My noble friend Lord Renton cast some doubt on that and appeared to me to be supporting my view that the word "competitive" does need looking at again. The point of the amendment, as I understand it, is that these birds which are not on Schedule 3 Part I should not be shown in public at all, should not be exhibited; whether there are prizes for exhibiting them or not does not seem to
934
me to matter. I do very much hope my noble friend will be good enough to look at this again, in which case, of course, I shall be only too glad to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Sandys: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, yes, regulations are being drawn up, and split-ringing would only be included and permitted, if at all, under very strictly controlled circumstances; for instance, corroboration by two independent witnesses, which would be just one of several examples. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether the RSPB was included in the consultations. Yes, the RSPB most emphatically was.
Baroness David: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, did they agree with what he has said?
Lord Sandys: I cannot give the noble Baroness that assurance, but their views are very closely taken into consideration. My noble friend Lord Renton raised a very interesting matter from the Notes on Clauses, and I think he raised the question of Clause (6)(3) on this. The Government are going to have another look at this. In view of the fact that my noble friend, Lord Chelwood, did specifically make that further request, with that assurance and on the undertaking that we will consider all these matters raised on this amendment, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord does that, may I say that this discussion has left me very uncomfortable about a number of birds in the list on Schedule 3 Part I? If the noble Lord includes in his assurance looking at the birds on that list, well and good. We should like to discuss it with him. If not, I shall consider with my noble friends whether we should put down an amendment on Report on that particular angle.
Lord Sandys: I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that we shall be coming later to Amendments Nos. 102, 103, 104 and 105, which make quite specific amendments to that list. I wonder whether it would be beyond the remit of this particular consideration that we should include the schedule. I think it would.
The Earl of Onslow: Would this amendment stop the exhibiting of falconry at game fairs for non-competitive purposes, which a lot of people enjoy watching and which is a very legitimate sport and recognised by the Bill as such, or have I gone astray?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: They are not in cages, at least.
Lord Sandys: There is a matter of definition here, and without advice on that specific matter I would not be able to advise my noble friend.
Lord Chelwood: I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert ("or other animals").
The noble Lord said: I think it might be convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 together. They both deal with the same point and propose to amend two separate paragraphs which are identical in terms. Subsection (8)(a) on page 8, which I am proposing to amend, deals with disqualification of the registration of a taxidermist if he has been convicted of certain offences. The second paragraph (b) is,
"within three years of his having been convicted of any other offence under this Part so far as it relates to the protection of birds or any offence involving ill-treatment of birds".
My amendment proposes to add the words "or other animals".
The simple point is that if a person is disqualified from custody of certain living things—in this case, in the subsequent clause, birds listed in Schedule 4—or if convicted for cruelty and disqualified as a taxidermist, should not the disqualification for cruelty go wider than an offence against birds? This is the simple point. It may be that this is taken care of in some other way. I have difficulty in believing that a person who is cruel to birds is kind to animals, or for that matter the other way around. I think cruelty on the whole is indivisible; it is just a state of mind. I doubt whether it is easier in dealing with one species rather than another. That is the simple point.
I do not want to delay the Committee. I would be very glad to know whether or not this is an acceptable amendment, whether the noble Lord is in the state of mind where he is prepared to consider it without any commitment whatsoever, or whether he will consider it without any commitment whatsoever. I am interested in the state of mind of the Government, whether they are prepared to consider it without any commitment whatsoever. What moves them to consider something even if they are not prepared to consider meeting the point? Anyway, I cannot probe further into the state of mind of Her Majesty's Government or the noble Lord. All I want him to say is Yes or No to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Could I make a point on what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said. When he talks about taxidermists being cruel, I do not quite follow him. I do not know much about taxidermists, but I thought they dealt with dead animals or birds, that they stuffed them. I cannot quite see how you can be cruel to a dead bird or a dead animal.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I would ask the noble Lord to look at page 8, subsection (8):
"Regulations under subsection (2) shall secure that no taxider-must shall become or remain registered"
if within a certain period of years he has been guilty of an offence. I cannot explain how a taxidermist comes to be cruel; it may be that some taxidermists are given live animals to deal with and they may be cruel before they skin them or sew them up or whatever they do. I am not responsible for the terms of the clause; I am seeking to enlarge it to cover other animals.
Lord Melchett: Given that paragraph (8)(b) is there on page 8, my noble friend's amendment seems reasonable and, I hope, will therefore be more than usually acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
Lord Sandys: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be pleased to hear what I have to say. The amendment seeks to make a conviction for the ill-treatment of other animals a reason for preventing a person being registered to sell dead birds or for securing the removal of such a person from the register. I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and his reasons for this step and accept the logic of the amendment. However, the Government's legal advisers feel that there is a simpler way of amending Clauses 6 and 7 and we shall, therefore, table an appropriate amendment at the Report stage. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: What wonderful news! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.31 p.m.
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but here we are embarking on what I understand to be a new departure; namely, we are going to have registered taxidermists—yet another occupation which will not be legitimately carried out without the permission of a rubber stamp. Perhaps that is inevitable, but it is bound to give rise to some difficulties and I detect a difficulty that will arise as a result of the way in which subsection (2) is drafted.
It may be confusing to talk of registering a taxidermist. It could lead to challenge to registration on the grounds that the Secretary of State has registered or enabled somebody to be registered who cannot be described as a taxidermist. I suppose that registration should, in order to make it effective within the meaning of the clause, be conclusive so that a person is a taxidermist for the purpose of this Act where he is described as a registered taxidermist. Without wearying your Lordships with details of the drafting, I hope that the point that I have made will be considered so that the drafting may be adjusted to deal with it.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would like to deal with that point now because I wish to raise an entirely separate matter.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised a number of material matters in regard to the registration of taxidermists as a profession. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this stage other than to say that I shall draw the attention of my noble friend and my right honourable friend to the remarks that he has made.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to raise an entirely different point. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to mules and hybrids. That re-

937
minded me that we had something of a promise, I think, from the Government that they would bring in an amendment about this matter. I do not want to discuss it in any detail, but we want to make sure that mules and hybrids can be exhibited only where both parents are listed in Schedule 3 Part I, to avoid the temptation of going out and stealing from the wild something to mate with a caged bird in the home. If the Government are not going to add something I should like to know because we shall bring in an amendment at the Report stage.
Lord Sandys: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I should like to say that we shall certainly advise him if we are not intending to bring forward an amendment at Report stage.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to raise another point. I should like to draw attention to the particular species in Schedule 2 Part 1. These are the live wild birds that may be sold. It seems to me that there are one or two omissions which the noble Lord might like to consider. For example, I remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred to the rearing of capercaillie for release into the wild. If a person is rearing capercaillie for release into the wild, presumably there is a market in them and he would like to be able to sell them.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would give way? We shall discuss the schedules after Clause 8 and I think that this particular point will arise then. Perhaps he would leave it until that time.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Registration etc. of certain captive wild birds]:
4.36 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 2 at end insert ("bred in captivity, and").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73. This is an exploratory amendment to insert the words, "bred in captivity, and" on page 9 at the end of line 2. I have put down this amendment because I am simply not clear whether such birds must have been bred in captivity. Personally, I am not at all happy with the whole idea of taking birds from the wild and keeping them in captivity, although since putting down the amendment I have come to realise that that does happen. For instance, hawks and falcons are taken from the wild at an early stage in their lives and are then trained and subsequently sold for large sums of money. Therefore, the amendment appears to be faulty. However, would the Minister perhaps agree that in all other cases—apart from hawks and falcons—the principle that wild birds should not be put in cages should always apply? I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I must oppose this amendment because its effect would be to exclude from the scope of Clause 7 birds in Schedule 4 to the Bill which had not—and I stress "not"—been bred in captivity. There are already many birds of the species concerned which have
938
been taken legally from the wild in the United Kingdom under licence, or have been imported having been taken from the wild overseas. It is not acceptable to the Government that these be excluded, particularly since it would have the effect of excluding them from the registration and ringing scheme. Indeed, I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, ever intended this. I can assure him that the Bill, as drafted, covers all specimens, whether captive bred or wild bred, of species listed in Schedule 4, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and look forward to studying his answer in more detail. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Protection of captive birds]:
4.39 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("to poultry, or").
The noble Lord said: The Notes on Clauses just say that Clause 8 reproduces Section 8 of the 1954 Act and do not go on to explain anything about the purpose of this particular clause. Nevertheless, looking at the clause, I should have thought that it was fairly clear that the purpose of the clause—which is headed "Protection of captive birds"—is on the subject of preventing cruelty.
It seems to me very odd, if we are to pass a Bill which includes provisions for preventing cruelty to birds, that we should exempt any particular birds from it. But here we do; we exempt poultry. If the matters with which this clause deals are cruel to wild birds, it seems to me that they are cruel to poultry. There is nothing in these particular provisions which apply to one kind of bird rather than to another from the point of view of the ornithologist, the naturalist, or the keeper of birds, pets or anything. In this particular respect there is no difference between the birds which are kept for egg production and those which are kept for show.
Therefore, why are poultry exempted?—unless it be that poultry, of course, are kept for gain and we must not interfere with cruelty when cruelty is, in fact, a thriving industry. I merely ask this question and perhaps there is a very simple answer. One of the answers of the Government to the amendment that I have tabled may no doubt be that my amendment would not come under the Long Title of the Bill.
Another question which I should like to ask at this particular time is whether any of these captive birds come under the Long Title of the Bill. I wonder whether anyone has looked at that particular point. It seems to me to be very considerable. If I was trying to include this clause as a whole, I would have very great doubt whether it could be included under the Long Title. I think that that ought to be looked into and that we ought to have an answer, for no doubt

939
this matter has occurred to those responsible for preparing the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will no doubt have other matters to raise and other points to make. At this particular stage I am not raising my strongest arguments for the passing of my amendment until I have heard what the Government have to say, because I cannot help but hope that they have a better answer and a better reason for what they are doing in this particular clause and for the exemption of poultry from the cruelty clauses than the only ones which spring immediately to my mind. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not as innocent as he sounds. He knows why poultry are not included in the Bill. So do I; so do we all—because the Government dare not include them. They would have the whole of the battery hen industry on them like a ton of bricks if they included poultry in the Bill; which, of course, shows the hypocrisy of the British people when dealing with such moral issues as cruelty, kindness, ill-treatment and so forth.
We want to be kind to birds, but we want to be kinder to some birds than to others; probably we want to be kinder to the birds that we do not eat than to those that we do eat. In the evidence given before a Select Committee of another place on this very subject the National Farmers' Union said that the British people want their food at the cheapest possible price. This is a dangerous trend in public thinking at the present time—the idea that to get one's food at the cheapest possible price will excuse all sorts of abominations in the treatment of birds and animals. I think that we shall be up against this when trying to improve the standard of treatment of animals.
Quite honestly, I do not know whether some of us should take up the time of the Committee on this crowded Bill to indulge in demonstrations, because that is what this is. Speaking for myself, it is a demonstration. I have one or two others on the Marshalled List. It affords an opportunity, which I think none should lose, of uttering a few words to disquiet the consciences and complacency of noble Lords who probably think that there is not much wrong with the treatment of poultry, calves or anything of that kind.
I am sad about poultry. I think that the battery hen is the most miserable creature in the feathered world today, and it is getting worse. I see present the noble Earl who has responsibilities for the Department of Agriculture. He must know what is going on. At present a Select Committee is dealing with this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is at work and has a special reference for this matter. It would be a great comfort if the noble Earl could intervene and say that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to consider, without any commitment whatever, the liberation of the battery hen. That really would be good news. Therefore, I sincerely hope that we may be given some comfort to get on with. The fact of the matter is that I am content to have registered a point of view, whether or not noble Lords take any notice of it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, realises that this would have major implications for the battery hen industry. I am only to happy to go one-for-one with him and pontificate on the opposite side, indicating why it is so necessary to have this industry. However, as the noble Lord intimated, I do not think that this is the place to discuss such a vast subject, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will reply to the point straight away before the Committee loses a lot of time over it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I would support this amendment, as I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said. I have farmed all my life, but I have never farmed battery hens, and I never intend to. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but Clause 8 says only that one must have a cage sufficient in height, length and breadth to permit the bird to stretch its wings freely. We would not be destroying the battery hen industry if regulations were introduced to have cages of that size, in which hens could spread their wings. It might add a little more expense to the construction of a battery and you might need a slightly larger area, but surely it would not be impossible. As the noble Lord said, it is quite illogical that poultry must be considered not to feel cruelty compared to other birds. It is completely hypocritical. I presume that my noble friend will reply to this amendment and I hope that he will say something to relieve the lot of the battery hen.
4.49 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): If I may say so, that was a remarkably succinct debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, tabled this amendment rather tongue-in-cheek because he knows perfectly well that this is an inappropriate Bill in which to include an amendment of this kind. He asked me many questions which were answered by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton; then the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked me a number of questions which he proceeded to answer himself. He asked what was the position; he said "I will tell you the position". The noble Lord is not far wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked why captive birds were permitted at all under the Long Title. The answer is that this all comes under the one word "re-enact", and this enables captive birds to be included in the Long Title. The noble Lord then asked why poultry are to be excluded. This is a Bill to deal with wildlife and the countryside, and it is not a proper vehicle for altering legislation dealing with domestically-kept farm animals which are protected under more than two different Acts of Parliament—the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 and 1912 and the Agriculture, (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said: "Well, what on earth are the Government doing about this when they have the Farm Animal Welfare Council?" He is quite right, they have; and my right honourable friend set this up as soon as we came into office because he realised that the public were concerned about animal

941
welfare. They are at the moment discussing the welfare codes on poultry and turkeys, and they have invited questions and opinions from the general public, and then they are to make their recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asks: Will I liberate the battery hen? Let me give him this assurance, that we will consider the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council most seriously when that advice is given. It would be totally wrong to pre-empt that advice by accepting Lord Beaumont's amendment.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly said, which he knew, the Select Committee on Agriculture was set up in another place and is considering the effects of intensively kept animals. It would be quite wrong for us to pre-empt their advice and their conclusions. What he did not say—and I am surprised that the noble Lord did not know this bit of information, because he knows so much about what is happening in the animal welfare field—although I am sure he realises it, is that the European Commission is carrying out a study into the welfare of battery hens, to find out whether there is any possibility of alternative methods of production. I think we should be wrong to pre-empt their advice and their conclusions. For all those reasons, I suggest that this is really the most totally inappropriate Bill, and the most totally inappropriate amendment to suggest to this Bill, for the protection of chickens.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: That may be so. Nevertheless, a remarkable amount of truth has been spoken over the last few minutes on both sides of the Committee. The debate has been worth while if only for that. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the feeling that people wanted food cheaply and that that desire must be met at any cost was a very dangerous doctrine. I entirely agree with him, and I would go further and say that I do not believe what we are always told, that the British people are not prepared to pay for the abolition of cruelty. If it is put to them they are, and that argument against it does not stand up at all. Noble Lords are quite right to want to press on with what this Bill was actually intended for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("whether by land, air or water")
The noble Lord said: Although I have strong feelings about this clause, this is a mere drafting amendment and it breaks my heart to move it because these are words of Anglo-Saxon origin; they are short, clear, and they comprise the elements in which we live, but they are unnecessary. There is no other means of conveyance known to man except by land, air or water. We do not need these words for the removal of a doubt, and therefore with great sadness I beg to move that they be left out.
The Duke of Atholl: I should very much like to support my noble friend, but I have one slight doubt when he says there is no other way of moving about. I should have thought that the London tube in the rush hour provided a typical way of moving about which was neither by land, sea nor air in any normal sense of the words.
The Earl of Avon: This provision is identical to one found in Section 8(2)(b) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. As my noble friend Lord Renton was not on his present perch then, no doubt he did not attack the Government of the time. He seeks to remove these three words. We like them because we think they serve to clarify the position for the layman, and the Government would prefer that they were retained.
The nastier word, which I am surprised he did not comment on more ferociously, is "conveyance". If we take this back to consider whether "by land, air or water" should be removed or not, I think we would like to take "conveyance" back too, to see whether we cannot find a new phrase altogether. If the noble Lord presses me we will consider it, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment so that we can consider it more fully.
Lord Renton: I gladly do so. I am grateful to my noble friend for his understanding.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 10, line 13, leave out from ("exhibition") to ("or" in line 15.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this amendment, we consider Amendment No. 79. This is an effort to redraft a part of this clause. Maybe it is not a very successful one; I do not know. The purpose is quite clear. Incidentally, I think I did not mean to exclude the two words "or competition" in paragraph (b). That is an error. If the Government should see their way to accepting these amendments we can correct that at a later stage.
The exemption, and the words "in the course of conveyance", has no time limit on it. Taking a journey one way and the purpose of a public exhibition which must not exceed 72 hours, and a journey another way, depending on the way and the particular form of the journey, can add up to a considerable time. There is in theory no limit. Obviously there would be a limit, but it can add up to quite a long time. It seems to me that there needs to be a little tighter control than there was in the original drafting if cruelty is to be avoided, and I should like to urge the Government, even if they do not accept these amendments, to consider the point and to try to do something about it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: This is something we do not feel particularly strongly about, but I should like to read what the noble Lord has said in more detail before I offer to go any further. It was originally proposed to reduce the period during which a bird could be confined from 72 to 48 hours, and this was dropped with the agreement of the advisory committees, the NCC and RSPB, because the new provisions for showing contained in Clause 6(3) should ensure that only captive bred birds well used to small cages are eligible for showing. The amendment would result in the loss of the restriction of 72 hours on the time during which a bird may be confined in a small cage for the purpose of public exhibition, and also seeks to prohibit the com-

943
petitive showing of birds in small cages, and I think that that is the bit the noble Lord did not mean to cover.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No.
The Earl of Avon: In view of this dual result, it is difficult to see why the amendment has been suggested. The Government considered amending Clause 8(2) when drafting this Bill, but the new rules on exhibition should ensure that the only truly captive bred birds well used to small cages are eligible for showing. There was no strong welfare case for changing the existing transport rules in the Protection of Birds Act 1954. This is already supported by the protection of animals legislation. If I could ask the noble Lord to withdraw, I shall look at his remarks again and perhaps he will be kind enough to do the same with mine.
Lord Melchett: Now that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has explained his amendments it seems to me that he has a good point. As I understand it, he is not removing the 72-hour period in Clause 8(2)(b) but applying a 72-hour period to paragraphs (b) and (a), joining them together and making a limit within a period of days. That seems to me to be a reasonable and useful proposal.
There is very occasionally with birds, particularly if they have been taken from the wild, the necessity of keeping them in a very small cage for quite a long period of time before they are exhibited, because that is possibly the only way one can get the bird not to flutter in the cage during the exhibition, and that at least would be made illegal by the noble Lord's proposal. It would be an advantage and an encouragement to captive breeding, which I am sure is what all of us would want to encourage. I hope that the noble Earl will, as he said, look at what has been proposed.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put the point correctly. The matter should be looked at again, and I am delighted that the Minister said he would do that. Although the noble Earl said that another measure dealt with the treatment of birds in the course of conveyance, it may be necessary to insert a provision in this Bill to deal with birds while travelling. Knowing the matter will be looked at, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 10, line 16, leave out from ("undergoing") to end of line 17 and insert ("veterinary treatment or examination").
The noble Earl said: We are still discussing the question of birds in cages and this relates in particular to subsection 2(c), which reads:
"while that bird is undergoing treatment by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary probationer".
There seems to be some doubt whether "probationer" is the right word, and I notice that we shall be coming to an amendment shortly to change that. We need not
944
argue about that because it means, in short, a vet. The gist of the matter is that a bird shall not be confined in a cage too small for it to be allowed to spread its wings freely while being treated by a vet. But not only vets treat animals, and I take it that "animals" includes birds in terms of the dictionary definition of "veterinary", which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means:
"of or pertaining to or connected or concerned with the medical or surgical treatment of cattle or domestic animals".
If it is accepted that cattle and domestic animals include birds—which I think must be the case because of the word "veterinary" in this provision—then I submit that it is not only vets who treat birds. If one has a budgerigar or an ostrich it may suffer from ailments which can be treated, or at any rate examined, by the owner.
The Earl of Onslow: Or by a physiotherapist.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: As my noble friend says, or by a physiotherapist, or even by a psychoanalyst in certain cases. One does not always have to send for the vet. Yet it is only if the vet is examining the bird that it must be confined in a small cage. If the owner is examining it, it need not be confined in a small cage. I would say that if it is necessary for a vet to confine it in a small cage in order to treat it, it is even more necessary for the unqualified owner to do so. I therefore propose to leave out the words "treatment by a veterinary surgeon" and so on, making it read:
"while the bird is undergoing veterinary treatment or examination".
The word "examination" is new because it is as relevant to the question under discussion as the treatment itself. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain that, if this amendment is agreed to, 1 shall not be able to call the next amendment, No. 78.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We are faced with a terrible dilemma because we do not want to leave the word "probationer" in—it is a Government misprint which we have already had to alter—so I am wondering what is the best way to deal with it. I support the amendment because the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, makes sense. On the other hand, I should be horrified to register for all time that the person to whom this applied was a veterinary "probationer".
The Earl of Avon: We were, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, going to change the word "probationer". We have looked at the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery and have listened carefully to what he said. We think the whole question should be considered further, so we shall be looking to redraft this sentence in any event, and that will include changing "probationer" to "practitioner", and I hope with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
5.6 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 80:
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: I am not at all sure this amendment would do what I want to do. Clearly I am strongly in favour of the proposal in the Bill that any person who,
"promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for, or takes part in, any event whatsoever at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand or by any other means whatsoever for the purpose of being shot immediately after their liberation"
shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a special penalty. I am all in favour of that. I presume this deals with what used to be the awful pigeon shoot, liberating birds and shooting at them almost before they were in the air. That was rendered unlawful a long time ago, and we now have in its place clay pigeon shooting. However, I had in mind the release of captive birds not for being shot immediately but very soon afterwards. What I have in mind is what I referred to on a previous occasion—when there were very few noble Lords present; we were discussing the Ground Game Bill—the shocking institution which I described as the fate of the driven bird.
It is 100 years ago since those who went shooting, many noble Lords among them, discontinued the more civilised method of popping at birds as and when they got up in the woods or fields, and they got home with a bag of probably half-a-dozen birds and thought they had had a good day's sport. Unfortunately that was not enough; they must not only have birds up in the air that get there naturally, they must get them driven into the air. I recommend your Lordships to read a revealing book called The Big Shots, to which I referred on a previous occasion. Some of the ancestors of noble Lords prided themselves on having shot over 1,000 birds in a day. That was slaughter, not sport, and it can still go on because pheasants are bred (and other game birds may be bred) with a view to liberation in large numbers to be driven in due course against the guns. Sandringham alone at one time—yesterday, for all I know—was breeding 15,000 to 20,000 young pheasants every year to let them loose to be driven into the guns for a big Sandringham shoot.
It is that that I was intending to deal with by this amendment, but the Committee will have noticed that it would not get me there. The result is that without troubling the Minister to reply to the deficiencies of the amendment, I had better not move it so that the Commitee can get on. Noble Lords have heard what I had to say on this matter and I may return to it on some later occasion. In the meantime, I shall not move it because it does not deal as effectively as I should wish with the fate of the driven bird.
[Amendment 80 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Intentional killing of protected creatures
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally kills or injures any wild mammal, reptile or amphibian or their young including their eggs or larvae, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally—

(a) takes or has in his possession or control an animal included in Schedule 5 which is not shown to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part or any Order made under this Part; or

(b) damages or destroys any structure or place which such animal uses for shelter or protection; or

(c) disturbs or harasses any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose; he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Any person convicted of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) in respect of a wild mammal, reptile or amphibian included in Schedule 5 or in respect of a structure or place of shelter of such an animal shall be liable to a special penalty.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsections (1) or (2) by reason of—

(a) the killing or taking of a wild mammal, reptile or amphibian in Schedule 6;

(b) the taking, damaging or destruction of a structure or place of shelter of such an animal; or

(c) the taking or destruction of the eggs or larvae of any reptile or amphibian included in Schedule 6.").

The noble Baroness said: I should apologise to the Committee for the fact that the amendment is down in the wrong place. It ought to come after Schedule 4, instead of after Clause 8, but since it is here, I shall speak to it now and hope that noble Lords will not mind having a change from birds to animals.
At Second Reading, when speaking of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, I said, as reported at column 1084 of the Official Report of 16th December, 1980, that
"rationalisation has not gone far enough. All birds and all plants are, in some measure, protected and the schedules of species list those which are to be accorded additional protection, or, because they are pests, which are excepted for protection. We think that the same method, which is known as reverse-listing, should be applied to mammals, reptiles and amphibians".
That is what Amendment No. 81 does. It involves a large number of consequentials, and therefore in speaking to Amendment No. 81, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 116, 122, 131, 145A, 157, 160, 162ZA, 168, 171A, 173, 177, 180, 183, 192 and 193.
Amendment No. 81 will put mammals, reptiles and amphibians on the same footing as birds, and the new clause for these creatures resembles closely Clause 1, for birds, except that here in our new clause blanket cover applies only to killing and injuring, not taking. If we had included taking in the prohibition, we might have been accused of stopping people studying and getting to know more about wild life.
The concept of reverse listing of mammals, reptiles and amphibians is entirely consistent with the thinking behind the protection of birds. The majority of these creatures are not harmful to man's agriculture or property, and a very large proportion are declining. Conservation is not concerned merely with preventing extinction; it is concerned with ensuring that wildlife survives in reasonable abundance, so that ecosystems are maintained.
A major advantage of reverse listing is that enforce

947
ment of international conservation commitments, both at present and in the future, are facilitated and, more importantly, enforcement by the police is considerably more straightforward. That is borne out by the last 25 years' experience with the Protection of Birds Acts.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, at Second Reading, complained that the Bill as it stands does not follow the Berne Convention and that insufficient protection was given to threatened species. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, also at Second Reading, complained that blanket protection for all birds was given by Clause 1 and that exceptions were then made by schedules, whereas it is exactly the other way round for mammals. So I hope that we shall have the support of both the noble Earl and the noble Lord for this amendment.
I shall now go through the new clause. Subsection (1) brings about the protection of all mammals, reptiles and amphibians against killing and injuring. Subsection (2) creates a category of specially protected mammals, reptiles and amphibians which are additionally protected against taking, possession, disturbance while occupying any place of shelter, and destruction of shelter. That adds no extra provisions to those already proposed by the Government for their existing Schedule 5 species. Our list of specially protected mammals, reptiles and amphibians appears in Amendment No. 145A, our new Schedule 5.
All species in our new Schedule 5—that is contained in Amendment No. 145A—are on the Government schedule of species given protection, except for the badger, but my noble friend Lord Melchett said at Second Reading that he wanted wider protection for that. This will need to be looked at so that references can be made by subsequent amendments to the Badger Act. My noble friend Lord Melchett will no doubt be speaking to this later. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes offences against specially protected species subject to a special penalty. Subsection (4) creates a list of mammals, reptiles and amphibians which may be killed or taken by an authorised person, and our Amendment No. 192 lists those in our new Schedule 6. We should like to say that that list may need to be revised and we would not claim that it is finally right.
The amendments to Clause 9—these are Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 116 and 122—refer to our new schedule, which perhaps I can call Schedule 6A, as that is how we have referred to it in all these amendments, and this schedule appears in Amendment No. 193. The principle behind these amendments is to retain the existing Government provision for invertebrates and fish; in other words, these are not to be reverse-listed. One must be practical. It is all too easy to step inadvertently on an insect or mollusc; nor can we ask people to make absolutely sure before they swat it that an insect which settles on them is a noxious one.
I apologise for taking so long, but there is much to be covered, and I have dealt with 17 amendments all at once, which I hope will please those noble Lords who wish to speed on. I cannot think that these proposals can be controversial, and they have the great merit of making the Bill much more logical. I hope that the principle of reverse-listing of mammals, reptiles and amphibians will be accepted by the Government,
948
even if details have to be gone over and decided at a late stage. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am not sure that I am in favour of the amendment. First, since the noble Baroness has decided to rewrite the Bill, I would say that had I been writing it, I would have gone completely the other way. I would have disregarded the 1954 birds Act and I would have arranged the schedules accordingly. So I start on the opposite side of the road on this. I expect that the noble Baroness will ask me why I take that view. I think that, as the Bill stands, the arrangements for the mammals, compared with those for the birds, are more simple. They are certainly more simple to understand, and they are more flexible. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that flexibility is very important in legislation relating to the countryside and, as in this particuar case, to pests.
If the amendment were agreed to, it would mean that if there came in a new, exotic breed of animal, in particular if it were a pest, it would not be possible to get rid of it without going through the complete rigmarole of the Government machine, and I think I am right in saying that a negative resolution of both Houses of Parliament would also be required. That procedure would be necessary if it were wished to move a species from one schedule to another. I think the noble Baroness said in her speech that her lists already require revising, and if that need arose after the amendment were passed, there would be a quite clumsy procedure.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I congratulate the noble Baroness upon very succinctly and concisely putting together what, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has just said, would be a very radical rearrangement of the Bill. That would quite adequately meet my own objections; namely, that the vulnerable species other than birds are not adequately catered for by the Bill as it stands. It would also be a uniquely British approach. As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said in the Committee last week, in the conservation of birds the British have perhaps led the field, and the reverse-listing procedure is an extremely useful step in taking care of species which are not necessarily pests and are not in any great urgent need of protection. However, having said that I feel that that proposal would be a great step forward, none the less I am inclined to feel that to take this uniquely British approach at this stage might be so fraught with so many difficulties and objections that one would have to consider it rather carefully before being quite so radical in altering the approach which is laid down by the Berne Convention itself.
Lord Melchett: Naturally we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for his somewhat qualified support. I am not entirely clear that I agree with him that this is a uniquely British approach. My understanding is that generally, internationally, in a number of different ways, people have been pushing for the adoption of a reverse listing approach; for example, in the CITIES Convention, which deals with trade in endangered species. The generally preferred approach—it may not have been adopted generally yet, but it

949
is the generally preferred approach internationally, as well as certainly by all the interested voluntary organisations in this country—is to adopt reverse listing.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, suggested that this might be more complicated than the existing provisions of the Bill. I suppose that really depends whether you feel it is more complicated to be able to kill only those species which are listed than it is simply to be able to kill everything if you want to do so. It does not seem to me to be very much more complicated one way or the other; either everything is protected except those things which need to be killed—and they are listed in the schedule—or you can kill everything if you want to and those things which are specially protected are listed in the schedule. If I may say so to the noble Lord, I really do not think there is very much in that argument.
Nor did I think there was much in his argument about some sudden new arrival of a major pest species with which everybody had to deal very rapidly, because I thought that was exactly what the licensing provisions in the Bill were designed to deal with, and why they were supported so strongly by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. It seems to me that that provides a complete answer to the objection which he raised to this particular amendment.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: To begin with, perhaps I may put the record straight. The noble Baroness mentioned that she was speaking to Amendment No. 179. I believe that should have been No. 180. It is a very small point, but it is one for the record; and I, of course, should like to speak to the same amendments as the noble Baroness mentioned. I understand the purpose of these amendments as twofold: first, to apply general protection of the kind applied in the Protection of Birds Acts to all wild animals other than some listed ones; and, secondly, to extend Clause 11 to be capable of covering all creatures (other than birds which are already covered elsewhere) and not just mammals. First, may I say that it may well be necessary to include other creatures in Clause 11, and it is, as the noble Baroness said, slightly difficult to speak to the mammals now when we are going to have quite a large go at them later. While the Government do not really take this amendment to their hearts in view of its context, I shall certainly take this point for future consideration.
As regards the point of general protection for all wild animals, I would stress to your Lordships that the Government's primary aim in this Bill is to make provisions which would enable the necessary steps to be taken to conserve those creatures for which conservation measures are required, and this is not really meant to be a protection Bill for mammals. Here, I think I take a little the point that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook made when he said that one might perhaps cloud the issue if one is not too careful. The Government's advisers on wildlife are satisfied that the Government's proposals will enable conservation measures to be taken whenever it is appropriate that a creature requires protection on conservation grounds.
If I might side-track a little—because I think whales are included in one of the schedules—I know that most noble Lords are aware that recently, in a Fisheries Bill,
950
the existing prohibition on the taking of whales in United Kingdom waters or by British registered ships was strengthened, and in future the taking of cetaceans will be illegal. There is therefore no need to make special provision for them in this Bill. I bring this out merely as an example; noble Lords will know that European Community regulations banning imports of most primary products from cetaceans, and many of the most secondary products, were adopted by the Council of Ministers in December and come into force at the beginning of next year. This was as a direct result of our Government's action.
To come back to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, I think it is more a matter of public conscience and education than of conservation, and it raises really a whole host of other considerations. As your Lordships are aware, cruelty to animals is well covered by other legislation, and I would emphasise most strongly that we wish to keep the conservation message of this Bill as clear as possible. While I personally fully respect, as do the Government, the sentiments that have caused the moving of this amendment, we should like it to be withdrawn at this stage. The Government will undertake further consideration, particularly to widen Clause 11; and, also, I think we shall have an opportunity to discuss this in more detail when we come to Clause 11. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would like to prolong the argument now, or whether she would withdraw her amendment at this stage and perhaps come back to it again later.
Lord Melchett: It seems to me that the Government, in arguing, as the noble Earl has, that this is a conservation Bill and not a protection Bill, are really in extremely difficult waters. The fact of the matter is that the Bill re-enacts the Protection of Birds Acts, and all we are trying to do by this amendment is to treat mammals, amphibians and reptiles in exactly the same way as the Government are proposing that birds should be treated. For the noble Earl to get up and be asked to say that this is not quite the approach that the Government arc adopting in the Bill seems to me, if I may say so, an argument somewhat of despair and the last resort, because it seems to me, more seriously, that there really is not an intelligent and sensible argument against what is being proposed in this amendment, which is logical and rational.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was kind enough to call it an advanced British approach, and I think that is something we ought to be rather pleased about, rather than fight shy of, as I am afraid I thought the noble Earl, Lord Avon, was tending to do a little in his response. To say, as he was asked to say, that this really is not in line with the Bill does not seem to me to be a starter as a serious argument. I accept, of course—and this is something that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, touched on—that the detail would need careful consideration. In particular, the list of what were in effect the pest species would need to be considered carefully, and I do not think that we on this side, as my noble friend made clear in moving the amendment, have any firm or fixed views about the contents of that. Nor would we want, in adopting this approach for mammals, reptiles and amphibians for the first time, to stir up any controversy or

951
difficulty with those who felt that more species should be included than we had included. I do not think there is any question of that.
Perhaps I could make one other point, which relates to an amendment we shall be coming to in a minute, on the Badgers Act. It seems to me that our approach is in fact far simpler than the existing appalling muddle into which we are getting ourselves on mammals. We have separate Acts dealing with seals, deer and badgers. At least on birds we have only one set of Acts, which take a consistent and coherent approach. That is not the case in relation to mammals. I can see, in years to come, our running into the danger of having even more different bits of legislation applying to different things. We are already, in this Bill, running into some appalling problems in trying to tie up what the Government are doing for the badger in this Bill with what the Badgers Act does. It does not seem to me at the moment that there is any interlocking or intermeshing between the two things at all.
In other words, although it is difficult and although it is a new approach to mammals, reptiles and amphibians, our amendment would lead to far greater simplification and far greater coherence in the Bill, and, if I may say so, to a much easier approach and a much easier understanding for everybody outside this Committee who has not been through the thing line by line as we have. All mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds are protected except those in the Bill which are listed and which can be killed. That seems to me clear and straightforward, and I would hope that the noble Earl, in reconsidering this, would be able to take those points on board. But, of course, we are very grateful and somewhat encouraged by the fact that he has offered to take this on board, and I think we would be quite happy to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I feel that there is one point that she brought up which should be mentioned. I fear over-simplification. I believe it would be an awful mistake to think that you could include all legislation to do with deer in a Bill of this kind. Certainly in Scotland it would be a great mistake not to have the Deer Act that we have there. I think that the idea of putting everything into one Bill is perhaps an unwise objective in certain instances.
Lord Melchett: I was misleading the Committee. Deer as game would continue to be covered by separate Acts. I was making the point that to pretend that the existing approach to mammals is a simple one seems to me to be misleading.
Baroness David: I think that my noble friend has answered the individual points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, so that I do not need to repeat them except to say that there is a possibility under Clause 20 of the Secretary of State adding things to the schedules if it should become suddenly necessary. I thank the Minister for pointing out in connection with Amendment No. 169 that I should have mentioned Amendment No. 180 instead. That is so. I believe
952
that the numbers of some of the amendments must have been changed between the first and second Marshalled Lists. I agree with my noble friend in thinking that this approach is more logical and also with the protection points that he made. But as the Government have said that they are willing to consider this again, and in the light of the debate now and the debate that will take place on the Clause 11 proposals, I will for the moment withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Birds which are protected by special penalties]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
("Goldeneye Bucephala clangula").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 83 with Amendments Nos. 90 and 94, with the permission of the Committee. I should like to suggest that it might be simpler and save time if I were allowed to move together the eleven amendments in my name which affect five species of birds in Schedules 1 and 2, because I doubt whether noble Lords will wish to comment and debate upon each individual bird. They hang together—if I may be excused the pun; although, of course, I am hoping that they will not. I think that if I have permission to do this it will be easier.
Lord Kilbracken: I have one or two amendments on the same subjects. Would the noble Lord agree that we take the birds in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 separately?
Lord Chelwood: They are rather connected. Some of the amendments are consequential; a bird comes off one schedule and goes into another. I think it is the easiest way.
The Earl of Avon: If I could have the numbers of the amendments to which the noble Lord is speaking I should be grateful.
Lord Chelwood: With permission, they are Amendments Nos. 83, 87, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97 (which is jointly with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken) and Nos. 108 and 109, all of which affect Schedules 1 or 2, and five species of birds. By way of introduction, I should like to tell the Committee that during the passage of the Wild Bird Protection Acts of 1954 and 1967—with both of which I was closely concerned—I felt that it would be a mistake to try to force upon the Government the opinions of Parliament about individual species of birds, bearing in mind that the Government have the advice of highly expert committees in the shape of the birds advisory committees which are representative of sporting interests, conservation interests, scientific interests, farming interests and so on. I must say that over the years their advice has been on the whole very good, but I think it right that they should take some real account of the views expressed by your Lordships.

953
What I should like to ask my noble friend to do after he has heard my views and others would be to say that he will think about this and have further questions put to the bird advisory committees to look at in an entirely fresh light. I think that it is time that they did so, and that will be a satisfactory outcome of this discussion. I consider that there are strong arguments for the amendments I am putting forward—not arguments just of sentiment but practical ones. I hope that some or all of these amendments may find their way into the Bill at a later stage.
It is an accident of history and also an accident of habit that the curlew, the scaup and the goldeneye and the redshank and, for that matter, the bar-tailed godwit (which ought to be with the black-tailed godwit in Schedule 1 Part I) are huntable birds. Perhaps that is true, too, of the golden plover, although that is slightly apart. Few countries, I think your Lordships will agree, have much better wildfowling than we have or in greater variety. I enjoy it myself immensely. There is no need for rationing the number of birds that wildfowlers can shoot as there is, rightly, in so many other countries—and small rations they are. Who wants to shoot the shore waders, anyway, or, for that matter, the really rare ducks? The goldeneye—and this is Amendments Nos. 83, 90 and 94—is a very rare breeding bird. It is thought that only 17 pairs bred in the United Kingdom last year and the very first known breeding bird was discovered 10 years ago. Only a few thousand goldeneyes winter here. It is easy to recognise and rather nasty to eat. For these and other reasons I should like to see it taken off the hunting list in Schedule 2 Part I and placed in Schedule 1 Part I and given protection all the year round.
Next, Amendments 87, 91, 97, and 109 are all to do with him the scaup. The scaup are exceptionally rare and very irregular breeders in this country. There are only five known records in 15 years but as many as 25,000 used to winter here, the great bulk of them on the Forth, at Seafield, near Edinburgh. But the numbers breeding at Seafield fell last year to as few as about 1,000, and the total for the whole of United Kingdom is only a few thousand. It is also clear that there is no sign of a return to former numbers. The trend has been downwards all the time. I have not eaten a scaup and I do not particularly want to. Some noble Lords may have done so but I should think they are not very good eating. The scaup merits protection all the year round—there is a strong case here—and not just out of season, which is the protection it has at present. Amendment 109 would remove the scaup from Schedule 3 Part III. And that amendment would stand on its own feet, even if regrettably my other proposals regarding this bird were not accepted.
Next is Amendment No. 92 which is to deal with the curlew. What of the curlew? Who wants to shoot at curlews? Who wants to eat one? I am told that where they live in different habitats in the Far East they are delicious and regarded as a great delicacy but they are not so here, I would suggest. When I spoke to a wildfowler friend of mine he said, "I hope you will not get protection for the curlew. I teach my children to shoot on curlews when there are no duck around". Well, I think that he should teach
954
them to shoot at hooded crows, ravens, jays or pigeons and so on. The curlew is a very common breeding bird; they winter in huge numbers, in many thousands, sometimes perhaps as many as 50,000. We are hosts in this country to about one-sixth of the European population of curlews. Thirteen of our estuaries have been listed by the EEC, and listed internationally by the ICBP, as of international importance. The much rarer whimbrel is now in Schedule 1. They are easily confused with the curlew, unless sitting beside them on the shoreline. It is a rather smaller bird but easily confused with the curlew. So, I think, are both the godwits although they are easy to distinguish from the curlew when sitting on the shoreline.
My main argument is the serious disturbance that all shore waders are bound to suffer when curlew and other shore birds are shot, as nearly all of these shore birds are protected. I am suggesting that all of them should be protected. They all suffer from shooting during vital roosting and feeding periods. Cannot we spare the lovely curlew, even if the scientific arguments are not overwhelming, and even though few get shot or wounded? There is no new evidence why we should think again. None the less, I think that it is reasonable that we should do so. I do not think that the curlew should ever have been on the shooting list. I hope that the advisory committee will also reconsider this question.
Then, very briefly, the golden plover, a delicious bird to eat, as most of us know. I must not reminisce, but I remember in the restaurant in the Commons just after the 1967 bird Act we were offered on the menu black plover. Knowing that there was no such thing, I asked the chairman of the Kitchen Committee to explain. He wrote back and said they were in fact green plovers; but as the green plover was protected, he had to withdraw that suggestion and it turned out in the end that we had been eating rooks—and very good they were too! They are at least on the pest list.
The golden plover, although a common bird—some 30,000 pairs are known to breed in this country—is remarkably scarce as a breeding bird in other EEC countries. That is the reason why it is in Annexe I of the EEC bird directive which is roughly equivalent to our Schedule 1, Part I. It was very largely the result of pressure we brought to bear on the other EEC countries that there is such a thing as a bird directive at all. It seems to me that when a bird is so rare across the Channel that it is listed on the list of rare birds in Annexe I we must be very careful indeed how we step out of line. It would be encouraging our French and Italian friends to continue eating blackcaps, nightingales, golden orioles and anything else that they can shoot. I doubt whether that would be a wise thing to do because we have a major responsibility in this respect.
Amendment No. 108, which is coupled with Amendment No. 95, can be regarded as standing on its own feet in that it would prevent the sale of the golden plover. I remember, regarding the 1967 Act, there was a considerable furore about one of the sections which prevented the sale of dead wild geese. It was fairly easily carried. A good many people objected. It seemed sensible to remove the commercial incentive for shooting geese, which are a very serious pest in

955
many circumstances, and that is now widely accepted. Even if Amendment No. 95 is not acceptable to the Government and they do not amend the Bill in that respect, Amendment No. 108 stands on its own feet.
Lastly—and I am speaking as quickly as I possibly can — the redshank. Amendment No. 96 would remove this shore wader from the species that may be killed outside the close season. I wonder how many Members of the Committee want to shoot a redshank. I dare say a few might have done so. I have not. There is no denying that it is a common, widespread bird, but it is declining here—the figures show that is the case—as a result of habitat loss through the draining of wetlands and coastal reclamation. Very large numbers winter in Europe but out of those huge numbers one-third winter here. Twenty of our sites are regarded as of international importance. This again gives us a definite international responsibility. The disturbance argument applies here just as I suggested that it did where other shore waders are concerned. The recognition of the redshank in flight is nothing I would guarantee to do even with a pair of field glasses rather than a gun in my hand. It is easy to mistake for some of the sandpipers, the ruff, reeve or for a greenshank and a number of other shore birds. It could even be mistaken for the very rare spotted red-shank as well as, as I have said, other shore waders. Why shoot the redshank? It is time we protected these five birds. I think there is a strong case where all of them are concerned. I shall be exceptionally grateful if my noble friend will give us an assurance that what I have said and what else is said during this debate will he taken carefully into account by the advisory committees. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Speaking generally, as the noble Lord did over all his amendments, I should like to give enthusiastic support. He put his case extremely well and with great detail. I shall speak very shortly. Anyone who wants to shoot a goldeneye might just as well go and "pot" at the tufted ducks in Regent's Park. There are plenty of things to shoot without doing that. The golden plover is a wonderful bird. The redshank is one of the birds that the birdwatchers in all the estuaries are looking out for. The curlew is one of the beauties of nature. I am totally in favour of restricting sportsmen from killing these birds because there are plenty of others that we are not trying to stop them shooting. I hope no quarter will be given to people who break the new rules which I hope will be accepted if Lord Chelwood's amendment is agreed to.
The Earl of Onslow: I support my noble friend. I thoroughly enjoy my shooting. Those of us who shoot wild duck must be particularly conscious of the conservation argument. Without conservation, we cannot shoot. There should be no possible cause for those of us who indulge in venery to endanger or shoot other species which are unnecessary to eat.
Lord Kilbracken: My name is joined with one of Lord Chelwood's amendments. Another one, Amendment No. 93, includes the bar-tailed godwit which my
956
noble friend might be interested to include in this discussion. I agree wholeheartedly on the question of all the shore waders. I have never been able to understand why anyone should want to go out and shoot redshank or curlew. In the case of the golden plover, as he mentioned, that is one bird—although I have never eaten one—which I believe is delicious to eat.
I should like to see all those waders removed from the list. When it comes to the two duck to which he has referred—the goldeneye and the scaup—I must admit to some reservations. Both birds are extremely rare breeding species. They appear in very large numbers in the winter and that is when they are going to be shot. Because of the risk that a few breeding birds might be killed by accident, I would agree with the noble Lord that both species should be removed from the list in Schedule 2, Part I of those that may be shot outside the close season.
I feel that it is going a little far to include these species on Schedule I where if they were shot they could attract very large penalties. I say that simply because although both birds should be recognisable to any sportsman, let alone to any ornithologist, it could sometimes be very difficult for someone shooting duck, particularly in the early morning or late evening, who is a bit excited and has been shooting mallard, teal or whatever, and a flight of goldeneye or scaup comes in.
Although the goldeneye of course makes the characteristic whistle as it flies, which most of us know, and also scaup are quite easy to distinguish if in broad daylight and one has a pair of binoculars, when it comes to duck shooting it is so easy to "poop" off at a flight of duck and—lo and behold—there is a goldeneye lying beside you. I know the goldeneye well; it visits my lakes and I like it very much. That would be a tragedy. It would be unfair if, under those circumstances, a person found himself liable to an enormous fine when he had not realised that he was shooting one of the prohibited species.
The Earl of Swinton: I was very glad to hear that last remark from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, because I was going to say a few words before a tide of euphoria swept over the Committee and we agreed to these amendments without their being looked at at all. A very valuable point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he stressed that what, as sportsmen, we must look at is the conservation side. I do not think it is for us to judge whether something is a suitable target to be shot or whether it is good to eat or nasty to eat. People have strange tastes in their feeding habits and they may find that a bar-tailed godwit is to them rather as an oyster is to some of us, or, on the other hand, it may well turn us off. We cannot judge on that; what we have to judge on are the conservation measures.
I am very fortunate myself in that I have land on which golden plover, curlew and redshank nest. Nothing would induce me to shoot any of those birds: I think they are absolutely lovely birds. On the other hand, I would not say, just because I do not like shooting them, that nobody else should have the pleasure, if it gives them pleasure to shoot them. When we are shooting at home and somebody asks; "What can I shoot?" I say: "Anything that gives you pleasure

957
as long as it is legal." I do not know whether a low pheasant gives somebody pleasure or not: it is not for me to judge that.
I think the important thing is the conservation side and a very good point was made by my noble friend about the scaup. Perhaps numbers are declining there and this is something which might well go on the protected list. I am not so convinced about the goldeneye, nor about the five species of waders. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, made the point that this should be referred to the advisory committee for them to look at. I certainly would not dispute that: I think they ought to look at this and come back with recommendations, rather than that we should accept these amendments perhaps for sentimental reasons.
Lord Melchett: I should like to point out to my noble friend and to others who have spoken about the goldeneye and the scaup that the principle, as I understand it, that has been adopted in protecting birds and putting them on Schedule 1 is not that a bird which is capable of being confused with any other which is shot is not eligible for Schedule 1, because it seems to me that a number of other birds which are on Schedule 1 would not be there if that were the case. Noble Lords will remember that when we discussed night shooting a great deal was made of a sportsman's ability to tell by the light of the moon the difference between various species of duck; so I would not, with respect, have thought there was much of an argument against scaup and goldeneye on that ground, particularly as I would have thought they were fairly easily recognisable in comparison with some other duck.
The other point I wanted to make is that the wintering populations of both species are not particularly high. The goldeneye has ranged from about 6,000 to 9,500 and the figure for scaup is somewhat lower than that. Of course this is the winter population: the breeding population is a good deal lower, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said. The wintering population of the scaup is between 5,000 and 6,500 birds, so I would not have thought that in either case there was a very strong argument for not accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood.
Lord Margadale: I only wish to support the last but one speaker in regard to the goldeneye and the scaup. They are birds which from force of habit live in a particular place and sometimes find that those places move. From my personal observations in the Inner Hebrides in most of January, the scaup are in fact increasing. The goldeneye always have been in fairly short supply and I hope that perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to look at this matter further before going too far ahead.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: We get a lot of golden plover in the autumn on the hills, and of course it could happen that you would get golden plover coming over with the grouse. A lot of people who shoot grouse are not always very good naturalists, and although I quite agree they ought to be able to tell the difference, in the excitement of the birds coming over, if there were golden plover and grouse coming over together, they might well shoot the golden plover. I
958
support my noble friend in his amendments. From a gastronomic point of view—that may be the wrong word—the golden plover are very good to eat but we must not think of our stomachs, but of conservation.
Lord Dulverton: In welcoming the whole of the amendment of my noble friend, I would spring up for a moment if I may in defence of the goldeneye. It has been said that it does not deserve all that much protection, but there is a particular point which was briefly referred to earlier by one speaker. As was said, there are only a very few of them breeding in this country. None of them ever did breed in this country until 10 years ago. They are rather peculiar, though not unique, as being ducks which nest in holes in trees. I think there were 15 or 17 pairs nesting successfully here in the British Isles during this last breeding season, and something less than 150 young birds were reared and fledged. It would be the most awful pity if any of those birds got shot during the winter season because if we value having another breeding bird among our native species, and most of us do, every one of those home-bred birds that is shot will lessen the chances of their coming back and spreading the establishment of a healthy and, hopefully one day, quite large breeding population of goldeneye. So I would put in a particular plea for them.
The Duke of Atholl: I am not going to mention duck, after this first mention, but it seems to me totally illogical, and always has done, that the green plover is protected and the golden plover is not. From personal observation I would say that the green plover is extremely common in most of this country and the golden plover, though quite common in certain places, is by no means so universally common. I very much hope that my noble friend will refer this whole flatter to his advisory body. Possibly he might put the golden plover on to the protected list and take off the green plover, or at any rate out of Schedule 1—I am not sure whether it is there. It seems to me that we have those two species the wrong way round and we ought to reconsider both of them.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I should speak briefly with regard to the two schedules and then take some of the species in detail. I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Chelwood that he has altogether too unbecoming an idea of your Lordships' importance in this debate. Not only were all the amendments looked at by the advisory committee before I came to the Dispatch Box on this occasion, but I can assure him that the members will read this debate with particular interest, and indeed it is possible that some members are even listening to it now. So I can assure him that every single thing which has been said during this debate on the schedules will be taken into account by the advisory committee and, if necessary, amendments will be made at a later stage.
To explain how we approach the printing of the schedules we are now discussing, in the first place we have honoured all our obligations under the European directive and these have required a substantial reduction in the list of birds which may be hunted—often, it must be said, to meet the concerns of our Community partners rather than because it was our belief that the

959
hunting of these species was affecting their conservation status. Having done that, we took advice of the NCC and the advisory committee, species by species, and where there was a clear, if not necessarily unanimous, view that protection is needed for conservation, we have proposed it.
What we have not been prepared to do is to give protection to a common species because it may be mistaken for a rare one. That we consider a slippery slope, which is certain to lose the consent and willing co-operation which farmers and hunters at present give. We were also concerned that Schedule 1, which gives special protection, should not grow too long, and that it, too, must be seen to meet real and not just hypothetical needs. That is why we have been very selective over which birds we have put in.
In Schedule 2, Part I, we were mainly governed by the very drastic reductions in the list of huntable species which were agreed in the European directive. We are not, therefore, disposed to shorten the list any further, unless new evidence, which was not available to us a year ago, is provided and then the NCC so advises. Schedule 2, Part II, which I do not think we have spoken about yet, and which is often known as the pest schedule, has been halved so that we can meet our obligations under the directive. Only those species which are causing damage all over the country are included. For many of the species removed, such as the greater black-backed gull, there will be licences which allow their control for those types of damage which they cause and in the areas where they cause it.
Having so said, may I come on to the goldeneye? Since 1970, this duck has increased as a breeding bird in Scotland from one to 21 nesting females in 1979. This has been mainly due to the provision of nest boxes. Although a freshwater duck in the breeding season, and frequently seen on reservoirs and lakes in winter, the vast majority of European goldeneyes, assessed at about 150,000 birds, spend winter on the sea with perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 visiting British and Irish coasts. Between 500 and 1,400 are probably shot each year in Britain. We are advised that the status of the goldeneye has remained essentially unchanged since the negotiations a year ago, and thus there is no conservation case for removing them from the schedule. May I once again say that, of course, we will take into account what has been said during the course of this debate.
As regards the bar-tailed godwit—which is in the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken—approximately 40,000 winter in Britain, out of a total of 90,000 in the rest of Europe. There has been no marked change in recent times and, again, we are advised that the status of the bar-tailed godwit remains essentially unchanged. So, once again, we do not see the necessity at the moment for any change.
Just to show that one is not being entirely negative, I am glad to say that the Government accept that there has been a change in the status of the scaup and we will, therefore, be making an amendment to this effect. As regards the golden plover, that is one of the most abundant wintering waders in Great Britain, with a population of up to 210,000 in winter. We believe there is no conservation case at present for prohibiting hunting, but, once again, there have been
960
some interesting points raised which will be considered again.
The conservation of the redshank was thoroughly investigated when the hunting list which was annexed to the EEC directive was being formulated. The advisory committee and the Nature Conservancy Council advised at the time that the species should be retained on the list of species that may be hunted in the United Kingdom. Since then, there has not been a deterioration in the conservation status of the species to justify giving the species all-the-year-round protection.
The next one is the curlew, which is in Schedule 2, Part I. That is a list of birds which may be hunted in the open season and this reflects our obligations under the birds directive. During the negotiations, full account was taken of the species' populations and trends. The evidence does not suggest that the status of the species has suffered since that time. But, once again, we shall carefully monitor the course of the curlew.
I should like to close by asking noble Lords to withdraw their amendments, with the promise that the scaup is to be reviewed. All the others will be looked at, and I can give an undertaking that both the department and the advisory council will, of course, monitor the trends of those birds which we have been speaking about in this debate.
Lord Melchett: May I make two further points to the noble Earl, Lord Avon? First, it seems to me that on a number of these species there was fairly widespread feeling that it was simply not right that they should be on a list of things that were shot. Much as we would all feel that there are plenty of nightingales, it would not be particularly appropriate for them to be on a list of species to be shot. The noble Earl has very kindly said that points made on all sides will be taken into account, and that sentiment, which seemed to me to be fairly common among many noble Lords who spoke, could be considered.
May I make one other point to him? When the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, was on the Front Bench last year—in fact, on 26th June, 1980—he answered a Question that I asked the Government about which organisations were responsible for monitoring waterfowl populations on wetland sites in the United Kingdom. The Government's reply was that the NCC is the statutory adviser to the Government. But the Written Answer went on:
"In providing advice on water fowl populations they"—
that is, the NCC—
"draw heavily on data supplied by the Wildfowl Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology ".—[Official Report, 2616/80; col. 1861.]
I hope that the Government will remind themselves of that reply, in the light of the fact that, as I understand it, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, are all supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and, possibly, by the two other voluntary organisations on which the Government said last year they relied very heavily for advice in monitoring populations of such birds. That seems to me to be an added point—for which I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, in his previous incarnation

961
—which supports the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, put forward.
The Earl of Avon: I take the points of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I had on my speaking list that we would also consider moving from schedule to schedule. I am not sure whether I actually said that in my speech, but I have made a note of the point. As regards the advisory bodies, there are, as he said, quite a lot of different bodies who can advise. As I also said, the advice is not always the same, so from time to time the NCC has to make a decision. Therefore, when one gets, from one side of the Chamber or the other, certain views from certain bodies, although we accept that as coming from a particular body, there may have been contrary advice from another body. So not everybody can be satisfied all the time.
The Earl of Onslow: This may not be the right place to raise this point. But my noble friend the Duke of Atholl commented on the fact that green plover are infinitely more common than golden plover. I would certainly back that from observations where I live. The place is crawling with them. Plovers' eggs were a delicacy. Would it not be possible to have a small collecting season for plovers' eggs?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Green plover is the farmers' friend. It would be very bad to take them out of the schedule. Regarding plovers' eggs, you can take them up to a certain date—
Several noble Lords: You cannot.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Melchett in what he has said concerning the noble Earl's reply. I hope that the noble Earl may think about it again. It is quite mistaken that, as a defence for keeping some of these waders, in particular, on the list, he should talk about how extremely common they are. I do not see why a bird's commonness has anything at all to do with it. Nothing could be commoner than a blackbird, a thrush or a chaffinch, depending on where you live. But although they are extremely common, and, in fact, abundant, they are protected and no one can kill them.
It seems to me that the only exceptions from the species which one is allowed to kill should be either those which are recognised pests or those which are good to eat. The fact that, unfortunately for them, some birds are good to eat is a relevant consideration. Birds like the redshank and the curlew are not pests, nor are they good to eat. I do not know why anybody should shoot them. The fact that they are fairly numerous, although not quite so numerous as blackbirds, should not disqualify them from the protection which they deserve, particularly in view of the fact that, as has been mentioned, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would very much like these birds to be protected throughout the year. I hope that the noble Earl will refer this matter to the advisory committee.
The Earl of Avon: I think I said that everything will be considered. A good number of different points have been made, from eating to hunting, as well as various
962
others. I have just heard that there is a possibility that in some areas plovers' eggs could be licensed, which might horrify some people.
Lord Chelwood: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for the sympathetic way in which he has responded to this debate on the different species contained in the schedules. I feel very strongly indeed that whether the redshank, the curlew, the bar-tailed godwit are common, rare, easy or hard to identify, or easy to mix up with other birds, or not so easy to mix up, or whether they are good to eat or nasty to eat does not make very much difference to the principle which I am suggesting: that shooting shore waders is an historic accident. I think they are the only three—the golden plover not being a shore bird—which are still left on the huntable list. This has just happened and been taken for granted. It would be far tidier in every way, and would mean that wildfowlers would lose nothing worth while if they were all protected. The scaup and the goldeneye are different matters. The case for the scaup is very strong and my noble friend accepted it. The case for the goldeneye is perhaps equally strong.
The ban on the sale of the golden plover, even if it remains a quarry or huntable species, makes sense, as did the case for dead wild geese. I remember that in 1954 the suggestion was made by Members of both Houses that all wild birds should be protected and that their nests and eggs should also be protected. This was looked at with absolute horror by the Home Office. It would not have stood the slightest chance of being passed by either House. However, in 1967 that is exactly what we did, apart from the pest list. So far as shore waders are concerned, time has moved on and we should look at them again. I am very grateful to my noble friend and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Earl Haig Earl Haig moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 44, line 34, at end insert—
("Gull, Blackheaded Larus ridibundus").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to declare an interest, in that I derive a small income from selling gulls' eggs. My purpose in putting down the amendment is to protect birds in wildlife reserves, particularly in Scotland where there are no laws of trespass.
Some years ago I allowed the Scottish Wildlife Trust to use some 80 acres of marshland on Bemersyde as a nature reserve. That request was made to me because of the large variety of interesting birds to be seen there. Since then, most of those interesting birds—the rare ducks, the hooper swans, the Canada geese and so on—have vanished and ceased to nest upon the moss. They have been driven away not by the birdwatchers who come quietly and in small numbers and who take no eggs but by parties of men who come from neigh-bouring towns, armed with inflatable rubber boats to collect the eggs of the blackheaded gulls for market. These parties arrive in the early morning and remain out for most of the day. They have abused and threatened to assault my keeper. They do not dis-

963
criminate between the kind of birds eggs that they rob and they rob them throughout the laying period.
In terms of the Bill, landlords are likely to be the licensees for the taking of eggs of wild birds such as the blackheaded gull. In theory, anybody else without a licence would be debarred from doing so. So far as it goes, this is all right. A landlord should be allowed to include the market in gulls' eggs as part of his management programme for limited periods, designed to maintain the size of gulleries. It is far better than to have them reduced in size by over-exploitation, as is happening in many parts of Scotland. A modicum of culling will always be needed in the interests both of agriculture and of the other species which need space for nesting.
It will be difficult to stop egg stealing because the laws of trespass in Scotland do not prevent access to wildlife reserves. As it is the access of unwanted visitors in great numbers which does harm to a reserve, it is the access which should be stopped. Anybody seeing a policeman coming over the horizon could simply throw his gulls' eggs into the water and be immune from the law. I cannot see many policemen giving much of their valuable time to wildlife protection so long as there is only a slim chance of a conviction to show for their time at the end of the day.
Local collectors are sceptical about the chance of conviction. Strong penalties will be needed if they are to be deterred. A law which had escaped their attention referred to the taking of eggs on Sundays, but the last time there was a conviction on the grounds of egg-taking on the Sabbath, the evidence in the form of the eggs exploded in court, with a resultant smell, and those who were involved in the case were admonished without penalty.
I believe that the present situation could best be remedied by prohibiting access to wildlife reserves by all unlicensed persons, but as the Bill does not make such a provision I believe that the problem could be remedied if the blackheaded gull were listed in Schedule 1. Then any unlicensed person going among the gulls' nests in a boat could be deterred from doing so. If he was found in his boat near the nests, he would be guilty of an offence and liable to a special penalty. Once deterred, the egg stealers would not return and the wild bird might return instead. The proposed new law, though giving some protection to wildlife reserves, does not go far enough. It is becoming more and more difficult to protect these wild places for proper uses, so I hope that the Government will give the protection that is needed. That protection is needed certainly by the Tweed Valley Branch of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. It is probably needed throughout Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: I should like to support my noble friend. Despite the Minister saying that the Government were rather reluctant to consider increasing the number of birds in Schedule 4, the blackheaded gull is nevertheless a species which is steadily reducing in number and which deserves special consideration in the circumstances which my noble friend Lord Haig has outlined. The amendment is necessary because it is one of those cases where theory does not work in practice. In theory, the blackheaded
964
gull is protected under the provisions which protect all wild birds but in practice the blackheaded gulls' nests are ravaged and cannot be protected under the umbrella of the general provision.
In Scotland, the cliffs where the nesting of the blackheaded gull goes on are desecrated by gangs from quite distant towns who come in inflated rubber boats and who spend the whole day climbing and robbing the nests. That goes on because of course there is no law of trespass in Scotland. There is only the process of interdict, which is far too complicated to consider in such cases. These men can come and go virtually with impunity and, as my noble friend Lord Haig said, if any policeman appears to be at all inquisitive, all they have to do is break the eggs and throw them overboard.
I think that this blackheaded gull should be included in the amendment because of the particular circumstances which I have outlined: depreciation in numbers, ravaged in a way that other birds are not ravaged, by commercial gangs. Of course the blackheaded gull has a commercial value and no doubt if it was included in the schedule there would be those who would say that we were giving a monopoly to the landlord, who would have the licence to cull and possibly the cull would be abused and over-raiding and over-selling of eggs from the nests might take place. However, it seems to me that that is quite easy to overcome if any licence granted to a landlord has the provision that culling shall be only in agreement with the Wildfowl Trust. That would deal with that point.
I hope that the noble Lord will at least say that this matter of the special blackheaded gull will be considered. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Haig is going to do about his amendment but if he withdraws it I hope it will be on an understanding from the Minister that anyhow what has been said about the peculiar circumstances in this particular case will be considered. It is not much to ask and I hope it will be granted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am not in the least opposed to the intention behind the amendment but I should like to be instructed by the noble Earl who is to reply. So far as I can see, putting the black-headed gull—which, as the noble Earl has said, is already protected under the general Protection of Birds Acts—into Schedule 1 would not give a bigger penalty for damaging the eggs. Schedule I provides special penalties for killing. If it does give an additional penalty for damaging the eggs, I should favour it, but none of this will have any effect on the real problem, which is the problem of policing. Goodness knows how Scottish landowners are supposed to do this. I do not know whether the Government have any views, but it seems to me that nothing short of better policing, (which we shall discuss later on. when we shall have some suggestions to make about it) will do anything to help anybody.
Under Clause 15(1)(f) I am going to move an amendment covering the collection of gull's eggs, which seems to be the only form of egg collection to provide food from the wild which is acceptable. We can discuss that when we come to it, but the real problem at present is that of policing and it is not, so far as I can see, a problem of bird protection by law.

965
I shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say about that.
The Duke of Atholl: I think I must declare a small interest, in that I am the honorary president of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, so somewhat naturally I thoroughly support the objects of my noble friend's amendment. But I think it is defective and it will not achieve its purpose for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has given from the Bench opposite.
I think that what we need is some way of giving greater protection to the nature reserves established by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. In many cases these are extremely important. They are not necessarily the same places as the reserves which the Nature Conservancy Council administer—I do not think more than one or two are the same—and they give rise to extremely difficult problems of policing when the law of trespass in Scotland is, to put it mildly, thought to be non-existent, although I am told by my legal friends that in fact this is not the case. But as long as it is thought to be non-existent people are going to come in and they are going to take far too many eggs of the blackheaded gull for the good of that species.
I do not really think that there is the same problem in England and I feel that, even if the Government decide that this is one way of dealing with the problem, it might be advisable to put the blackheaded gull into Schedule 1 so far as Scotland is concerned, but not so far as England and Wales are concerned. Although I am entirely in favour of the objectives which my noble friend Lord Haig wishes to achieve, I am doubtful whether this amendment will in fact achieve them.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: If I may say a word about the law of trespass in Scotland, when the Labour Government were in power—I think about 10 or 12 years ago—I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was on the Front Bench, and he told me that in fact there is a law of trespass in Scotland. Of course it is not possible to get a conviction for trespass but one has the right to order people off. Of course to a certain extent it might depend upon who is the stronger!
Lord Renton: It is with some temerity that 1 rise to express disagreement with what has been said by my noble friends. I should declare that I have an interest in a part of Scotland where we try to protect the young mallard and teal and other duck which breed locally —although not very many of them—and also pheasants breeding on the marsh, which pheasants love, of course. We find that the blackheaded gulls are great enemies of these birds during the nesting season. It would be quite a serious thing if they were given the complete protection which, by implication, seems to be sought and I hope that my noble friend Lord Avon, when he is considering this matter further, will bear in mind that the blackheaded gull is sometimes a predatory bird.
The Earl of Avon: In the first place I do not think Schedule I would be the right place to put the blackheaded gull. Secondly, I take the points which have been made about egg collections and culling generally,
966
and we shall take these points back and consider them. Thirdly, I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. According to my statistics the blackheaded gull is increasing dramatically and figures of just over a quarter of a million to over half a million are the sort of figures in mind, which again would make it a very strange bird to include in Schedule 1.
There is another way of stopping the sale of eggs, because of course it is illegal to sell the eggs without a licence. I quite sympathise with the difficulties of law enforcement and I know that in Scotland particularly where the sea coast is not covered there are special difficulties. There are conditions to a licence and we shall be coming to that when we talk about licences later. I should have thought that the solution to my noble friend's problem was to consider whether we could not get a licence which was conditional upon how the bird was culled or perhaps when it was culled, or words to that effect. Bearing in mind the speeches we have heard this evening, we will look into that and see if we can come up with what we think is the right solution. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Haig: Having listened to this short debate with interest, I am encouraged by what has been said. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, I would say that it is really human predators we are trying to stop more than bird predators. It is because of the human predators, in this case in the wildlife preserve, that all the rare birds have disappeared. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 45, line 10, leave out ("Rosefinch") and insert ("Grosbeak").
The noble Lord said: Carpodacus erythrinus is a rather beautiful and quite uncommon bird which as a matter of fact has never been known to nest in the British Isles, but that is irrelevant. It is commonly known as either the scarlet grosbeak or the common rosefinch, whereas in this schedule it has been described as scarlet rosefinch. However, since I put down this amendment I find that scarlet rosefinch is the name by which it is sometimes, though much less frequently, known. It is simply because this is its more frequent nomenclature; I beg to move this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: While I am not qualified to take issue with the noble Lord on this particular point, may I tell him why it is listed as it is. As he knows very well, many species have more than one name. For example, I am told that a hen harrier has over 40 names. For the sake of simplicity and standardisation we have followed the ornithological world's advice and adopted a sequence and scientific nomenclature of Professor K. H. Voous' list of holarctic species, 1977. As your Lordships will know, helarctic covers both paleartic and nearctic which is most of our Northern hemisphere. In any event the latin name also used alongside in the schedule we hope will avoid confusion. I

967
hope the noble Lord when he realises that we are sticking to one particular authority will agree that that is the right solution.
Lord Kilbracken: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that learned exposition, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 45, line 22, at end insert—
("Swan, Bewick's Cygnus bewickii").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to add the bewick swan to the list of those species given special protection under Schedule 1. I am fairly confident that I am going to be told by the noble Earl that the bewick swan should not be protected because it has not been known to breed in Great Britain. That is the criterion for obtaining protection under Schedule 1. None the less, I want to point out to the Committee what a very extraordinary criterion that is. The hooper swan and the bewick swan are usually associated in most of our minds. They are almost identical though the bewick is a little hit smaller and has slightly different beak markings. They both arrive in large numbers in the winter months and fly away in the springtime. The bewick swan has never bred in these islands. The hooper swan has once. It is more common than the bewick. Of all the hundreds of thousands of hooper swans that have arrived in these islands one eccentric couple decided to stay and nest during the summer. One even more eccentric hooper swan with a liking for miscegenation, decided to try to pair with a mute swan and settled down to spend the summer with him, but the union was not blessed with any offspring. So because one pair of birds in the history of the birds in these islands decided to stay on and breed, every hooper swan that comes to these islands in the winter is protected by inclusion on Schedule 1. But because no bewick swan has ever been so misguided as to spend the summer here it is not included on Schedule 1. That seems to me to be clearly illogical, and I beg to move the amendment which would give the bewick swan equal protection.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think the noble Lord has given good enough reasons for us to support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is all too pessimistic. It is one which has been agreed to at the last advisory committee. When I spoke about the schedules, there was an advisory committee on 29th January when they did agree to the scaup and this particular swan. It generally was and still is the practice to restrict Schedule 1 to breeding species or species which look as though they are about to breed in Britain, but there is nothing to stop the addition of species which do not breed here but are regular or scarce winter visitors. The general question we all ought to consider, as I have said before, is that by making Schedules 1 too long we devalue it. However,
968
we referred this matter to the advisory committee and they recommend that in the case of the bewick swan it is right to make an exception to the general rule that only species likely to breed here were given special protection. There is a very small population and they can be confused with others, and will benefit from special protection. I did hear my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton say in a whisper that he was not sure what they looked like. I am also informed that some have been found with shot in them. So perhaps one might say a special word to the wildfowler, "Get your identification kit out for the bewick swan".
Lord Kilbracken: I am very grateful and a little surprised at what the noble Earl has said. If the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray is interested, the mute swan can always be told from the hooper and the bewick because it has an orange bill and a knob at the base of the bill whereas the hooper and the bewick have lemon yellow bills and no knob. Also the bewick swan is rather smaller than the hooper, and I am glad to think that in future it is going to be protected.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 89:
Page 45, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: Having got one species on to the list, the purpose of this amendment is to take one off: namely, the short-toed treecreeper. I feel no animosity whatever towards the short-toed treecreeper, but until a couple of days ago I believed that it was not on the British list—it certainly was not on the British list that I was consulting which was a couple of years old. Of course, if it is not on the British list there is no reason why it should be included in Schedule 1. However, I have since learnt that it has just got onto the list. One or two records of this species have now been confirmed in this country, although there has not yet been any confirmed evidence of breeding. Therefore, I suppose that it is better that it should stay on the list and so I shall not move the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 have already been disposed of and therefore the Question is, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: I should like, if I may, to raise one point on the question, Whether Schedule 1 shall stand part. There is one bird which we have not dealt with, but about which I must say I feel very strongly. I think that I gave the noble Earl, Lord Avon, some notice of this matter and I hoped that he might be able to give us a brief response so that I could consider whether to move an amendment at the next stage or not. The concern which I have is for the sparrowhawk, which, as I understand it, is being removed by the Bill from the schedule where it used to be. I have certainly had a number of representations from the Scottish Wildlife Trust and from others emphasising that the sparrow-hawk is still, first of all, extremely rare and, secondly, much persecuted and wrongly so.

969
The Scottish Wildlife Trust has told me that the sparrowhawk is still uncommon and quite rare in many parts of Scotland where its presence could be expected. I do not have any personal knowledge of that, but I certainly do have some knowledge of the sparrowhawk's status in East Anglia. We had a sparrowhawk on our farm and in the general vicinity for a brief period this year—I do not think that our farm is large enough to provide a territory for a pair of sparrowhawks or even for one. However, the bird quite quickly disappeared from the general area and the general supposition was that it had been poisoned or otherwise illegally killed. I am afraid that that is an all too common fate that befalls sparrowhawks in the south of England. It, therefore, seemed to me that this was something which—as certainly one of our most spectacular and magnificent birds of prey—still deserved the special protection which, as I understand it, it has had up to now. I hope that the noble Earl can explain why it has been demoted.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. We never used to have any sparrowhawks at home and I live about 28 or 29 miles from London. About two years ago I saw one and it was such a thrill to see it. However, I have not seen it since. I am pretty certain that we have not done anything to it because I am very strict over those matters. However, if it is just re-establishing itself then for Heaven's sake! let us keep it on Schedule 1. If by chance the place suddenly becomes crawling with sparrowhawks—which is obviously fairly unlikely—then perhaps it can be removed. The Minister has the power to vary the schedules. Let us keep the sparrowhawk on Schedule 1 at present.
The Duke of Atholl: I, too, should like to support the two noble Lords who have spoken. I do not believe that sparrowhawks will ever become common again because I think that, unlike the kestrel, modern life is against them. If the noble Earl on the Front Bench is worried about the number of birds that we want on Schedule 1, then one which, in my opinion, he might well consider removing would be the hen harrier. That is an infinitely more common bird, where the environment is remotely suitable for it, than the sparrowhawk and in the opinion of most people it does far more damage. I think that it would be a very popular move, so far as the farming community in Scotland is concerned, to remove the hen harrier from Schedule 1 and to keep the sparrowhawk on Schedule 1.
The Earl of Avon: We talked about the hen harrier and other similar birds earlier when I said that they were on the European directive and therefore must be included. I equally said that I know that people are worried about the hen harrier and this is where the special licence provision will come in, if there is a need to deal with them. Unlike my noble friends Lord Onslow and the Duke of Atholl I am told that the population of the sparrowhawk has now recovered to 20,000 and it is considered an excellent example of what putting a species on Schedule I can do. The advice at the moment is that as they have recovered so well there is no need to put them on the schedule.
970
I gather that the population declined in the 'fifties and 'sixties was probably due to pesticides. While it is comparatively scarce in certain areas, at the moment we are advised that the normal protection afforded to most wild birds is now adequate to secure its status. However, as I have had pressure from three noble Lords on this subject I shall, of course, look at it again. I rather suspect that, as no actual amendment was put down, the point was probably not discussed at the last advisory committee meeting, because they would not have known about it, but I am sure that it will be discussed at the next meeting.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Earl for that response.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Birds which may be killed or taken]:
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 46, line 5, at end insert—
("Brent Goose Branta bernicla").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 91 A, and with the leave of the Committee I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 98A and 99A. This part of the Bill revises the schedules of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. Schedule 2, Part II, which is basically the pest schedule, has been amended to leave out certain bird species which hitherto were defined as pests, although in some cases only in certain areas. For example, the bullfinch, which is a horticultural pest, is a Schedule 2 bird in the 1954 Act, but it is only a pest in the South-East counties.
The effect of my amendment, therefore, is to place back on to the pest schedule the bullfinch, the Canada goose and the greylag goose and introduce on to the more limited pest and game schedule the brent goose. The reason for placing the brent goose on the game schedule is that it is migratory and has more often than not left this country by late March. It appears to me that the Government's reasoning behind omitting certain species from Schedule 2, Part II of the 1954 Act in the present revision, is that the present schedule only defines those species which are pests on a national scale. Therefore, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Avon what he considers to be the criteria for national scale when one takes my example of the Canada goose which is a pest problem in Anglesey, Bedford-shore, Berkshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Kent, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Surrey, Worcestershire and all the counties of Yorkshire. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to oppose these amendments and I hope that the Government will not accept them. Perhaps I may take the bullfinch first. Of course there are occasions when a flock of bullfinches can bare a currant planting or something of that sort, but there is a perfectly adequate arrangement through Clause 15, in a situation of that sort, to ring up and get a licence to deal with it. But, generally speaking, bullfinches are mainly sedentary and in many areas have a low density of population. They mostly eat the seeds of weed species

971
and tree nuts. Buds of fruit trees are occasionally taken, but only when other things are exhausted. They are only a pest where fruit growing is on a large scale and then small flocks do congregate. As I say, there is a perfectly good method to deal with that—by obtaining a licence to kill. The economic damage which they do is restricted to specific areas and I think that licensed trapping must be the answer to this.
There are many areas of Great Britain which have no large concentrations of fruit production and there is absolutely no reason to make bullfinches more vulnerable there. Only when the two situations come together is there any serious damage. There are some 600,000 pairs of bullfinches in Britain and Ireland, which clearly is not an enormous shortage. But where commercial fruit growing is not carried out bullfinches are a great pleasure as a garden bird. They come and eat my nuts and I am totally opposed to what is suggested.
With regard to the brent goose and the game schedule, the suggestion is slightly different. It is important to remember that two-thirds of the world population of Brent goose come to winter here from Siberia, where they breed. Due to some good years and to good protection the population in the world has increased from 34,000 in 1971–72 to 167,000 last year, of which in 1971–72 our share was 22,500 and it was 74,100 last year. We have had poor breeding seasons recently, particularly last year, and there has been something like a 20 per cent. drop.
Of course, I accept that localised damage can be caused, but there is a perfectly good way to deal with that—by getting a licence if it is necessary to kill them. But it is better to use scaring devices. One of the difficulties of shooting, which I suppose also applies to scaring devices—I wish to be fair about this—is that it really only moves the birds on to the next site and is not very effective. Licences can be obtained for control in specific cases, and this is sufficient. Other countries are likely to look to us for a lead here. We do not want to set a wrong example over these birds, whose winter migration is so marvellous and about which so much has been discovered recently. I hope that this amendment will be rejected.
The Canada goose has a much larger world population. Between 10,000 and 10,500 individuals come here and many of them, as I know because they can be found round the corner from me, are permanent residents. They are very beautiful and the noise that they make as they fly over my bungalow in Sussex gives me great pleasure. I am determined to protect them even at the cost of occasional crop damage for the farmers. Another bird was mentioned, but I have forgotten what it was—
The Earl of Caithness: The greylag.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Roughly the same applies to the greylag goose. I hope that the noble Earl will resist these amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that we should be careful about the Canada goose. Speaking from personal experience, I have found that individually they do about as much damage to a field of spring barley as one sheep.
972
They can be an enormous menace. They are also an introduced species; they were brought over here originally in the 18th century for ornamental purposes, and the result has been rather like the starlings in the United States of America, the grey squirrels here and the sparrows in Western Australia. There is a case for regarding them as pests.
I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that they make the most marvellous noise and that they are very beautiful, but they eat barley and wheat and they are very, very difficult to keep off. We have tried methods such as trip wires, electric fencing and scarers, and they are very hard to move. It was interesting to note the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say that shooting makes them move to another person's property. All I can suggest is that the noble Lord is rather a bad shot. The object of the exercise is to make sure that they cannot move anywhere.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I could reply to that. I am an extremely bad shot, but that is not the point. The point is that if you have enough Canada geese seriously to damage your barley crop, you would need the automatic of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to deal with the problem; and that I am against.
Lord Craigton: I should like to make a few remarks on the Canada goose, which also honks across my bungalow in the morning, and it is a lovely sound. I can speak only of the Thames Valley. For the past three years I have been right up the Thames Valley and each year there have been a couple of geese with three, four or five youngsters. When the noble Lord said that there are between 10,000 and 10,500 Canada geese in this country, I have the impression that they are all in the Thames Valley. There are so many of them that I have always thought, not only that they ought to be classed as vermin, but that we should learn how to eat them—they look rather good to eat.
The Earl of Onslow: They are.
Lord Kilbracken: Briefly, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Donaldson in opposing these amendments, particularly the one which relates to that very beautiful bird, the bullfinch. I understood the noble Earl who moved this amendment to say that this is really a problem only in the South-Eastern counties, by which I suppose he means Kent and Sussex. It would seem to me to be entirely wrong that, because a bird is occasionally a nuisance in two counties of Britain, it should be considered a pest throughout the country as a whole.
As my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, under Clause 15 there are licensing provisions, and if there is suddenly an incursion of bullfinches causing a great deal of damage before a licence can be obtained, there is nothing to stop a landowner from going ahead and shooting them and then pleading, under Clause 4(2)(a), that the killing of those wild birds was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to fruit. Therefore, I very much hope that this amendment will be resisted.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support this amendment and particularly the one with regard to bullfinches. A flock of bullfinches can strip an orchard in a matter of hours. Normal bureaucracy will take not hours but several days to issue a licence, and many fruit farmers can quite easily be ruined by a flock of bullfinches.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to say a few words on behalf of the Canada geese. I would hate to see them classified as pests. I am afraid that I have much to answer for because Swinton was one of the places where they were introduced in this country and some time after the last war Sir Peter Scott came and netted—I suppose that that would be illegal now—a great many of Swinton's geese and introduced them to the Serpentine. Those original Swinton geese have multiplied in all the London parks, in the Thames Valley, in Sussex and goodness knows where and are now wreaking havoc on the land. So, if only very indirectly, perhaps I ought to take responsibility for them. Even though they come and eat my corn and the local farmers' corn, I still look upon them as a lovely bird. I love to see and to hear them. I should hate to think of them as being classified with rooks, grey squirrels and goodness knows what else as a pest.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble replies, my noble friend Lord Kilbracken referred to Clause 4(2)(a) which makes it perfectly clear that the farmer who is harassed by a sudden arrival of bullfinches can perfectly well defend himself by doing whatever is necessary to keep them off his crop, whether with nets, with a gun or whatever and can obtain permission afterwards. I do not think that this is a strong enough case to make a pest of them.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, got up, I hoped that he was going to correct his figures for the population of the Canada goose, because I, like other noble Lords, found his figures somewhat surprising. I have lived in Scotland and my home is in Yorkshire and I think the Canada geese we have are probably cousins of my wife's noble cousin, Lord Swinton's geese. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was here because he could tell you, as I can tell you, that in the Montrose basin, which is a great catchment area for all forms of geese and ducks, it is nothing unusual to see these lovely animals coming along, and I mean it, in tens and tens, and hundred and hundreds.
They make the most lovely noise. I love them dearly, but I feel enormous sorrow for the farmer on whose field of young corn or even grass they descend, because if two or three hundred geese are not got at quickly, that field is a mess. Therefore, although I love them I have enormous sympathy with this particular amendment on this point.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I did not actually make this estimate myself. There have been two made recently. One was in 1968 to 1972 by Mr. Sharrock, and that I quoted. I was so excited by my case that I did not look at the next paragraph which told me that according to Mr. Ogilvy in 1980, Wildfowl 28, he
974
has managed to get it up to 19,000, which is a bit nearer what noble Lords think.
Lord Swinfen: There may well be a case for the Government considering the issue of blanket licences in areas where specific birds are a real pest. I wonder whether they could consider this?
The Earl of Avon: Clause 15 deals with licences, and I am sure we shall be coming on to that in due course. May I take the brent goose first. This is a fully protected species included in the threatened bird list of the Council of Europe (Bern Convention) on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. I shall come to more general points later but may I speak to the brent goose for the moment.
After a dramatic fall in its numbers the species was added to the protected list in 1954, since when its numbers visiting Britain have increased from about 7,500 to about 10 times that total, out of a total world population of about 180,000. Traditional quarry species which have been given all year round protection because of declines in their population would normally be put back on the quarry list once and if the population had recovered. The Government, however, on the advice of the advisory committees and the NCC, which was confirmed at their meeting last week, consider that it would be premature to allow shooting until we are more confident that the population level will be maintained.
The brent is a species subject to violent fluctuations in population, being vulnerable to cold winters, poor breeding seasons and shooting, which would in combination again devastate the population. There is an example in America in the early 1970s where the population declined by some 70 per cent. over two years because of just such a combination. There has this year been an almost total breeding failure and it is expected that there will be between a 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. decline in the population. As with other quarry species taken off the hunting list, we will continue to watch trends to see if reinstatement is justified.
May I move on to the Canada goose. I should like to join in the general arguments about numbers. I was given a note after the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, spoke saying, "10,000 is actually 18,000 ". Then looking at an earlier brief I see that that included a figure of 20,500.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps my figure of 19,000 might be accepted.
The Earl of Avon: It is obviously reaching that area. On the amendment on the Canada goose and the bullfinch, I should, first of all, explain the thinking behind the new list of species. Our intention is to comply with the EEC Birds Directive by strictly controlling derogation under Article 9 of the directive. Part II of Schedule 2 has been reduced to those species which constitute nationwide pests and are too widespread to be covered by licences. Here I shall try to deal with Lord Caithness' point about how many counties constitute a general licence. Listening to the speeches on this subject this evening, the Canada goose does not yet need a nationwide blanket.

975
To deal with species which have been omitted from Schedule 2, Part II as drafted, and other species which can be pests in particular areas at particular times of the year or in particular circumstances, we would have an appropriate form of licence. If the licence cannot be got in time, as two noble Lords have reminded us, under Clause 4(2)(a) there is a provision to do things in an emergency. The bullfinch is on the current pest schedule because it can cause serious damage, et cetera. The advisory committee and the NCC and the agricultural departments all advise that it is not a nationwide pest, damage being restricted primarily to fruit buds in Southern England.
In regard to the Canada goose, about which we have heard a lot, consideration was given to placing the species on the pest list but the advice from the advisory committee, the NCC and the agricultural departments was that the species only caused damage in particular areas and mainly to cereals. The species is listed in Schedule 2, Part I. It would not be justifiable to place either species on the pest list at the present time. That is our considered advice.
We come to the greylag goose. Here again it is recognised that it does cause damage, sometimes serious, at a certain time in the year and in certain localities, but it is by no means a general, widespread nuisance. Again, it is a problem which can be dealt with by licensing. The species is only here in numbers in winter and is listed on Schedule 2, Part I for the open season. There is a small breeding population in parts of Scotland and this receives special protection. I hope my noble friends will realise that we have gone into this in some detail, and with the mood of the Committee will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: I understood the noble Earl to say that the bullfinch is on the current pest schedule. What schedule is that? It is not the one in the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: It is on the current pest schedule, Schedule 2 to the 1954 Act.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It was a much wider debate than I thought it was going to be when I put down the amendments. I got the assurance that I was seeking from the Government that general licences, or licences of a type, will be issued to deal with these birds when and if they become a problem. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably a suitable moment to move on to the next business that will occupy the dinner hour. We do not know quite how long it will take; but if I tell the Committee now that we shall not come back to this particular Bill before 10 minutes past eight, may I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ECC 6th Report: Education in the Community
7.9 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill Lord Alexander of Potterhill rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Education in the Community (6th Report, H.L. 41).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first opportunity there has been for the House to have a short discussion on the relationship between the education service and the European Community. It is for that reason that we thought it right to ask the House to note this report. The report itself makes three recommendations from the Community, and these are merely recommendations which can be accepted or rejected by individual nations. They can take any action, or no action. The first concerns the teaching of languages. I think it would not be unkind to the education service in this country to say that, as a means of communication, we are not particularly successful in the teaching of languages, and it is as a means of communication that the recommendation is principally concerned. I studied French for six years but I cannot speak French. I took a degree in Italian but I cannot speak Italian. One of the things that concern me and on which we are anxious to hear the views of the Government is this. Before we entered the Community we recruited about 4,000 French assistants a year. Since we have been in the Community that number seems to have decreased steadily, and I believe last year the number was less than 2,000, which seems to make not much of a contribution to the first of these recommendations. The second recommendation concerns teaching about Europe, and this is rather a difficult concept. I cannot imagine the building of a course on Europe to be embodied in the schools, though it may well be that in every subject in the curriculum there is a European aspect to which reference could be made. Both of these recommendations seem to imply quite major changes in the training of our teachers, and I hope that when the Minister replies when will say whether this problem is being examined in that connection.
To me, a much more important problem is what underlies these recommendations. They have been on the way for six years and the end result, as I say, are recommendations and no more than that. The reason, I gather, is some doubt as to whether education is within the terms of the Treaty of Rome—I gather there is no reference to the education service in the treaty—and that seems to have two fundamental assumptions which I find totally unacceptable. The first is that the education service has no contribution to make to unity. I believe the reluctance to embody it in the Treaty of Rome is due to concern on the part of a great many people lest attempts should be made to harmonise the education services in the nations of Europe. That seems to me to be a fundamental failure to recognise the difference between unity and uniformity, a thing which seems to occur very often in the communications we get from the Community. I cannot imagine that the education service does not have a major contribution to make to unity. It is 50 years since I spent a year in America and I had no doubt then, and I have none now, that the education service made a major contribution to unity in the United States.
The second assumption worries me even more, and that is that the education service is irrelevant to an economic community. I was brought up early on to believe that the quality and standard of education that all the people got in a nation largely conditioned the economic strength and social stability of the nation, and I cannot imagine that education does not have a very great relevance to economic community. The effect of this is important. Last week your Lordships discussed a report on the social fund, from which it emerged clearly that monies from the social fund, particularly concerned with young people, could be used only for training. This seems to establish an utterly false dichotomy between education and training.
It also means in our case that these monies are largely devoted to the Manpower Services Commission. I would say, I hope without being unreasonably critical, that I have the impression that the Manpower Services Commission provides training, on a relatively narrow front in most cases, for jobs about whose existence by the end of the decade I would have some doubt. I have a very strong feeling that the future of our young people will depend on strengthening their education from 16 to 18 to give them a much greater adaptability and a much greater capacity to train and to be retrained for the jobs they will have to undertake in a rapidly developing technological society. It seems, therefore, that it is of great importance to know whether Her Majesty's Government share these views and whether we can bring to the Community a realisation of the relevance and importance of the education service, both to develop unity in the Community and in strengthening the Economic Community as such.
I am conscious that we have only a limited time available. I have not dealt with the third of the recommendations; the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, will, I gather, do that. I only hope that the Government will, in reply, give some assurance that the problem of languages will be tackled with great seriousness, because it is fundamental. The other week I read a cutting from the journal Education of 50 years ago: complaints were being made of our failure in language, and the effect of it in the economic relationship with other countries, and particularly with Europe. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on education in the Community (6th Report, H.L. 41).—(Lord Alexander of Potterhill.)
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to underline and reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said about the present inadequate approach to education in relation to the Community. When the Treaty of Rome was passed there were perhaps reasons why it was not seen fit that education should be included as a matter for concern within the Community, on the very narrow argument that education was not a matter which directly affected the relative competitiveness of the countries of the Community. Both in relation to the immediate problems which the Community is facing and in relation to the development of the Community as a true community, nothing could be further from the truth than that education is not a matter of central importance in the Community. One
978
very much hopes that Her Majesty's Government will take every opportunity to see that more attention is paid to educational questions, that more ways are found to include them in community affairs, and that there is a right to finances—greatly enhanced finances we hope—to be used in that direction.
In particular, I would draw attention to the fact that one of the Community's major problems at the moment is the restructuring of industry, together with the problem of unemployment, in particular youth unemployment. If those are the major problems which we as a Community face—and I do not think that there is much disagreement that that is so—then the need to harness education, to challenge and to face the problems can hardly be over-stressed. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has referred to the fact that it is very necessary that people should be retrained, that they must have a basis which makes retraining possible. At present this is not the case. A very great many people find it extremely difficult to be trained for the new jobs which are emerging because their educational base is inadequate to handle what is required in the new training.
I admit that I have said this before in your Lordships' House, and no doubt I shall say it again: What we are finding in all the countries of the EEC—and all the forecasts bear this out—is that the future of the really unskilled is very bleak indeed. Unless our educational system is harnessed to make certain that we reduce to the absolute minimum the number of people who are unskilled, then our unemployment problem will become totally insoluble. I believe that it is not insoluble if we approach it properly through education and training, and I believe, too, that we should stop making this totally false distinction between education and training.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, talked about the education service in relation to the 16- to 19-year olds. I should like to go farther and talk about the contribution that education has to make during the years of compulsory schooling, and not only during the period from 16 to 19 years of age, to solving the problems of unemployment. It is in the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the years of compulsory schooling that there is laid so much of the ground work. It is very hard indeed for youngsters to move out of the unskilled category into skilled occupations after leaving school, and it is even more difficult for them to be able to adapt at a later age, because their basic educational foundation is totally inadequate. If we allow that to continue we shall build up the most serious problems for ourselves, and to pretend that education is not relevant to the economic development of the Community, and to a solution of its most immediate problems, is absolutely absurd.
Of course there can be no doubt that in the longer run it will be only through the development of education with the large European component that the Community can come to mean anything more than an arena for horse trading between individual nations —which it is in grave danger of becoming. Some of us still believe that there is a European ideal, that the European ideal is one of the great ideals of the postwar period. But that can be fostered only if there is an adequate educational base. That requires that there should be far better language teaching. It is

979
lamentable in the extreme to see the figures in the report on what language teaching amounts to. How is it possible to build a true Community in which men and women of different countries have a real understanding and sympathy for their fellows in other member states, unless there is a good command of languages and a common educational experience?
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, is not speaking tonight, but ever since questions of the Community have been debated it has been his constant plea that there should be some equivalent, though on a much larger scale, of the Rhodes Scholar idea. That gave people who came from different countries but who were educated together a real understanding and sympathy one for another, as well as a sense of belonging to something much larger than their own nation state. That is what we are trying to do in the European Community, and I for one most certainly believe that that is what the Community is all about, even though it is said that today that view is old-fashioned. It will be in education, in the teaching of languages, but perhaps even more in common educational experience that the Community will really be built. So, far from questions of education being ultra vires in the Community, surely in spirit they are at its very heart.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for opening the debate with very wise words, and I should like to say to him that I think we could get on very well with geographical and political history, but when it came to other history it might be slightly difficult, because we all differ rather in our opinions of what has happened in the past. I regret very much a note that I received from the Chief Whip, written, I think, in connection with his opposite number, stating,
"Shorter Community debates in the dinner hour. I doubt whether this experiment can be repeated if today's debate continues after 8 p.m.".
I think that that is very unfortunate—I have told the Chief Whip that I am going to say this—because this is an extremely important debate. It is all right to debate regulations during the dinner hour, but I know that a great many other noble Lords wanted to speak in this debate, but in the circumstances have decided not to do so.
I am particularly interested in the debate because I believe that personal communications are needed far more between ourselves and overseas countries, in particular those in the EEC. One can deal with well-qualified interpreters, but that is never the same thing. Having been on the Council of Europe for seven years, I realise the real need for better understanding between individuals, not just in the council, but in the town where we can speak to one another privately, or at dinner, and so on. That can lead to better understanding.
The question of employment also arises here. I have found that in a great many of the European countries people in business—commercial travellers and others—speak many languages. I believe that we lose quite a lot because we do not consider it necessary
980
to learn many languages in doing our overseas work, in particular in regard to trade.
I have tried to do something practical. Eleven years ago I awarded a prize in Plymouth for schools which entered a yearly competition. Last year 15 schools and 98 pupils competed. I have a letter from the acting Education Officer of Plymouth, in which he states that pupils have been greatly encouraged to learn modern languages and in particular the speaking of them in public. One can learn to write and read a foreign language, but it is quite a different thing to learn to speak it. The competition includes little plays and so on, so that the pupils do learn to speak the foreign languages. One of the prize winners, the daughter of a local councillor, is now an international interpreter, and I think that such instances prove that those courses have been satisfactory. The competition includes French and German open classes, French and German under-16, French and German under-14, and Italian, Spanish and Russian open classes. As I have said, the competition has been going on for 11 years, and I think it really is worthwhile.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on the point regarding exchange teachers. According to the report, there are I think only 300 teachers involved each year, and I think that is very depressing. The report contains no statistics at all on the number of pupil exchanges. Eight countries of the EEC keep such statistics, and figures are also available for Greece, Spain, and Portugal. It appears that 2,961 went along to ordinary courses, not including the English-speaking schools, for which I gather the figure was over 3,000. The only figures we have here, from UNESCO, show that in this connection about 4,000 people come to this country.
So I should like to suggest that if the local authorities cannot afford more exchanges of teachers, cannot afford to pay teachers, they might give individual pupils certain sums of money so that they can go to polytechnics or language schools and thus really have a chance to learn. The reason that I think that this is so terribly important is that if we really want an understanding between people and want to keep peace —which, after all, we all do— we must learn to communicate. So I would ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate to see that this is one of the most important things to take its place in the educational curriculum in the coining years.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, I will follow the admirable example of the previous speakers by being very brief, but I am intervening (I am not a member of the sub-committee) because I want to point out that what Lord Alexander of Potterhill has been saying is absolutely crucial. The fact that this might be ultra vires, certainly financially ultra vires, is to me one of the most sardonic comments on the Treaty of Rome. I may tell your Lordships—and I think I have said this in this House in discussions on the Common Market—that my objection to the European Community was that it was the Common Market; that in fact it did not embody the principles that we are discussing now, by which somehow we could move from sheer commercialism to some idea of unity—and Lord Alexander

981
has made the point that I want to stress, that unity does not mean uniformity.
I have just come back from the USSR where I have been visiting, among other things, schools. The very impressive thing in the USSR that we ought to remember, whether or not we think it is a part of a great international conspiracy, is that in every school I visited they had language classes. In fact, in the USSR they have 82 ethnic language groups, all of which have been embodied and represented in their literature and in their communications system. That unity (which, as Lord Alexander was pointing out, happens in the United States, where they have 72 ethnic language groups which they have somehow embodied over the years as the American nation) seems to me to be absolutely crucial. The great thing they have done there is in the development of language laboratories. I went into schools where the children were not only learning English but, for my benefit, were in fact being taught Robert Burns, in the language.
This seems to me to be a lesson which we ought to learn very crucially for Europe, because the one thing that is inescapable is that if there is going to be any consolidation of Europe—and I am not just talking about the Community as we now see it—it must come through education, it must come through understanding. This means that not only have we got to learn how to talk to each other but we have got to learn how to live with each other in terms which, reading this report, are in fact almost excluded from the definition; that is that every one of us is trying to defend our own system, to follow our own educational processes, and so on, which is not the nature of education. Education is not a process. The mechanics of education are something we can cope with: what we really need are the essentials of education—and what Lord Alexander has pointed out is that, not only in Europe but everywhere in the world as it is now, we completely lose our way.
I have pointed out in this House before, and I repeat it now, that education is not training, but training is impossible without education. The example I quote is that once we had radio mechanics with soldering irons who built up birdcages of circuits. There are no radio mechanics any more; they are electronic engineers, and electronic engineers will face a situation (as we are doing in the chip situation today) in which they will not be competent unless they are in fact solid state physicists. What we are talking about is how you broaden the whole basis of education by which people will adapt themselves to having inevitably to change their occupation. That is not training, because you have nothing on which to be trained unless you have got the basic education.
The other thing I would point out is that I gather we are being recommended to take a benevolent attitude to the proposals which we are discussing tonight. I hope we are not introducing another weasel-word. Thirty-five years ago Lord Alexander and I were at the first general conference of UNESCO. He was on the budget commission—he was very good on the budget commission—and I was on the programme commission, and never the twain did meet because we had ideas for which Lord Alexander had to budget, and we never got to a point where the budget
982
could effectively provide for all the brilliant ideas we were producing.
At that conference J. B. Priestley and myself produced two weasel-words—and I have regretted it ever since. We produced the two weasel-words "stimulate" and "facilitate". We said that if we could not get the money now we should at least have the idea on the table, so that UNESCO could perhaps stimulate and facilitate. These have been two disastrous words, because all they mean is that you do nothing at all. It is the excuse for not doing something; and I hope that if tonight we are going to recognise the term "benevolent", we shall not recognise it in those terms, on that basis, but shall in fact do something about it. There is no way in which we can find the answer to this except ultimately in money terms, and I recommend to your Lordships the old saying of a Quaker, who said, "I love my neighbour £10—how much do you love your neighbour?".
7.37 p.m.
Lord Wolfenden: My Lords, I should like, if I may, in a very few words to fill in what Lord Alexander of Potterhill said about the third of the reports that we are considering; that is, the one about the admission to institutions of higher education of students from other member states. Nobody, I think, would deny the desirability of such interchanges. Those of us who were fortunate enough to spend a year or so of our early academic life in a university in another country have never ceased to be grateful for that experience; and I suggest, not altogether flippantly, that student age is likely to be the most appropriate age for this kind of interchange, because at that stage we all of us have ideas, many of them half-baked, which we want to exchange with our contemporaries in other countries before we all settle down to a middle age of orthodoxy and set opinions.
Secondly, on a more practical and utilitarian note, there are opportunities for professional and vocational education in other countries which may not be available in one's own. It is admitted that firm statistics are hard to come by, but the estimated totals of 4,000 British students in Community countries and 6,000 (if I may include Greece) in Britain from other countries seem to me to be a disappointingly low proportion of the Community's total student population. I understand from the press that the number of graduates at the Open University in this country who have been granted their degrees in the past week is 5,000.
I take no partisan view about whether we in the United Kingdom should aspire to be net importers or net exporters in this matter. I simply plead for the maximum use to be made of academic free trade inside the Community. I am not going to enter, either, into the controversy about fees for foreign students, but welcome, as I am sure we all do, the Government's decision in this regard to give to Community students treatment equal to that given to our own.
Thirdly, I would hope that what our own institutions of higher education have to offer will be made widely known in other Community countries. I am presumptuous enough to think that there are areas in which our teaching and research in this country are as good as anywhere in the world. The more students come here

983
from outside to take advantage of these opportunities, the higher our international standing and reputation will be.
There are somethings which we are good at; and the more other people come to recognise that, the better for us as well as for them. I know that there are some practical and formal difficulties about entrance standards and so on, but these are minor problems by comparison with the major advantages for us and for the Community at large which this two-way traffic presents. I hope that these advantages will be seized by Her Majesty's Government, by the universities, by the polytechnics and by all those institutions of higher education which go to make up the splendidly varied spectrum of higher education in Britain.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, the brevity of the speeches we have listened to makes one feel that the arrangements for the discussion of such an important matter need to be looked at in the future. I think that it would be generally agreed in all parts of the House that the debate would have been improved by allowing, certainly the mover, and a number of others, to deploy in their speeches some of these points in much greater detail than they felt they could. We are very indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for making it possible for us to discuss this important matter, even for such a short time.
Clearly the case for a significant increase in the policy of member states of the Community in the field of multi-language education makes itself. The Select Committee is to be congratulated on an admirable analysis of the position. There are certain suggestions that they have made with which we would all agree and there are one or two matters that we may wish to discuss in more detail. But we would agree that there is a double necessity for a concerted and stronger move by Europe and its member states to develop a multi-language policy.
The necessity is clear. If the Community is to develop into a cohesive confederation on economic lines, its citizens, its business men, its producers, simply must learn much more about each other—their history, their geography, their geology, their industry and languages—than they do now. That is the practical economic case for an expansion of this kind of education. Then there is the equally strong case for an increase in the resources devoted to this policy in that the youth of Europe, who have suffered perhaps more from the difficulties of communication and of mutual understanding in the past century or so than have the youth of any other part of the world, must be allowed to know more about each other, their own traditions, their history and, above all, their languages, than they have so far.
As the report says, we should set before each member-state, each education authority, the minimum objective of teaching to every child from an early age—through the basic and the vocational stages, and, I would say, beyond that—one language at least, and possibly two, other than the mother tongue. We do that in most parts of Wales with, I believe, great benefits to ourselves and to the United Kingdom. The key to it is language. Europe has a common culture based on
984
the Judeo-classical tradition, but superimposed and infused into that are the various cultures which are expressed through the great languages of Europe. In fact, Europe has a two-tier culture. Both tiers must be supported, and this is one of them: the encouragement of national languages as a means not of nationalistic self-praise but of internationalistic communication.
The report stresses that point, but it also draws attention to the weaknesses of the Community itself and of its member states in promoting this essential policy. The mover, rightly, and others, referred to the absurd paucity of resources of manpower, money and material which member states are willing to devote to this business. They are less willing even than they might be because there is no compulsion behind it. They can opt in or opt out as the spirit and the finance moves them in their home Parliaments.
The result is that the draft resolution in 1978 on which the report is based and the evidence taken—and I refer to the resolution of November 1978—proposed an expenditure of £16·2 million over five years—little enough in all conscience for such a purpose, but in the event what is going to happen is that £7·6 million only is to be spent during the next five years. We hope that the Minister will be able to persuade Her Majesty's Government to redouble their efforts in Europe and here, nearer home, greatly to expand this sum. If Europe is to develop into something more than a tight little Zollverein it must expand territorially, commercially and culturally. This is one of the vital fields in which there must be a forward-looking policy and strong support, particularly by this country. The report refers to the aim of language teaching in Europe as being one,
"not too narrowly concentrated on written forms".
This is a matter of opinon, as the mover would agree. I would hazard my own personal opinion that we are in danger in this country, and I believe in other European countries, of so giving ourselves up to chatter that we forget the importance of the printed word. Of course, speech, in the very first instance, is the means of communication: but as it develops it depends upon a steady supply of thoughts made available in print. I hope that when the Select Committee have another look at this—or, indeed, when the House itself has another look at this—they will look more carefully at this sentence in the report.
This applies to industry. Modern industry depends more and more at all technical levels, I am told, on the capacity to read as well as to speak. If one visits some of the great new electronic industries which, despite the recession, are growing in this country—and one is delighted to see them—one appreciates how insistent top management is on the lower technical levels being able to read messages, the teleprinter, the blueprint, as well as to communicate over the telephone, the intercom or whatever. The two things go together. They feed each other both culturally and commercially. Culturally the case need not be made. After all, reading is an expansion of experience. Without it, there is no real culture; and we must see to it that, through their languages, the youth of Europe are able to share with their fellows in other countries the best that is available in the literatures of Europe.

985
I hasten to my conclusion; it is on the question of language as raised by one or two speakers in this debate. There is a tendency in Europe, in the Community, for member states who ostensibly—and, I am sure, genuinely—are seeking increasing cohesion which will overtake the former excesses and enormities of old-fashioned nationalism, to assert a certain linguistic particularism.
The report refers to the need to pay regard to the less widely used languages. Speaking as a Welshman and as one who practically every day uses one of those less widely used languages, may I utter a note of caution. Parity of esteem for the various languages of Europe and of the world—and there are a great many; my noble friend mentioned 82 ethnic speech forms of a substantial, modern type—is one thing especially within the member states. In the United Kingdom we are well on the road to understanding this. We are doing a slow but good job of giving parity of esteem to Welsh in Wales, where it is spoken and used, while at the same time retaining the essential unity of the United Kingdom. That is one thing. But parity of use in international transactions is quite another.
Those of us—and there are a number present, my noble friend Lady White is one—who have attended international conferences know that unless there is a common sense agreement to limit the languages used to one or two—at the most, three—the result is increasing the hazards of translation and therefore of interpretation and the proliferation of paper. This is becoming increasingly true of the Common Market and its agencies. This is what Members of the European Parliament of every party and country are telling me. There are mountains of paper translation simply because each country insists that its own language shall be given parity of use.
I happen to believe that English has emerged—or, if it has not, it is increasingly emerging—as the de facto international language. That has not affected my knowledge of one or two other languages; indeed, it has helped to see things clearly. I know that there are thousands of other people who are bilingual or trilingual; but it is too much to hope that this will be accepted by everybody. But already the Community comprises 10 very self-conscious European countries. Soon there will be 12 and some of us hope that the 12 will act with other significant countries, possibly in the Maghreb, in the Mediterranean and Near East, which will make Europe a stronger political and economic entity.
What is going to happen? Are we to proliferate that kind of national sureness? That is what it is. Can we not take the lead boldly in the Parliament, in the Council and in COREPER and say, like the United Nations, let us reduce and number of languages used in these transactions to three or perhaps four? Unless we do something of the sort, I fear that while a great deal of talk will go on about education and other matters, very few people will do anything in practice about it.
7.55 pm.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that this is the first occasion in this House in which we have considered any part of the education programme of the European Community and we are all very grateful
986
to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for introducing this short debate this evening. I welcome the opportunity afforded by the report of the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, to say a few words about it, before turning to some of the specific points raised in the debate.
The education work of the Community began only comparatively recently, It is based on an outline agreed at a ministerial meeting in Brussels in 1976. Although the resolution passed then covers quite a range of fields of education, from higher education to specific areas such as modern language teaching, the programme has developed only slowly and it is very modest in size. It is entirely related to complementing the policies and provision of individual member states, and in no way replacing them by Community policies. The most ambitious part of the programme touches on the work of schools and colleges in helping young people make a successful transition from school to work and adult life, and I hope that on a future occasion, when the projects which the Community is supporting in this field have produced their reports, there may be an opportunity to take note in this House of what has been done.
The proposals we are concerned with today concern the teaching of modern languages, teaching about Europe in schools, and the development of a common approach towards the admission of students from each other's countries to its institutions of higher education. All these texts have been through a lengthy process of amendment, first of all by education advisers from all the member states, to ensure that they were framed in relevant and practical terms as far as the needs of each country were concerned; and, secondly, to enable them to be put forward to Education Ministers in a form which would enable finance from the Community budget to be spent on them.
Disagreements at this second stage prevented their being put forward to Ministers, as had been hoped, in 1978, and meant that when they came forward to Ministers in June 1980 they took the form of a report, instead of separate resolutions. I do not want to take time this evening to go into the reasons for this delay, but I do need to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the underlying problem of finding a secure basis related to the treaty for education co-operation is still not finally solved, and that partly for that reason and partly because of the general pressure on the Community budget, it is very unlikely that there will be finance available this year from the Community to implement the proposals, even though their content was approved by Education Ministers in June.
Nevertheless, it is true that these proposals touch on important aspects of education in Britain today—points that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, raised. It gives me the opportunity to say a few words particularly about modern language teaching and learning, and teaching in our schools about Europe. It is particularly helpful that, in this context, these two aspects of the education process can be naturally and sensibly looked at side by side—though in many cases they are traditionally provided for by different kinds of specialist teacher.
Turning first to modern languages in the curriculum and examinations, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and most noble Lords who took part, expressed concern,

987
shared by many, about the learning of foreign languages in our schools. The facts are as follows: more than 80 per cent. of the pupils in secondary schools now have the opportunity to take up a foreign language: not so many years ago this was an opportunity confined to those in grammar schools and the ablest children only in some secondary modern schools. The best modern language teaching is still very good, and much interesting and promising experimentation has taken place. There is too a growing awareness of the wider issues involved, and a determination to tackle them.
Nonetheless, it would be wrong to underestimate the problems, While very many more pupils now make a start on a foreign language in primary school or in the first years of secondary school than was the case 15 years ago, the proportion—about a third—who continue their study in the fourth and fifth years has hardly increased at all. There is an imbalance—the reverse of the imbalance in science—between the proportion of girls and of boys studying modern languages (about 60 to 40 in the fourth year, about 2 to 1 at A-level). A survey undertaken by the Inspectorate in the mid-1970s in comprehensive schools revealed widespread under-performance by children studying French, and the expansion of language provision has tended to reinforce the dominance of French over other foreign languages.
As the examination system has expended there has been a substantial increase in the numbers with CSE or O-level passes; but the increase in the numbers with higher-grade passes has been much less pronounced in languages than in other subjects, especially in the case of boys. At A-level, the picture is similar: the proportion of pupils with an A-level pass in a foreign language has declined, the decline being more pronounced among boys than among girls.
I can assure noble Lords that the issues raised in this debate are now widely recognised in the education service. They were explored in an HMI discussion paper, Modern Languages in Comprehensive Schools, published in 1977, which, as the replies to my department's curriculum inquiry later that year demonstrated, was the subject of considerable discussion in local authorities and schools. They have recently been drawn to public attention again by a report issued by the Headmasters' Conference. Some of the questions under discussion are necessarily for teachers and linguists themselves to resolve; others are properly a matter of wider national concern. We have had these very much in mind in the context of the Government's consideration of the school curriculum as a whole.
Two factors identified in the Inspectorate's survey as affecting performance in modern languages seem particularly important. The first is motivation. Why are so many of our children disinclined to go in for languages? Why does such a high proportion give up French at the earliest possible moment?
Some of the reasons are external to the education service. It is not simply that our children have less contact with foreign language speakers than the Dutch or the Germans, but also that the habit of language learning is not there, in the home or in society at large. Our television and cinema probably give less opportunity for children to hear a foreign language spoken.
988
I suspect, too, that children and their parents are influenced by the low priority attached by employers to language as compared to other skills. We need to ask ourselves if industry and commerce provide sufficient incentive for potential recruits to want to acquire a second or third language, and if there is not more scope for language learning combined with business or technical studies. At present, too many of our young people who take a language as far as O-level or CSE, do not continue with it beyond that point. Combined courses would be a valuable way both of retaining the skills acquired at earlier stages and of improving motivation.
It is also true, however, that, in expanding their provision for language teaching, schools have not found it easy to reassess their objectives and the content of their courses to suit the much wider range of abilities among the pupils who now learn French. Children will net be motivated to learn if the material is presented badly or pitched at the wrong level. I do not believe that low motivation is inevitable; the external pressures working against language learning can be overcome. I am encouraged, for example, by the recently published results of research undertaken at York University, funded by the Schools Council, which show a significant increase in the proportion of pupils choosing to carry on with French after the age of 14 among those who had been taught in a less traditional and more practical way.
The other point I want to pick up from the Inspectorate's findings is the question of teachers' expectations of pupils. The Inspectorate found that where teachers revealed, albeit unintentionally, that they had low expectations of their pupils, these were almost invariably fulfilled. In languages, as in other subjects, we must not underestimate what pupils can achieve.
The consultative paper, A Framework for the School Curriculum, issued last January, indicated the importance that the Government attach to modern languages. It suggested that most pupils should continue to have the opportunity to learn another modern European language as part of their secondary education for a minimum of two, and preferably three, years. It also stressed that languages other than French should be made widely available as first languages for some pupils. These suggestions have received a broad measure of support in our consultations on the school curriculum over the last year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, raised a point about the Plymouth schools scheme and I should like to confirm that it is very encouraging to hear about the success of that scheme in Plymouth, for not only does it strengthen the interest of boys and girls in learning a language but it demonstrates their value outside the school in the real adult world. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has now been able to extend the scheme to Spanish and Italian. Initiatives like these—and I am sure there are many others in different parts of the country—where authorities take a positive interest in strengthening foreign language learning, do much to help the schools; and I greatly welcome them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also suggested that, where a school cannot provide a language, pupils might go to a local college. How far that is generally practicable, particularly if it is a private rather than a local authority college, would be a matter for local

989
circumstances; but the underlying principle that students do not necessarily have to learn all their languages in schools, particularly after 16, is very close to current thinking on the proper use of secondary education facilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, also raised the whole question of assistants and teacher training and supply. I should like to say something of the Government's thinking on that matter. At the present time there is undeniably a shortage of teachers of French and German, though this is numerically less serious than the shortages in mathematics, the sciences and craft, design and technology. There were 266 unfilled vacancies in French last year compared with 174 a year earlier. In German the shortfall was 30 in 1979 and 58 in 1980. But I am happy to be able to tell the House that, with the increase in the number of modern language graduates taking the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (which is the main source of supply to the schools) this year and the further rise in applications for 1981–82, we expect that the supply of teachers of French and German will be more than adequate in a year or so to meet local education authorities' needs.
A point was raised about communication competence and the needs of business and industry, and there is no doubt that the skills required by industry and commerce, and indeed in everyday life, are the skills of communication, and I agree with noble Lords who have emphasised this point.
We must be careful, however, about placing on schools the sole responsibility for developing language skills. To take one example, the languages international commerce needs are always changing. It may be Arabic now, perhaps Spanish or Chinese in a year or two. The schools cannot be expected to be more successful in anticipating demand than the rest of society. They can, however, introduce children in a practical way to the habits and skills of language learning, so that they can develop the confidence to take on a second foreign language at a later stage. To this end of language training in schools, the Government consider generally that assistants make a useful contribution to school language teaching. Much depends on the way the assistant is used by the school, and more needs to be done to ensure that we get the best value from the assistants that we have. The number of assistants in the United Kingdom has declined in the past few years. The peak year was 1975–6, when there were as many as 4,400. This year there are 3,000 which is a small fall in relation to the year before, when there were 3,300.
The Government have been considering what steps they can take to prevent numbers falling further. However, so long as responsibility remains in local authority hands as to whether or not to employ assistants, there will continue to be a risk that numbers will fall in times when cuts in public expenditure have to be made. The danger is that this may lead to retaliation by countries who now offer places to our students in cutting down the places they make available to us. So far this has not happened, and I am happy to say that the French Government agreed very recently to provide us with another 240 places a year, in addition to the 1,450 that they already provide, by stages between 1981–82 and 1983–4. We have also obtained 80 more places in the Federal Republic of Germany in recent
990
years and Italy, over the next two years, has promised to double to 80 the number of places it provides.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, drew attention to the great importance of training teachers in the right methods and in providing courses. So far as initial training is concerned, we have to recognise that teaching the skills necessary to achieve communicative competence is not easy, and that the good principles advocated by teacher trainers during the short one-year postgraduate certificate of education course do not always survive daily life in school. This makes it the more important to ensure that well-organised courses of in-service training are available, and stresses the importance of ensuring that public examination syllabuses give due weight to the importance of understanding and speaking the language, so that teachers have an incentive to teach towards that objective. Teacher exchanges and in-service language courses held abroad are, therefore, of the highest importance.
The Community's proposals include help to countries to increase the number of teacher exchanges. At present, we in the United Kingdom are investing about £330,000 a year in the support of teacher exchanges with Europe, and the Community's proposals would enable this to go up by a small amount—say, £50,000. This would allow our present programme in Europe—which is altogether about 350 "terms of exchange" each year, and will be nearer 400 next year—to rise to, say, 450, if the Community has finance for its proposals in 1982.
The United Kingdom has always recognised the value of exchanges for teachers as part of their in-service training, When the present exchange schemes with European countries began in 1972, some funds were set aside to make sure that the teachers were well prepared for their visit, and discussed what they had seen and done on their return. I am glad to say that, recently, Germany and France have introduced similar arrangements.
In the past two years, my department has introduced new variations of exchanges and courses to widen their attractiveness to teachers so that more can take part. Exchanges for half a term with France were introduced in the spring of last year and are expected to quadruple in number in the next 12 months. In the summer of this year a new programme of short in-service courses for teachers of modern language will be introduced. They will provide about 180 extra places and will more than double the existing provision by central government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised an important point about expenditure on education. I should like to say that expenditure on education co-operation from the European Community budget totalled £4 million in 1980, mostly in grants to member states. Expenditure from the Social Fund was enormously greater. In the United Kingdom alone, it amounted to £135 million, which was 22 per cent. of the fund, and 58·5 per cent. of that went to the youth opportunities programme.
In conclusion, may I say that I very much understand and appreciate the European dimension and the European ideal, which has run as a theme through our discussions. Traditionally, learning about Europe has been the responsibility of history and geography teachers, but, as the United Kingdom grows more

991
closely linked with the rest of Europe, there is a need to look carefully at whether these traditional arrangements are good enough. But it is for school departments, schools and local education authorities to do this, and it is not for central Government to lay down a set syllabus.
Finally, I should very much like to endorse the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, on the free trade in students between the European Community countries. The Government's acceptance of European Community students as home students for tuition-free purposes was directly aimed at helping such traffic and trade. Direct schemes of co-operation between the institutions of different European Community countries for running joint courses are another important contribution to this movement, and I am glad that these are growing steadily. The United Kingdom universities and other higher education institutions have received 198 grants altogether from the European Community in the past five years for developing such courses—far more than any other country—and this year we took 33 of the 132 available. This reflects, in the Government's view, a good and healthy interest by our university and polytechnic teachers in promoting links and mobility of students in Europe.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have taken part in this short debate, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the reply which she has made in considerable detail. I venture to hope that there may be an opportunity at some time when these matters can be discussed at greater length. I suggest, therefore, that when the report becomes available on the projects that arc taking place relating to the 16 to 18 year-olds from the Community, if this is brought before the House we should have an opportunity to discuss it at greater length. I am most grateful for the support which I have received.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
House again in Committee, on Schedule 2.
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 97 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 46 leave out line 27.
The noble Lord said: This amendment aims to cover the position of the jack snipe. What I want to do is to leave the jack snipe off Schedule 2, Part I, which lists those species which may be killed outside the close season. As noble Lords will know, the jack snipe is a tiny bird which is widespread as a breeding bird in parts of Northern Europe and Northern Asia, but it visits this country only as a visitor in the winter, when approximately 1,500 birds come to the United Kingdom; in other words, a very great deal fewer than some of the species which we were considering before the dinner break when we were talking in terms of 5,000, 6,000 or more winter visitors. On at least
992
one of those species the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the Government accepted the position. So I am hopeful that we shall start off after dinner on a good note.
Because of its very small numbers, it seems to me that this should be a fully protected bird as it already is in parts of the EEC; for example, in Belgium, the Netherlands and West Germany. So far as I know—and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong about this—the only argument against protection for the jack snipe is the problem of confusion with the common snipe, which we were discussing last week and which in the close season is commonly shot by sportsmen. However, it seems to me, with my very limited experience indeed of the jack snipe, that it is quite easily distinguishable from the common snipe.
First, it gets up under one's feet, and in all the sporting books that I have looked at there are references to jack snipe being picked up by gun dogs, which hardly seems to commend it as a sporting bird. It does not fly in anything like the same way, it does not zigzag about and it will settle again much quicker than a common snipe. Of course, it also has different markings, apart from its much smaller size, which make it reasonably easy to distinguish. Certainly to people who are any good at distinguishing between one duck and another I should have thought this would present no problems. In any event, there are so few that they are very rarely come across. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree to my amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support the noble Lord in this amendment. The jack snipe visits our shores fairly late in the year, and if you want a bird which is a difficult shot he is certainly not a bird worth shooting. Actually, I do not think he is a bird worth eating. You would need a devil of a lot of them to make a meal. I shall not waste the time of the Committee but simply say that I support the noble Lord.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like to support my noble friend on this amendment. He has never had much to do with jack snipes, but in Ireland they are quite common, though that does not affect this Bill at all. He mentioned the very different flight of the jack snipe. That is true. If you are going to shoot a snipe, you have to be pretty smart about it and shoot it as soon as it gets up. You might not have time to see how it would have flown if you had not shot it. It is so much smaller than the common snipe that I agree with my noble friend that there would be no excuse for shooting it by accident. In view of its scarceness in Britain, I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The point about the flight of the jack snipe is that it is not snipe-like. In his description of Queen Elizabeth touring English country houses, P. G. Wodehouse described them as "snipe-like". But they were not "jack snipe-like".
The Earl of Avon: So far as this particilar bird is concerned, I seem to be against the whole Committee. My information is that very little information exists on

993
a highly secretive species, which makes counting difficult. I am advised that there is not a conservation case for removing this species from the list of birds which may be shot in the open season and that it is a traditional quarry species. Having said that, of course I take account of what all noble Lords around me have said. I am sure that the advisory bodies will, too. We will have another look at this particular bird.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. The numbers which I have are compiled by reference to the county bird reports, which give them a fairly reasonable base of accuracy. The numbers were very small, compared with some of the other species we have been considering.
The Earl of Avon: My figures range from 1,000 to 10,000. The killing figure is 400 and the "sell" figure is 100.
Lord Melchett: It is very helpful to have those figures from the noble Earl. I shall be able to compare them with my sources. We agree at the bottom end of the range. My figure at the bottom end is 1,000 but it only goes up to 1,500. Obviously the noble Earl knows more optimistic birdwatchers than I do. Upon the assurance that the Government will have a look at this point and refer it to the advisory committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("All birds included in Part II of this Schedule").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that Schedule 2 is divided into two parts. In Part I are the birds which may be killed outside the close season. In Part II are the birds which may be shot by authorised persons at all times. Part I consists of what might be called sporting birds, while Part II consists of the pest species which may be shot at all times but only by authorised persons. The extraordinary fact to me is that the pest species of birds in Part II may not be shot at any time by people who are not authorised, as defined in the Bill. By adding the words, "all birds included in Part II of this schedule", at the end of Part I, my amendment would have the effect of making it legitimate for birds on the pest list to be shot outside the close season by unauthorised persons.
I cannot understand how the Government could have any objection to it. The present situation seems to be quite extraordinary. It means that if a party of guns is out shooting duck—or, indeed, if they are out shooting shore waders, which they are allowed to do although I very much regret it—and one of the pest species gets up, they will not be allowed to shoot it. If you are out shooting woodcock and a wood pigeon flies overhead, you must not shoot the wood pigeon although you can shoot the woodcock. If you are out, in a misguided way, shooting curlew and the bar-tailed godwit and a bad pest species such as a jay or a magpie flies nearby, you cannot shoot the pest species.
I do not understand why this special protection is afforded to these noxious birds which do so much
994
damage and take so many eggs from song birds and why the shooting of them is confined to authorised persons, who are then entitled to shoot them at any time of the year or to take their nests or their eggs. I w ill listen with great attention to what the noble Earl has to say, but it seems to me to be very contradictory. I hope that the noble Earl will consider my amendment favourably, and I beg to move it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Surely the law of trespass enters into it. If you allowed unauthorised persons to shoot the pest birds in Part II, would it not mean that unauthorised persons could shoot them anywhere? Surely this is against the law of trespass, but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Kilbracken: So far as that is concerned, it would mean only that an unauthorised person could shoot birds on that list in areas where he had the right to go. It is not going to justify him in trespassing anywhere. But in any places where he is entitled to go and shoot, despite not being authorised he is entitled to shoot the pest species.
The Earl of Avon: This rather funny way of doing it is because of the European directive. I will try to explain. Under the present legislation, pest species may only be shot by authorised persons. This remains the case in the Bill. Although all species listed in both parts of the second schedule are species which may be shot, the circumstances in which they may be shot are fundamentally different. Part II species are birds which can cause damage, though not necessarily in many ways, and they are allowed to be shot by the people who are harmed by the damage caused—for example, the farmer and his employees. Part II effects a derogation under the birds' directive. That is a European directive and must therefore be so limited.
The species listed in Part I are abundant quarry species and, as provided by the same birds directive, may be shot in sporting circumstances. There is thus no restriction on who may shoot them, though this does not confer a right—this is the point which my noble friend behind me made—to enter other people's land without authority to shoot. It means that if you are out on a shoot, the farmer, or whoever has invited you to shoot, must be careful about which birds he tells you to shoot before you go out. He can make you an authorised person, so he has to list some of these pests in Part II which he wants shot when he allows you to go shooting. It is a nuisance, but it is one of the things which we have to comply with.
Lord Kilbracken: Will it work like that? The noble Earl spoke about the landowner authorising his guests to shoot a certain species, but there is nothing in the Bill which says that a person is authorised to shoot a particular species. Either somebody is an authorised person or he is not an authorised person. If he is an authorised person he can shoot any of the pest species. If he is not an authorised person he cannot shoot any of them. I find it almost unbelievable that only a specially authorised person can shoot a wood pigeon. The landowner may authorise people who come to a particular shoot. He can say to them, "For the day you are an authorised person. I authorise you".

995
I think he has to say, "You can shoot any of these species", and he may add, "Please don't shoot my house sparrows because I rather like house sparrows". But I do not think he could authorise them to shoot a particular species.
Lord Melchett: I cannot help feeling that my noble friend may be making a little more of this than it warrants. When somebody was going to shoot on somebody else's land I think the normal practice would be for the person allowing him to shoot—in other words, making him an authorised person—to say,
Go and shoot wood pigeon, and if you see a crow or a jay, you can have a shot at that, but for heaven's sake don't shoot at any hawks ". That would be fairly normal and I think it would meet the point that my noble friend is making.
Lord Kilbracken: I may be making heavy weather of it and of course a landowner will give instructions to his guns before any shoot. What stands out is that he can go and shoot bar-tailed godwits but he cannot shoot a starling or a wood pigeon. This is absolutely nonsensical, and although I would not dream of pressing the amendment to a Division I do not feel inclined to withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 98A not moved.]
8.31 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert?—
("Dove, Stock Columba oenas").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 99 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 100 at the same time. The stock dove and the great black-backed gull have been regarded as pests and were so listed in the pest schedule, Schedule 2 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. These birds have been omitted from the pest schedule under the new Bill and the purpose of the amendment is to have the birds listed in Schedule 2, Part II—the pest schedule—as they continue to be pests on a national scale. Why the Bill seeks to protect them by removing them from Schedule 2 and therefore ensuring that they can only legally be shot under licence, I do not understand. I assume that it is done to bring the United Kingdom legislation into line with the EEC bird directive. However, the black-backed gull continues to be unprotected in Denmark as well as in Germany and the stock dove and the collared dove in France. Under the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife the gull is not protected, so there is no consistency in Europe at the moment on this point.
Therefore, I submit that there is absolutely no reason to protect these birds and I would just mention that wherever they appear they really are a nuisance, the gull particularly so. As many of your Lordships are aware, it is a predator of young lambs and young birds. The dove, of course, is a great eater of corn. It is very like a pigeon in all its habits and its behaviour and there is absolutely no decline in the population of doves. Why we should be asked to look after these
996
birds and not put them in a category in which they can be destroyed, I just do not understand. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Taking the stock dove first, the question is whether it amounts to a pest. Clearly it is not a bird which needs special protection because there are approximately 100,000 pairs of birds in Great Britain. But generally its winter flocks are small, in the neighbourhood of 150, which is not too bad. It does not eat leaves. Basically it eats seeds as its main food and it is a marginal case. In the summer it eats a certain amount of ripe cereal grain but it still feeds mainly on weed seeds. It must not be confused with the woodpigeon which certainly does much more damage but I think that to put it down to the level of a pest is going too far. I think that under Clause 15 if there is a congregation of stock doves in a certain area which is doing damage it is perfectly easy to ring up and get permission to have a strafe.
Very much the same can be said of the great black-backed gull. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that both these birds are marginal cases. Neither are things which would make me think it absolutely dreadful if this amendment was agreed to. I do not think it would be as had as that but I think it would be technically wrong. We have about 22,000 pairs of black-backed gulls, most of which are in Scotland. There are very few pairs on the East Coast of England and the adults are mostly sedentary. Their food consists of animal matter, including fish, crustacea, worms, molluscs, insects and all kinds of carrion. They kill adult and young seabirds and take young rabbits and rats. So far, so good. That they occasionally attack a lamb has been suggested. But that is true of many birds, and on the whole it is the weak lamb that is attacked and is probably going to die anyway.
I do not want to make too much fuss about this, but on the whole I oppose the lowering of these two species to pest level. I do not think it is necessary. I consider that we want the free shooting of pests to be limited to pests which are really pestiferous, and I do not think either of these can be called pestiferous at the present stage.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: There may be a case for not including the stock dove but I certainly cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that the great black-backed gull is not a pest. I have a home in the Inner Hebrides and I am beset with them. They are the most vicious predators. If we take the puffin, which is rather a rare bird, the puffin nests in a burrow and I have often watched the great black-backed gull going and sitting on top of the burrow and the moment the poor puffin gets out of the burrow the great black-backed gull clobbers him on the head and kills him. They are exceedingly vicious birds. It may be that there are only 22,000 pairs, but I can only say that a great number of those pairs must be round my estate. They are extremely bad predators and kill a lot of other birds, quite apart from the odd lamb, that I am not quite so concerned about. If it was a rare bird like a golden eagle, that would be welcome to many of my lambs, but not a great black-backed gull.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may reply briefly to the noble Viscount, my evidence is that a great many of them are in his area: 16,000 out of 22,000 are found in Scotland. My note also tells me that there is a certain tendency for great black-backed gulls to feed on puffins and shearwaters but that does not appear to affect populations. If the noble Lord put forward on aesthetic grounds that a puffin, like a nightingale, is something we do not want to see killed, I should be more persuaded; but that is not the line he was taking. There seem to be plenty of puffins. They are not unreasonably decreased by this. I do not think the noble Lord has made his case.
Lord Dulverton: I rise as a simple countryman with some experience of both these birds. I do not think you can bracket the stock dove with the great black-backed gull. I do not propose to say anything about the stock dove. It is certainly not a pest in my part of Gloucestershire or the parts of Scotland I know well. The black-backed gull is an entirely different matter. It is not only in the Highlands of Scotland. They are art extremely strong bird and they are most voracious. It has been said that they will occasionally kill a weakling lamb. They will not only do that but if a hill ewe gets cast for any reason the great black-backed gull will come down and peck out her eyes while she is still alive. That has been known in many cases. It is a completely different kettle of fish, if I may mix my metaphors, from the dove. They are the most voracious bird and they do not only live in Scotland.
I happened to go to the Scilly Isles a couple of years ago, which I am not familiar with at all. I was kindly looked after by one of the Nature Conservancy wardens. I was impressed with the bird population, and I was particularly impressed with the bird population of the great black-backed gulls there. I said to the young gentleman who was in charge of these beautiful islands from the Nature Conservancy point of view, "That must be a bit of a problem". He said, "Yes it is. We are losing birds a great deal owing to this population of great black-backed gulls, but we are in a great difficulty about doing anything about it because the public who come to the islands do not like to see anything shot". I would strongly support the amendment that suggests that the great black-backed gull is a severe pest to many forms of wildlife around our coasts, and to our farm stock as well.
Viscount Thurso: The great black-backed gull is a vicious powerful predator which will kill not merely a weakling lamb but a good thriving lamb, by sheer attack, while perhaps the mother is lying a bit weak after giving birth. They will take the eyes out of a lambing ewe, the tongue out of a lamb while it is being lambed, and they will go right through the frontal bone of a lamb to kill it. If they are allowed to multiply in an area they can cause great damage in the lambing field. To say that they take the occasional weakly lamb is a minimisation of their danger which nobody in the North of Scotland would accept.
Earl Peel: There is one further point. After the vicious attack on the black-backed gull, I would love to be coming to its defence, but sadly I cannot. I must agree with my noble friend Lord Mowbray in tabling this amendment. I must say I am most curious as to
998
the Government's figures, and indeed Lord Donaldson's figures, on the great black-backed gull, in fact on many of the birds that have been mentioned during the debates. How accurate one is to the nearest 1,000 birds I do not know, but I think one has to take the birds in the context of what damage they do. Certainly in the case of the great black-backed gull I do not think there is any doubt as to the extensive damage it can do. My information is that the bird is increasing and increasing fairly rapidly. The reasons, I am told, are the milder weather we are having and that they are undoubtedly extending their breeding grounds. Lord Donaldson mentioned the various foods that the black-backed gull tends to adhere to. Certainly lambs must be put on that list, and Lord Thurso has just mentioned what the gull can do to a lamb. I would certainly endorse that from my own experience. To watch a black-backed gull scouring the countryside almost indiscriminately killing whatever it wishes is a sight I have seen on a number of occasions, and I would for that reason give it no sympathy at all. I would hope the Government would consider changing their opinion on this one.
Lord Tryon: I, too, want to support this amendment on the great black-backed gull. We seem to be taking them both together. On the stock dove I have a pretty open mind. The "greater" denotes to me not only greater size but far greater voracious capacity. It is a really ruthless creature and if the lesser black-backed deserves a place on this list the great one does more so. Anyone who has watched these birds coming up a river valley in the spring in April and March to kill all the young ducks and any other small water fowl they can find will know what I mean. They are a really voracious predator. I can give one quick example. We owe quite a debt to Iceland for looking after all the many migratory ducks and geese that go there for the summer. The Icelanders get very little benefit from them because they all return here in the winter to take their chance on these shores. But the Icelanders look after them well, and one of the ways they look after them, at least until very recently when I was last there, was to put quite a large bounty on the head of all great black-backed gulls, which they see as the greatest threat to the breeding of the ducks in their country.
The Earl of Avon: I think I had better speak to the two birds separately on this occasion. To start with the dove, the stock dove is not listed in the Bill on the advice once again of the advisory committee, the NCC and MAFF, who are all agreed it is not a nationwide pest. The species can harm man's interests in special situations or limited areas, and if a case is shown control will be permitted under an appropriate form of licence. The species is on the increase, but some 10 years ago the population was at a very low level following a dramatic and largely unexplained fall in their population in the middle and late 1950s. We will obviously keep this one under review. Bearing that in mind, I hope my noble friend will withdraw that amendment.
When I come to the great black-backed gull obviously feelings are running much higher. I should say about numbers that there have been no comprehensive surveys that we know of since 1969. My figures agree very much with Lord Donaldson's, and equally that the larger preponderance of them is in Scotland. It has

999
been omitted from the Bill because it was considered to be relatively scarce. It is the scarcest of our long established breeding gulls and because it only creates local problems we thought it could be adequately catered for by licence. However, having listened to your Lordships this evening, the advisory committee will be reading this debate and if they do not change their minds all I can say is that I will be very surprised. With that qualification, I do not know whether my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Before that amendment is withdrawn, may I say this. Such a very strong case has been correctly made out against the great black-backed gull that if it is allowed any measure whatever of protection it is merely an invitation to the breaking of the law. People will not put up with the depredations of a bird like this. So I suggest to my noble friend that this is rather a case for the Government to make up their minds, whatever advice they receive.
The Earl of Avon: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I have been saying all along that the advisory committee is the main body and, although we may pressurise them, I would still like to go to them in the spirit of this debate.
Lord Kilbracken: Is it the advisory committee which is pressurising the noble Earl or is it the noble Earl who is pressuring the committee?
The Earl of Avon: It is all three.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. As regards Amendment No. 99, I still regard the dove as a damn pest but I do not seem to have the support of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says that it is not to be confused with the woodpigeon which is a greater pest and I would not argue with the noble Lord on that score. I agree that he is not as great a pest as the woodpigeon and obviously, I shall not press Amendment No. 99.
However, I have been talking also to Amendment No. 100 and I really think that I should get from the Minister a more concrete expression of opinion than we have been given so far. Without any exception, all the Committee—even the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—had to confess that the great black-backed gull is not a pleasant creature. I would like the noble Lord the Minister, before I agree to withdraw Amendment No. 100, to give me some more definite concrete expression of opinion. I am fairly happy and convinced that if we in this Committee were to advise the Government on Amendment No. 100, the House in Committee would probably advise the Government to carry my Amendment No. 100. So I would like something slightly stronger from the noble Lord if I am not to press Amendment No. 100. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 99.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99A not moved.]
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 46, line 35, at end insert?—
("Gull, Great Black-backed Larus marinus").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100. I should like to invite the Minister to reply to the comments which I made previously.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Earl, Lord Avon, responds—if he is going to do so—I should like to say that it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is being a little unfair on the Minister. After all, we have had a number of other debates where there has been a fairly unanimous view that birds ought to be moved from one schedule to another, or removed or added, and we have taken a line on all of those that it is reasonable for the Government to say that they would like to go away and consult the advisory committee, who I think a lot of us may feel have taken a wrong decision on a number of different birds and who the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, obviously thinks have taken the wrong one on this. It is clear from this side of the Committee that we are not making any great argument about that. We would not think the case is as strong as some other noble Lords may think by any manner of means. Nevertheless, there is no great dissention.
It seems to me that, having on so many different individual birds agreed that the Government should be able to take the matter away and go to the advisory committee and look at it, it would be somewhat out of spirit with the rest of our proceedings for the noble Lord to ask for something more this time. After all, we could have taken that course on a whole range of individual birds and we would still be here in at least two months' time if we had insisted on getting a definite answer or dividing the Committee on every individual species. In an effort to speed up the proceedings of the Committee, certainly I and my noble friends have withdrawn all of our amendments on the basis of the assurance which the Government have given. I just did not want to see us get bogged down on one particular bird. It seems to me that there is such a degree of unanimity that the noble Lord need have no real fears about his amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whose interest and fairness in these matters I fully appreciate and am very grateful for. I do not want to make mischief, but I do not regard this particular bird as being a doubtful case. He is a predator who really is a damn nuisance, and I think that on that we are agreed. Providing my noble friend will give me a slightly more positive assurance that before Report he will be able to let me know something, I shall respond to the feelings of the Committee and not push the amendment. However, I want something slightly more positive about this particular gull than I have had so far.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend the Minister responds I should like to say that my name is down on the amendment. I feel much more strongly about it than my noble friend Lord Mowbray. I think that we are in great danger as a Committee—to answer the point the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised—of appearing to make ourselves very stupid in the eyes, certainly, of any agriculturist. This black-backed gull, as your Lordships have heard, is a vicious animal. It does not just take weakly lambs; it particularly likes sleepy full fat ones. If your Lordships

1001
let this go forward it will be not to the credit of your Lordships' Committee or because of our knowledge of birds. It does not need a second thought and it is no good putting it off until the Report stage. We shall be here until Christmas if everything is put off until the Report stage. I feel very strongly that this particular amendment should be agreed to.
The Earl of Avon: If your Lordships are not prepared to follow the spirit in which we debated the other birds, it would probably be best to put the Question on the amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I beg to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100A and 101 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Birds which may be sold]
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 47, leave out line 19.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 102. In discussing this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105, because they deal also with the same topic. Schedule 3, Part I, lists the native wild birds that may be the subject of trade and may also be exhibited competitively—that is to say on occasions such as agricultural shows. I do not want anyone to think that I am opposed to the hobby of aviculture. That is an interesting and rewarding hobby which frequently has a scientific spin-off and there have been considerable contributions to scientific ornithology from aviculturalists, particularly in the field of behaviour.
None the less, this schedule is important because it defines the scope of legitimate aviculture where our native birds are concerned. In putting forward this amendment which relates to the little owl and the other amendments that relate to the meadow pipit, the mistle thrush and the grey wagtail, I have taken note of the preliminary consultative paper put out by the Department of the Environment on 28th August last year in which paragraph 21 discusses the rationale for the inclusion of native wild bird species in this part of Schedule 3. That rationale was that the list should comprise only:
"Those species which are commonly bred in captivity and have self-sustaining populations in captivity".
I have been advised that there is not, in fact, any sound evidence to show that the little owl or the other three birds that I have mentioned—or indeed several other birds which are at present included on this list for which evidence is not forthcoming of a secure nature—satisfy these criteria; that is to say, to show indisputably that these birds can be said to breed "commonly" in captivity or to be capable of maintaining in captivity a population which can be said to be "self-sustaining". I wish to ask the Government whether these two aspects, which are clearly interrelated, are in fact the criteria for inclusion of native wild bird species on this list. If so, it seems clear that proof of such circumstances falls on the aviculturalists. It requires to be demonstrated that any bird species
1002
included in this schedule satisfies the criteria which have apparently been put forward.
I believe that it is only fair to all parties concerned—aviculturalists, conservationists and straight bird lovers—to ask for an unambiguous statement on the nature of the evidence which would be taken as proof of the existence of a self-sustaining captive population and of "common" breeding in captivity. If such proof cannot be forthcoming in the case of the four bird species covered by my amendments, I would beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that this is a very important amendment and is one in which I tried to get involved a little earlier. The noble Earl quite rightly told me that it would be discussed now. I have nothing to add to the general statement which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has made, but I should very much like to know how the Government arrived at this list in Part I of Schedule 3 and what, if any, criteria were used to support claims of a breeding record.
There is very little quantitative information on the breeding of British birds in captivity. This is carried out on a small scale in private homes which do not keep records. I do not think that the people who are interested in breeding birds in their homes are the same sort of people who write articles in the papers and explain what they have done. The information is very limited. In papers such as Cage and Aviary Birds there have been some articles, but there has been nothing which includes evidence that this long list is in any sense self-supporting from a breeding point of view.
The British Birds Council has tried to collect figures as part of a programme to introduce coded rings into aviculture. I do not want to introduce that because it is not absolutely relevant to this amendment, but it is a very important point. However, these figures support the earlier statement that for many of the birds in Part I of Schedule 3 there is little or no evidence to show that they breed readily in captivity so as to maintain a self-sustaining population.
From the small amount of information that we and other wildlife conservation bodies have studied, it would appear that in addition to the four species which are the subject of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook—which amendment I fully support—there might be a good case for the removal of the blackbird, the reed bunting, the dunnock, the jay, the jackdaw, the rook, the starling, the song thrush, the twite, and the pied wagtail. These birds would be far better off the list than on it if there is no evidence that, in fact, they can sustain their populations by home breeding. I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Sandys: I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for moving this group of amendments together; I hope to follow him, but I shall deal with each of the species separately. I hope it will be the feeling of the Committee that that is satisfactory.
Amendment No. 102 seeks to remove the little owl from Schedule 3, Part I. As your Lordships are aware, this is a list of birds which may be sold alive at all times if bred in captivity and close ringed. The little owl may be exhibited, although I must confess that an owl show would be a rarity. These are known as the ABCR

1003
birds, meaning the aviary-bred and close-ringed birds, although it does not indicate that the birds were actually bred in an aviary. The equivalent schedule in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 is Schedule 4. This current list does not seem to have any rationale and appears to be a relic from the pre-1954 days when trapping was mainly legal.
The rationale behind the new list is that for a species to be placed thereon a self-sufficient captive population be demonstrated. As a corollary to listing, licences to take from the wild will be not issued except for occasional gene refreshment. Further species can be added when the criteria can be met. Both the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook asked the Government what are the criteria. As I understand it, the position is that committees have looked at breeding records provided by aviculturalists. Emphasis was laid on the paucity of records and the lack of criteria. This was one of the problems, and I fully acknowledge that, and was a main reason why committees concerned in the Government gave the benefit of the doubt to the birds concerned. In some cases the figures were marginal, but they will be reviewed regularly. I do not know whether that satisfies both the noble Lords who spoke in this particular regard.
Except for the two species of owl listed in Amendment No. 102, the current list was drawn up on the advice of the advisory committees, together with the assistance of the records of the British Birds Council, the principal organisation of bird breeders and exhibitors. At present all owls are listed on the fourth schedule and the little owl was added in 1978. Only the little owl and the barn owl have been retained. The available evidence, particularly from zoos and breeders, strongly indicates that the species has a self-sustaining population in captivity. There is a considerable amount of trade in the species, though there is no evidence to suggest that this is being supported by illegal taking. The species, in common with other species of owls, breeds well in captivity. I hope that your Lordships will reject this amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 103, where we deal with the meadow pipit, I explained, when speaking to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to remove the little owl from Schedule 3, Part I, of that list, that, with the exception of the owl, this has been drawn up on the advice of the advisory committees with the assistance of the British Birds Council. They have advised that the meadow pipit should be added, although they realise from records available that it was a borderline case. However, the records are incomplete and the council, as they admit, have some difficulty in getting people to submit returns, and of course the council is not a closed shop.
I can assure the Committee that we will keep the list under review for both additions and deletions of records, and more complete records will become available as a result of the provisions in Clause 6, which may show that breeding success is not being maintained or achieved at the necessary level. I hope your Lordships will reject that amendment. In regard to the mistle thrush and Amendment No. 104, the initial list, which was drawn up over a year ago, included the mistle thrush, and the reviews which have taken place
1004
since then have, in our view, justified the original position. I feel that your Lordships should reject this amendment as well.
Lord Melchett: May I say something to the noble Lord about the barn owl? As I understood it, he said that there was no evidence to suggest that the large trade which he rightly says there is in barn owls is being supported by birds taken from the wild. My understanding is that the BTO—the British Trust Ornithology ringers—regularly find young barn owls in nests with rings on them, which demonstrates that somebody has gone along to the nest and put a ring on a wild bred bird, so that later he can go and take the bird, put it in an aviary at home and sell it. I would suggest that there is some considerable evidence, at least in the case of that bird, which is the one, so far as I know, in which there is the biggest trade, that birds are illegally taken from the wild.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is adding to the body of evidence in the most valuable way. As my noble friend Lord Avon has suggested, the advisory committee will be reading this debate and his comments will be part of the record. I am afraid I cannot give any comment at this stage, but I should continue with my noble friend's Amendment No. 105 in regard to the grey wagtail. The grey wagtail was a relatively late addition to the list. When this list was first drawn up the species was considered not to fulfil the criteria, but the latest records suggest inclusion at least for the present is justified. The list will be under review, and should the current position not be maintained, then the species will be removed from the list. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, and the remainder.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: May I pick up one small point that the noble Lord the Minister made. I do not know whether it was a Freudian slip or not, but it is certainly worth correcting. In his first speech on this subject the noble Lord said that he was giving the benefit of the doubt to the birds. He is not giving the benefit of the doubt to the birds; he is giving it to the bird fanciers, and that is a different thing entirely.
Lord Sandys: The noble Lord is quite right. It was a slip of the tongue, and I apologise to the Committee.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord has taken up my point. I do not wish to repeat it, but slips of the tongue are always rather a help. This may be sentimental and foolish, and even rather ignorant because this is not a world I know intimately—I know nobody who breeds blackbirds, for example—but I think it is awful to think that the blackbird (the bird in my garden which is, on the whole, musically, probably the best thing in the whole of nature, including the nightingale) should be caged and made to breed. I am against the whole idea.
I do not know how I can support the noble Earl in his Motion, because I am too ignorant to say that it matters if you take a pair of jays and cage them and breed them. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing to do, and undesirable, but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with it. I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me. I feel much

1005
more strongly about this than I am able to express because my ignorance is such as to the people who do this sort of thing. But this list of birds, it seems to me, as opposed to canaries and budgies, which have a long history of confinement, would be better not there at all. I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me at all.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I apologise for bothering the noble Earl with my views, but I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. My sympathy is actually with my friend the pied wagtail. The pied wagtail, that splendid little black and white chap, is never seen except stumping up and down the lawns. He is absolutely energetic, and he loathes being contained. These birds have to strut and march up and down and it is a beautiful sight to behold. I am happy to have so many at my home in Scotland. The idea of a pied wagtail, either single or as a pair, in a cage is absolutely incomprehensible. How they can be happy in such an environment I do not know, since their whole happiness is stomping up and down. I raise that point purely as a query, even though it is not relevant to the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I do not altogether share the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, because the aim of the schedule, as the Minister clearly pointed out, is to establish that there is a self-sufficient captive population; that is, that they are birds that are bred into aviculture, caged birds born and bred—" laid and bred "I had better say—and are as cage-trained as canaries. I do not wish to discredit the field of aviculture, which attracts a great many people but which clearly must be legitimised, and as I said at the outset, the purpose of the schedule, as I understand it, is the legitimise the practices of aviculture where our native bird species are concerned.
I note that the best the Minister could do to illuminate the criteria to us was more or less to paraphrase the words 1 used; he referred to a self-sufficient captive population which was permitted to have occasional gene refreshment under licence, which means to say that from time to time one may get a licence to add another wild bird to it. Several noble Lords, including the Minister, referred to the difficulties that exist in obtaining hard facts to substantiate this point. If we look around the United Kingdom and ask if we have a self-sustaining breeding population, we obtain proof or disproof by a simple census. I believe that the aviculturists should themselves respond by bringing forward the information they have to demonstrate that there is a censusable, irrefutable, self-sufficient, captive population so that there need be no dispute that the wagtail or blackbird in the cage was laid there, hatched there and comfortable in what is regarded as a secure and wholly environment. I do not wish to press this to the point where the Committee must decide whether to accept or reject the amendment and I shall therefore, with leave, withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 47, line 33, at end insert—
("Dove, Collared Streptopelia decaocto").
The noble Lord said: We now come to Part II of
1006
Schedule 3 and a very short list of those birds which may be sold at all times if they are dead. The only birds on this list are the feral pigeon and the wood pigeon. My amendment would add one more species to that list, namely the collared dove, another member of the pigeon family.
I need not go in to the extraordinary history of the collared dove and its remarkable spread over the whole of Europe and finally to these islands. The fact that it appears among the pest species in Schedule 2(II) makes it unnecessary for me to emphasise the amount of damage it does in the eating of grain, particularly harvested grain. Having shot a few of them, I can speak from experience as to their edibility; they are every bit as nice, even nicer perhaps, to eat as wood pigeon, yet for some strange reason the collared dove does not appear in Schedule 2(II).
If I am an authorised person and therefore allowed to shoot collared doves, then obviously I can eat them myself. Apparently, however, I cannot sell them to anyone who is prepared to put them on the market. That seems remarkable, and since it is clearly to everyone's advantage that the collared dove population should be greatly reduced, the sale of the species dead should be permitted, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I should like to ask why the whole of Schedule 2, Part II is not included in Schedule 3, Part II, which would be remarkably more simple? I am not suggesting that there would be a wide market in dead crows throughout the United Kingdom, but I do not see that there is any need for a market in order for selling to be allowed. With regard to all the birds which may be killed or taken by authorised persons at all times, is there any reason why they should not be sold dead at all times? Would not that produce a small simplification in what is a complicated series of schedules?
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I cannot possibly imagine that the selling of a wood pigeon in captivity would be allowed. Would not that be one of the corollaries of what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is asking for?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No, the noble Lord misunderstood me. I am suggesting that it should be permissible for all the birds listed in Schedule 2, Part II—those are the birds which may be killed or taken by authorised persons at all times—to be sold dead at all times, as dealt with in Schedule 3, Part II. I am not suggesting they should be sold alive.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to make a small point with regard to fishing. Many of these birds may be sold to provide feathers for fly tying—in particular the jay and the magpie.
Lord Sandys: I fear that I must resist the amendment. Inclusion of the collared dove in Part II of Schedule 3 would be contrary to the European Community directive. However, under the licensing provisons of the Bill as drafted, licences could be issued to allow some sale of dead specimens of the species—which is what the noble Lord inquired about—if justification for such sale can be given, and subject of course to the

1007
normal consultation procedures outlined during the Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Bellwin and others.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer—perhaps the noble Lord will write to me—but I should like him to explain, if lie can, the thinking behind the European Convention which allows us to make rules providing that these 12 birds may be killed by authorised persons at all times, but may not be sold dead at all times. No doubt there is a reason for that, and I hope the noble Lord will write and tell me what the reason is—but the imagination boggles.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his intervention. Exactly the same point has occurred to me. I believe that there is a market for many of the species listed in Schedule 2, Part II. The jay and the magpie, though none of us like them very much, are very handsome birds, and many taxidermists are glad to get hold of a dead magpie. Indeed, I understand that quite a number are gathered up from the motorways after accidents. I do not see why an authorised person, if he shoots a magpie, should not take it along to a taxidermist and get £10 or £12 for it, if that is the going price; I do not know what the price is. I was thinking of putting down an amendment of the very type that the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench has proposed, but I decided that the proposal would stand a better chance of acceptance if I confined it to the species that most concerned me.
I must say that I am disappointed by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to my proposal. These birds gather in enormous quantities, and I have been out and shot 20 or 30 of them at a granary. I took them home, put some of them in the deep freeze, and gave some of them to friends. If one is entitled to go out and shoot the birds, put them in the deep freeze, or give them to friends, I cannot understand why one cannot take them to a poulterer, if one so wishes, and let him sell them. I think it is very extraordinary, and I do not understand the working of the European Economic Community or of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, but in view of the fact that it has been resisted by the Government I have no real alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It is rather like the question of ladies' hats, some of which have jay feathers in them. They are very attractive, but, of course, ladies' fashions are always changing, especially in their hats.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Segal): I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 107 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 108, 109 or 109A.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 47, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 8 on page 48, and insert—
("DEAD OUTSIDE THE CLOSE SEASON
All birds included in Part I of Schedule 2.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment rather along the lines of the one that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has just suggested for Part II of Schedule 3. We now move on to Part III of that schedule, which is a list of birds that may be sold dead from 1st September to 28th February. Two points are included in this amendment, the first of which I touched upon in an earlier amendment. It is that Part III of Schedule 3 is headed "Dead from 1st September to 28th February", but the close season is different for different species, and the close season may be changed by future orders of the Secretary of State. It therefore seems to me preferable that that schedule should he headed simply, "Dead outside the Close Season" rather than giving any particular dates.
The second point is that at present we have in Part III of Schedule 3 a list of birds which may be sold, and this differs in a rather incomprehensible manner from the birds which may be killed or taken during the same period, which are set out in Part I of Schedule 2. For the most part the two lists are the same, but, for instance, I notice that all the waders included in Schedule 2, Part I, are omitted on this occasion, but the coot, for instance, is included in this list although I cannot imagine that there is much of a market for coots. Therefore, my proposal is that the Bill should be simplified by having the same list of species in Part III of Schedule 3 as in Part I of Schedule 2. That is what my amendment would achieve, and I beg to move it.
The Duke of Atholl: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, most strongly in this amendment as far as the second part of it is concerned—that is, the words, "All birds included in Part I of Schedule 2". I see the difficulty about the first part. If you happen to shoot several mallard on 31st January and you wish to sell them, it would be very difficult to sell them legally, and even more difficult for the game dealer who bought them on the evening of 31st January to dispose of them again that night. Therefore, I think there are advantages in giving 28th February as the closing date.
But, so far as the actual birds are concerned, I believe—in fact I know, because it was earlier on this afternoon and I was in my place here—that someone was extolling the virtues of the prohibition on the sale of dead wild geese. All I can say is that, so far as Scotland is concerned, that has been an absolute disaster. No one will now shoot these geese. They are becoming a menace in many parts of Scotland. You cannot afford to shoot them for you cannot sell them and cartridges are getting extremely expensive. When I was convenor of the Scottish Landowners' Federation we had a great many complaints from tenant farmers saying that their landlords would not shoot these geese and how much damage the geese were doing to their spring grass; not so much to their barley or winter wheat but particularly to their grass; and that it was impossible to interest anyone in shooting them because of the cost of cartridges and the fact that you are not able to sell the geese when you have shot them. It seems to me that it is almost criminal not to make use of perfectly good meat protein when you have acquired it; and the prohibition on the sale of dead wild geese has done just that.

1009
I refuse to believe that either the greylag or the pinkfoot are at all rare. There are, certainly, in many parts of Scotland, enormous numbers of them which have increased substantially as a result of the prohibition on the sale of them since 1964 or whenever it was introduced.
I would support the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, so far as the sale of birds listed in Part I of Schedule 2 is concerned. I do not imagine it would make much difference to the curlew. I agree, having listened to the earlier discussion, that it is a pity that one can still shoot curlews. I do not think many people do so. I was also interested in why you are not allowed to sell a gadwall. To my knowledge, I have not eaten a gadwall but, so far as I know, it has a perfectly reasonable taste, unlike the tufted duck, which you can sell. It ought to be legal to sell a gadwall if you have shot it in season. I support Lord Kilbracken. I hope that the Government will consider his amendment seriously.
Lord Melchett: I am afraid I disagree with the noble Duke and with my noble friend on this amendment. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, or whoever is going to respond, will deal with the problems which I think it would give rise to so far as the EEC directive is concerned. My own feeling is that a number of these species in Schedule 2, Part I, could be killed in large numbers were there a commercial market for them; and that would be undesirable. More than that, I think it would not he something welcomed by most wildfowlers. There is a danger, if some of these duck and geese and other species are shot or killed in very large numbers that it would bring the sport of wildfowling (which is not about shooting huge numbers of duck and geese) into disrepute and it would not reflect well on those who have this sport at heart. That was one of the reasons why this sort of prohibition on the sale of certain species was first introduced. My information is that it has worked very well since, and I would hope that, in this respect, the Government will leave the Bill as drafted.
The Duke of Atholl: The noble Lord has said that the prohibition on the sale of dead wild geese has worked very satisfactorily. There seems to be a theory in this committee that it has; but so far as Scotland is concerned it has been considered an absolute disaster.
Lord Melchett: Probably not by the geese.
Lord Sandys: We have had an interesting discussion on these two amendments. Perhaps T may lead into my reply to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 by referring to the noble Lord's previous amendment, No. 106. The question of our obligations under the EEC directive is really fundamental to the whole argument. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, of the position within the EEC and why it is in its present state. The French and the Italians see no hope of stopping the shooting of pigeons and wood pigeons, so they control the sale.
Returning to the present amendments before the Committee, Schedule 3, Part III, as drafted, meets our obligations in regard to the sale of dead birds under Annexe 3 to the European Community directive and retains existing prohibitions on the sale of those
1010
species of geese contained in the existing protection of birds legislation which will allow them to be hunted.
The United Kingdom negotiated long over these Community sale prohibitions in the directive, which were in one sense the price paid for the adoption of the very valuable new level of protection of birds throughout the European Community which this directive confers. The amendment would, if it were not anyway undesirable for these reasons, result in the confusing situation where for the definite period of 1st September to 28th February was substituted a different close season for each bird, which is really the main substance of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. We recognise the situation that he has outlined, but there are greater arguments brought about by our obligations under the European Community directive.
Lord Kilbracken: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said and I shall read it even more carefully tomorrow. I find it extraordinary how often we are told that we have to take a cue from what has been done in the European Community. Stories that I have heard about the way birds are treated in Europe lead me to believe that they are slaughtered right, left and centre by French and Italian sportsmen; yet we are suddenly told that we have to model our own ideas on what goes on in France and Italy. That does not make sense to me at all.
I was very grateful to the noble Duke for the support that he gave to my amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Melchett could not do likewise. I should like to point out to him that my amendment has the merit of simplifying the schedules by having the same lists. It would merely mean that the geese would be included in Part III of Schedule 3. We have the recommendation of the noble Duke that their sale should be permitted. There are then the waders, and I cannot believe that tens of thousands of curlew and redshank are going to come on to the market. If they did, no one would buy them. There is also the gadwall, which is a relatively common duck. I do not know why it should not be sold just as freely as the tufted duck, the mallard, the pintail, or the pochard. My amendment has merit but, apart from the noble Duke, it has had no support from the Committee. Therefore, regretfully, I must ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 109A:
Page 48, leave out line 5.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak on this amendment very briefly because I have already spent some time on the jack snipe, and the Government have very kindly said that they will consider the points that I have made. I simply want to put on the record that there is a separate case to be made for removing the jack snipe from Part III of Schedule 3. Even if the jack snipe is not removed from Part I of Schedule 2 (which is what I was suggesting in my earlier amendment), there is at least as strong a case for removing it from Schedule 3, Part III, which would allow it to be sold. Having said that, given that the Government are considering my

1011
earlier amendment, which is the major one, it will speed matters up if I do not move this amendment.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.40 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: There are two points I want to raise on Schedule 3. Part I of that schedule, as we know, lists birds or species which may be sold alive at all times if ringed and bred in captivity. There are one or two species I should like the Government to think about before Report stage, if they cannot give an answer immediately. I would refer first to the capercaillie, which was mentioned on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, as being a species that he personally raised in order to release later as gun birds. It seems to me that if people are raising birds such as the capercaillie, which are not game birds within the meaning of the Bill, there must be a market for them and people should be allowed to sell them. Then there is the quail, which is not on the list. I believe that quail are raised in captivity as poultry and they are very much valued and very delicious to eat. I ate a couple in a Chelsea restaurant the other night.
Finally, it occurs to me that Schedule 4 sets out a long list of birds that may be kept in captivity, including almost all the hawks and falcons, and although they may be kept in captivity they do not appear on this list of birds which may be sold. That seems to me rather surprising because we all know there is a very important market in hawks and falcons; yet they are not included in the list of birds which may be sold. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to look into that before we come to the Report stage.
Lord Gibson-Watt: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that he may have eaten a quail in Soho, but I very much doubt whether he has eaten a capercaillie.
Lord Kilbracken: I ate two quail, and I doubt whether I could eat even a small part of a capercaillie.
Lord Sandys: I listened with interest to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for consideration on Schedule 3 before Report stage. I note all that he said in regard to the capercaillie and the quail. For Schedule 3, Part I, we have introduced a new principle that birds which may be shown or sold alive must only be those that breed readily in captivity. That has reduced the list by half, but we believe it will be an incentive to agriculturalists and bird fanciers to co-operate in breeding programmes which will allow more and more species to be ncluded in Schedule 3. A corollary of inclusion is that licences to take further birds of these species would normally only be given for gene replenishment and on the advice of agricultural experts.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Birds which must he registered and ringed if kept in captivity]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 48, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—
("Hawks Accipitridae").
The noble Lord said: I put down this amendment simply because the present entry in Schedule 4 is quite unnecessarily complicated. This is a list of birds which must be registered and ringed if kept in captivity. Most of the entries refer to a single species with its scientific name. However, for reasons which are not immediately clear to me, in some cases, and in particular in the case of falcons and what are called true hawks, column two does not give the name of a particular species but the name of the entire genus. So all crossbills and all divers must be registered if kept in captivity, and so on. When we come to hawks, it is found necessary to say true hawks, except old world vultures, and then the schedule gives the name of the genus accipitridae, except for certain families.
All the birds on this list are visitors to these islands, and it is unnecessary to complicate the Bill by putting in the names of a lot of old world vultures, although they are accipitridae. The only two species of vulture that have occurred in Britain are the Egyptian vulture and the Griffon vulture, but they have appeared only very occasionally as vagrants, and I do not see any need to take them into account. Of the other genera that are included in the exceptions none has ever appeared in Britain, so there is no point at all in including them. All one needs, instead of those five lines, are the two words included in my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I greatly admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, leads us through these very difficult names of species, and it is a matter of regret that I rise to oppose the amendment. It has never been our intention to include true hawks or, to give them their other name, old world vultures, in Schedule 4 as birds which must be registered and ringed if kept in captivity. These birds are neither indigenous to the United Kingdom, nor do they at any time in their life-cycle resemble the hawks which are resident here. I submit that their inclusion in Schedule 4 would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, I ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: The noble Lord seems to have misunderstood what I am getting at. I know that there is no point in including old world vultures in this schedule, but nor is there any point in including all kinds of foreign birds that are not known in Britain. In every other case, the species listed are birds that have occurred in the British Isles and I do not know why, suddenly, with hawks we have to say "except old world vultures", when they have not occurred in Britain, except in two cases as very rare vagrants. You might as well include ostriches, emus or any species you like. I am not saying that old world vultures should be kept in captivity here. I am saying that there is no reason to have them in this list and that it is quite unnecessary. However, it is no more than a drafting point and I do not want to make anything more of it. Perhaps the noble Lord will have another look at it. But, whether he does or not, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Speaking in political terms, I am all in favour of keeping hawks in captivity, but I do not like the way in which noble Lords have been regarding doves as pests.
Lord Craigton: Before the amendment is done away with, can the Minister tell me what would be the position—
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness White): I think that the noble Lord who moved the amendment has, in fact, asked leave to withdraw it.
Lord Kilbracken: I begged leave to withdraw it, but the Committee has not yet agreed to that.
Lord Craigton: May I go on? I was asking whether the Minister, in winding up or later, could tell me the position of zoological gardens, because this must create a lot of work for them, perhaps unnecessarily. Has that point been considered in drawing up this schedule?
Lord Sandys: To reply to my noble friend Lord Craigton, I am afraid I do not have the information before me. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will perhaps be interested to know that, at their meeting on 29th January, the advisory committee said that many people would be unaware that the term "true hawks" would include birds such as eagles. They recommend that this should somehow be made clear in the schedules, and this is being considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be the fourth schedule to the Bill?
Lord Kilbracken: May I point out that the hoopoe's correct name is not Upapa but Upupa and also that the serin appears to be out of alphabetical order?
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Protection of certain wild animals]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
9.51 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 10, line 39, after (" destroys ") insert (" or prevents entry into ").
The noble Lord said: In putting down this amendment to include the words "or prevents entry into" I was thinking of the otter holt as an example. Normally there are two entrances to the holt, one being a hole in the field above it and the other from the side. If one or both of the entries is closed with a log or a similar obstruction which a man can remove, how can that be said, in the words of the Bill, to be damaging or destroying the place used for shelter and into which entry has been prevented by the log? I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. To prevent entry into a place which is used by a protected animal for shelter or protection could be just as damaging to that animal as if the shelter or place were damaged or destroyed, but it may not be sufficient purely to prevent entry. If my noble friend will be good enough to withdraw the amendment, I shall look into it further.
Lord Craigton: I thank my noble friend very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 10, line 39, after ("destroys") insert ("or renders uninhabitable").
The noble Lord said: This is the first amendment to protect bats, about which I feel very strongly. There are later amendments to protect them in other ways, but each of my four amendments stands on its own feet and is a separate provision. The Bill is good news for bats. Certainly it will be if my amendment is accepted.
Bats roost and breed in barns, outbuildings, churches and many similar places which are not dwelling-houses. Under Clause 11(2) it is illegal to set any poisonous substance with which the bat can come into contact. One of the greatest risks to bats is from the chemical fluids used in the treatment of woodworm. The lindane and dieldrin fluids not only remain lethal for many years, but at the slightest touch of the treated wood the bat drops dead. So if the owner of an old barn wants to preserve the deteriorating timbers by treating them with one of these fluids and if by doing so he kills a complete colony of bats, can he, if charged, not with truth say that he was not destroying or damaging the place used for shelter by the bats? In fact, the reverse was the case; he was putting it right. But he would have rendered that place uninhabitable for bats, and those are the words which I seek to insert.
Finally, whatever the decision on this amendment—and I hope that this or something like it will be accepted —I look to the Government to take positive action on this Bill when it is enacted. The manufacturers of these lethal fluids should be forbidden now to market them for buildings without explicit instructions and warnings on the label about the danger to bats, and I
1016
suggest that they should be given, say, three years to find a safe alternative that is not lethal to bats. Advice could be given in technical journals on the wisdom of pre-treating new roof timbers. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should like, briefly and strongly, to support the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in the purpose behind this amendment. This is a desperately serious problem. Bats are not everybody's most popular animal but they deserve to be; they do nothing but good for human beings in the insects which they consume and the occasional additional loft insulation which their droppings supply! They are completely harmless, and do not do anything to live up to the ridiculously bad image they have—and they are suffering appallingly at the moment.
As I understand it, about 100,000 buildings are treated annually in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and tens of thousands of bats have died or have suffered sub-lethal effects as a result of this treatment, which of course has seriously disrupted their breeding. In this country we have two species of bats already protected. The greater horseshoe bat has been under continuous pressure ever since it was listed, and, as I understand it, the other bat on the schedule has recently become extinct in this country. We are really facing very serious problems, so I hope that both this amendment and some other amendments which are designed to help bats will receive a favourable response.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I also rise in defence of bats. In regard to this Bill, all bats are in Schedule 5 and it is clearly the intention of the Bill to protect bats. The one point to stress initially is the importance of artificial roosting sites for bats. This country, in its unnatural, deforested state and rendered uninhabitable for bats largely by the intrusive presence of man, none the less can carry some benefits to bats in so far as those parts of the houses in which men do not live are in many cases highly advantageous as bat homes, and it is to such parts of houses that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was referring.
Earl Ferrers: I am fascinated by my noble friend's affection for bats, and indeed others expressed the same feeling. I wish I could say that my own feelings were of equal generosity with theirs and when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that they really do not do any harm to human beings, try asking a lady what she thinks when she gets a bat in her hair. However, that is only a slight digression. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said about this amendment, and I should like to have an opportunity to consider this again further.
My initial reaction is to feel that there are not many ways of rendering a structure or a place uninhabitable which are not covered by the words "damages or destroys". I think my noble friend was anxious to broaden it a little; I should like to see whether in fact the wishes which he has expressed are not covered by the words in the Bill. I think that they are.
Lord Craigton: If the noble Earl paints his own roof to cure the woodworm I am sure he would not like

1017
his wife to say that he is either damaging the roof or destroying it.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, it may be that it may not destroy or damage the roof of the house but it might destroy or damage the breeding place of the bat.
Lord Craigton: It is the place where the animal is resting, not breeding.
Lord Melchett: If the noble Earl can assure us, after he has taken advice, that to give this sort of treatment to the roof would be prohibited within the Bill, that would be a major advance. My own inclination is to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that at the moment it is not covered and should be. But it would not need very much to meet the point.
Earl Ferrers: I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("shelter or protection") and insert ("shelter, protection or breeding").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 117, and with it goes No. 118 which is simply consequential drafting. This is really a probing amendment. I imagine that in almost every case "a place used for shelter or protection" would include and subsume within it a place used for breeding. The only example I can think of I do not think is relevant, but my knowledge of natural history is so limited that it is only because I do not know enough about it that I could not think of a better example. The example I have thought of is the large blue butterfly, which is, alas, thought to be extinct in this country although it is a protected species under the Conservation of Wild Plants and Wild Creatures Act. If the large blue larvae were taken by ants into the ant hole and the ants took them there for the purpose of consuming them, and the large blue larvae got their own back and fed off the ants and blossomed into butterflies, it seems to me that the ant hole might be a place used for breeding but could hardly be a place used for shelter or protection, given the purpose for which the ants had taken them in the first place. I know it is a little far-fetched. But I wonder whether the noble Earl can assure me that "shelter or protection" would include anywhere also used for breeding, which would make my amendment unnecessary.
Earl Ferrers: If the noble Lord wishes me to say that the words in the Bill cover ants taking butterfly larvae down into their holes, I am bound to say I would have to take advice on that. My understanding is that "shelter or protection" adequately covers breeding in so far as breeding is one of the uses to which a structure or place may be put when used for shelter or protection. Of course, it then depends on what one means by breeding—copulation or birth or aftercare. If you are going to include in that the possibility of being removed into an ant hole, it is possible these words may not cover all those effects. But my understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett,
1018
is quite serious in wishing to know whether the words in the Bill cover that which he seeks to ensure. My understanding and my advice is that they do, but I will look further at it and make quite certain that it is so. If it is not so, I will take remedial action at the next stage.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I think he has answered my point. My example was not a relevant one, but the only thing I could think of. If he would let me know if my purpose is not met, I would be very grateful: otherwise I will assume that it is, to save him writing unnecessary letters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Any person who uses a cold harpoon in the killing or taking of any whale shall be guilty of an offence.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 119, which is to make it an offence, by an insertion at page 11, line 3, for any person to use a cold harpoon in the taking or killing of any whale, I have obtained the agreement of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that, if it is to the convenience of the Committee, I may at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 142, 145, and 191, which in reality seem to me to be consequential on Amendment No. 119. I find it difficult to understand why there is no provision in the Bill for a penalty for using the cold harpoon in the taking or killing of whales. I shall cover the cruelty aspect of that action in a moment. But first may I say that if the Bill, as we have been told it does, brings our legislation in this country into line with the policies of our friends in Europe, it would seem to me that in many respects it is lacking. Let me give a further example of why I make that statement.
We are told that Clause 9 is framed so as to be consistent with the requirements of Article 6(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Berne Convention and the Berne Convention makes specific reference to the deliberate killing, disturbance and possession of and trade in protected animals. It is my opinion that for many years there has been a great deal of controversy over the taking and killing of whales. I do not consider that the Bill as presently drafted affords sufficient protection for these animals or cetaceans. As a result of man's greed they are hunted for their products in the most cruel circumstances. That is widely accepted, I would suggest, by international opinion, and that is why I should like to make reference to Amendment No. 142 at page 49, line 36, where I propose the insertion of the words:
"Cetaceans, all those in British waters"—
that is to say, whales—in Schedule 5 dealing with "Other animals which are protected". There is no sanctuary in the Bill for the protection of whales. This Bill when enacted is intended to bring us more or less in line with international opinion, about which I shall have something more to say in a moment, and I think it is important that whales should be protected by the insertion of Amendment No. 142.
I have spoken about the cruel use of the cold harpoon

1019
and the reason why, under Amendment No. 119, I seek to make it an offence if it is used. It is abhorrent to me that the cold harpoon should be used, and I have always held that view. But do not let your Lordships consider just my opinion—let us consider the opinion of others. To reinforce what I have to say on this matter I refer your Lordships to a report of the committee set up by the International Whaling Commission, whose terms of reference were to report back to the commission on the various methods in use at the present time of killing whales.
A gentlemen on that committee of 20 went into the question of the killing of whales and alternative methods that might be used. In a report of some 14 pages, which was completed on 26th November last year, their conclusions were that the use of the cold harpoon in the killing and taking of whales was unacceptably cruel because it was difficult to kill and render the animal unconscious instantly. The gentlemen on that committee which reported to the International Whaling Commission came from different countries—this country, Norway, Japan, and the United States of America.
That brings me to Amendment No. 191, by which I seek to secure at page 50 of the schedules the protection of "All cetaceans"—whales—"in British waters" under Schedule 6 as:
"Other creatures which may not be killed or taken by certain methods".
It also reinforces the argument which I have already adduced and spoken to in respect of Amendment No. 142. But if we are not satisfied with the arguments which I have already stated, what other facts exist to support the amendments which I have tabled? As I have stated, an international committee has already reported to the International Whaling Commission, and I have given your Lordships information about the findings of that committee.
There are a number of other factors which I should like to mention. First, there is the action taken by Norway two years ago, long before the report of the committee to which I have referred was published. It was in 1979 that the Norwegian Government imposed restrictions on the use of the cold harpoon by making it a condition that immediately after a whale was hit by a cold harpoon, a large calibre rifle should be fired in order to kill the whale instantly.
At this stage I can do no more in moving the amendments than refer to a Question which I asked the Government at column 665 of Hansard of 28th July 1980, where I referred to the use of the cold harpoon as a totally abhorrent and inhuman activity. It was a Question which raised some interest from other noble Lords who asked supplementary questions in your Lordships' House and who sought information from the Government and their opinions on this issue. What is particularly interesting is the Government's reply made by my noble friend Lord Sandys at column 666 of Hansard of the same date to a question pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who was speaking about the failure to agree at the International Whaling Commission, which had been sitting in London at that time.
In reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, my noble friend Lord Sandys had this
1020
to say:
"My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that a number of decisions were highly unfortunate in their results, especially the failure to secure the ban on commercial whaling and, further, to secure a total ban on the cold harpoon, what the Government intend to do is to continue to pursue their policies and to ensure that these items, which are to be set forward in the agenda for the meeting in July next year, are promoted with as much vigour as possible".
I would emphasise that on 28th July 1980 the Government were of the opinion that a number of decisions reached at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission about that time were highly unfortunate in their results—
"especially the failure to secure the ban on commercial whaling and, further, to secure a total ban on the cold harpoon".
Having said that, what is the point of waiting for the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission before taking action?—a meeting which is to be held in July this year. The Government now have the power to rectify the issue. They have expressed their view that a ban on commercial whaling and the use of the cold harpoon is necessary. In any case, events have moved even further from the Question which was raised in July 1980 to the report, to which I have referred, of the committee of the International Whaling Commission dated 26th November 1980. By agreeing these amendments the Government now have the chance to make it an offence for anyone to use the cold harpoon. By passing these amendments the Government have the chance to protect cetaceans in British waters, as other creatures which may not be taken by certain methods. They have the chance to protect whales, which are an endangered species. Acceptance by the Government of these amendments will help to reinforce international opinion on these issues, an international opinion which has already been expressed and which seems to be ahead of our own in some respects.
At the next meeting of the Committee of International Trade in Endangered Species, to be held in New Delhi in February, West Germany has submitted proposals for a ban on commercial products obtained from the killing of whales. This proposal is supported by the European Environment Bureau in Brussels. Again the International Union in Conservation and Nature and the United Nations' Environment Programme have proposed a moratorium on all commercial whaling. I believe that Russia has made a statement to the effect that they have banned, or are about to ban, all commercial whaling. Perhaps the noble Earl could let us have some information as to whether this is true or not.
These are the facts in support of the amendments, and they are also supported by the People's Trust for Endangered Species who have placed at my disposal an immense amount of papers and information on these issues, and they have performed devoted work in that connection. In addition to that I have had frequent meetings on these issues with the director of the trust and an adviser to the Committee on International Trade in Endangered Species. I beg to move Amendment No. 119, and I have spoken to Nos. 142, 145 and 191.
Lord Melchett: I should like briefly to support the intention behind Lord Gridley's amendment. As he

1021
said, I joined with him in asking questions just after the International Whaling Commission were meeting last year in July. I would certainly support the banning of the cold harpoon, which is a barbaric way of killing an animal as large as a whale.
Having said that, I am not sure that this is the right clause to make the amendment. 1 should like to point out to the Government, if I might, that the amendment that my noble friend Lady David moved, Amendment No. 81, had with it Amendment No. 145A, a schedule of specially protected species, which included all whales. We could have despatched this amendment and a number of others quickly and simply, as I suggested at the time, if the Government had been disposed to accept our amendments. As it is, they are considering those amendments, and I take this opportunity offurther commending them to the Government and their advisers for the great simplicity which they would bring to these sorts of issues, and thereby greatly shorten our debate at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Gisborough: I should like briefly to support the spirit of this amendment. The question of whales has been raised over and over again in this House, and we all know the difficulty that there has been in getting any form of international agreement to reduce whaling, and the low numbers of many of the varieties. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment in principle, and perhaps bring it back in some way that is acceptable to your Lordships.
10.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down this amendment, and indeed for taking these amendments together. One knows of his concern for whales and the part which he has played in trying to help to preserve them. I was fascinated by Lord Melchett's advice to me as to how we could simplify the proceedings by doing various things. I suggest to him that we could go for simplicity much more if he would stop putting down so many convoluted amendments. If he would take that bit of advice, I would try to follow some of his.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that the noble Earl was in the Chamber at the time, but although Amendment No. 81 was quite complicated we did about 20 amendments at once and fairly briefly too.
Earl Ferrers: I gather that my noble friend also spoke about whales. Anyhow, my noble friend behind me has taken the noble Lord's advice and has taken four. They may not be 20 amendments, but they are four. At the last annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission the United Kingdom delegation supported the ban on the use of the cold grenade harpoon. The measure agreed prohibited its use for the killing of all whales, except the mink whale.
My noble friend has expressed the reasons why he wishes these amendments to be put in. I understand the reasoning, but I believe in fact that they are unnecessary. The reason is that the Government have presented a Fisheries Bill in another place which includes provisions which protect all cetaceans. This includes a prohibition on the taking or treating of any cetacean
1022
within the 200-mile British fisheries limit by any method, and that of course includes the cold grenade harpoon. This applies not only to British vessels but to all ships which fish in our territorial waters. Outside the 200-mile limit the taking or treating of cetaceans by British ships which are registered in the United Kingdom would be subject to licensed control, and in effect the taking or treating of these would therefore be effectively prohibited. For those reasons I believe my noble friend's sentiments have already been met, not so much by this Bill as by the measure which is at the moment in another place.
Lord Gridley: In view of what the Minister said—his undertaking that the purpose of my amendment is being covered by a Bill which is currently in another place, and that all whales in the circumstances f mentioned will be taken care of in the sense about which I expressed anxieties—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 11, line 5, after ("possession") insert ("for").
The noble Lord said: This short amendment is designed to discover the precise meaning of the words
"has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale".
This is probably a drafting point. A number of friends have pointed out that for scientific purposes they possess live and dead bats and other Schedule 5 specimens, as do museums which have dead specimens. They have read subsection (3) as prohibiting that. True, the subsection refers only to sale, and "possession or transports for sale" may be a complete phrase, but there is misunderstanding about it and for that reason I suggest the insertion of the word "for". I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am obliged to my noble friend for explaining that the amendment seeks clarification; I spent a good deal of time trying to discover what my noble friend was trying to do, but I think I can clear the point with him. The subsection deals with sale, and possession for the purpose of sale would be an offence. However, Clause 9(1)(b) makes it an offence to possess any animal unless it is shown that it was lawfully taken or held. In other words, if a person has in his possession an animal taken before the Bill came into operation or if he could show that it was taken lawfully, he would be entitled to retain it. The only purpose of this part of the Bill is to prevent the possession of an animal where that possession is gained unlawfully under the Bill.
Lord Craigton: I should be grateful if the Minister would look into the matter because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding arising from the phraseology of this provision. I think "has in his possession for" would clarify the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
10.25 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Sale of rare and vulnerable animals
.—(l) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act if any person sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale—

(a) any live or dead animal included in Schedule (RARE AND VULNERABLE ANIMALS (OTHER THAN BIRDS) WHICH ARE PROTECTED) below; or

(b) any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain, for any period specified, providing that any person who, within that area or any part of it specified in the order, at any time during any period so specified, intentionally kills, injures or takes any animal included in Schedule (RARE AND VULNERABLE ANIMALS (OTHER THAN BIRDS) WHICH ARE PROTECTED) and so specified, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Before making any order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council; and

(b) such voluntary bodies he considers are able to advise him.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 123 and following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, I shall also take into consideration Amendments Nos. 124, 129, 132, 141, the schedule which appears as Amendment No. 146, and various consequential amendments which are numbered 341, 342, 343, 344, 350 and 352, which I think must match anything that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness managed to achieve in one small exercise.
Although the hour is late and the mood of the Committee may not be serious, I regard this amendment as being of extreme importance. The intention of Amendment No. 123, and all the amendments that follow from it and are related to it, is to provide protection at an appropriate level for native species of animal of all kinds, whether vertebrate or invertebrate, that are not so urgently in need of protection that the full stringencies of Clause 9 need to be applied, but about which none the less there must be some serious degree of concern.
In the international field of conservation, which has led in the European context to the Berne Convention, which is an important stimulus for this entire Bill which we are now considering, conservationists have applied very considerable effort to the most useful methods of categorising or defining threatened wild species. The conservation movement now classifies threatened wild animals and plants as endangered, vulnerable, or rare. Those concepts appear in the Berne Convention and are an important element in it, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech.
I do not wish to anticipate the reply of my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I suspect that he may argue that Schedule 5 can accommodate all species of both endangered and vulnerable categories, and it is the wording of Clause 20(3)(a) that suggests to me that that was the intention of those who drafted the Bill. But in fact if species that deserve to be categorised only as vulnerable or rare were to be included in Schedule 5, we should land ourselves in a situation where the whole legislative process was liable to ridicule from the absurdities to which it could lead.
I am picking up the theme that was introduced into our Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady David,
1024
with Amendments Nos. 81, 112, 113 and the connected series, which would have had the reverse-listing effect, and which from that point of view I welcomed at the time. On that occasion I expressed opinion that perhaps that was not the appropriate method, and my own series of amendments are designed to conform with the Berne Convention and with the existing structure of Clause 9 and its associated schedules. They are modelled quite closely on the Bill and they develop in the same fashion.
I note that it was originally the intention of Her Majesty's Government to include two schedules for protected animals other than birds—one for endangered species, and the other for vulnerable species. In proof of this I shall cite the Department of Environment Memorandum No. B.104, dated 20th August 1979, which was circulated as a consultative document as a preliminary to the Bill that was to be brought forward in the last Session, but which never materialised.
The second point that needs to be made has already been raised from the Government Front Bench. To elaborate upon it a little, it concerns the fact that tonight we are discussing a Bill which deals with conservation, and as my noble friend Lord Avon has said—I paraphrase him slightly—where we are concerned with conserving wild animals, we are concerned with their scientific management. Although we may consider that we are discussing whether such and such a bird should, or should not be, in a schedule, in dealing with these minutiae we are trying to devise a whole framework within which the Government and their scientific advisers will be able to plan and to manage the wildlife of this country. That, in essence, is what gives this Bill its great importance.
The third point I wish to make in support of my amendment is the fact that it is provided for in the Berne Convention of 19th September 1979, with which this present Bill is intended to conform, and, by conforming, to ratify. If the EEC adopts a directive which gives legislative force to the Berne Convention, this country will find that it is obliged to conform closely to that convention; and if the legislation that we now pass is not adequately matching, there will then be the necessity for subsequent amendments in order to bring our legislation into line with the European directive. I feel it will be greatly to our advantage if we can do that now, in order to prevent waste of time.
The article of the Berne Convention with which I am concerned, and to which I have already drawn attention in my Second Reading speech, is Article 7. Article 7, as I have pointed out, is not matched by any clause or schedule in the present Bill. The measures for the protection of species under Article 7—species listed in Appendix 3, which are the vulnerable species—are to include close seasons, temporary or local prohibitions and regulations to control sale. All of these measures are matched by appropriate sections and subsections in the new clause which I now propose. If we were merely to add vulnerable species or rare species to Schedule 5, we should find ourselves in fairly ridiculous circumstances simply because the provisions of the relevant clause are extremely strict. None the less, there are species in this country which are now being exploited and which in the interests of good management we must have the legislative capacity to control and protect.
The aims of my amendment are seen in the list of animals to be protected, which appears as Amendment No. 146. Some of these have small island populations. There are included in this schedule the shrews of the Channel Islands and the Scilly Islands, which exist nowhere else in the United Kingdom and therefore are rare and in danger of exploitation simply because the populations are circumscribed on small land masses. The same applies to the vole, which has the curious distribution on Guernsey and in the Orkneys. These are rare species. Others are included because they are endangered by some of the factors which other provisions of this Bill are designed to counteract; notably, habitat loss and over-exploitation by man. Some of them are subject to diseases which have been brought into this country inadvertently, often through the introduction of alien species; others are suffering from direction competition with alien species. In this respect I would cite the crayfish, which has restricted ecological requirements and is suffering from both disease and competition from introduced species.
Also included in my schedule is the pearl mussel, which is an extraordinarily interesting animal with very restricted ecological requirements. It lives only in the purest of waters, and therefore is short of materials to build its shell and create its pearl. In fact, at the time it is harvested for the Scottish pearl it is probably at least as old as I am and sometimes as old as many of those of your Lordships who are considerably more venerable than I am. A good-sized pearl mussel with a good-sized pearl in it may be approaching a century in age. It is, I think, essential when we consider an animal of restricted distribution which is harvested at such an extreme age that we should both monitor the exploitation of it and, if necessary, control it.
In my Second Reading speech I also mentioned the case of the common frog. The common frog is declining in many parts of this country. At the same time there is a large catch made every year for the legitimate purposes of the educational market. I am informed that one firm alone trading in frogs for the educational market uses each year some 15,000 frogs from England and imports into this country some 30,000 frogs from Ireland. I do not wish to carry your Lordships through my entire schedule. I think that these examples are sufficient to explain what I am about. As I have said previously, the solution suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is to my mind an approach which—and I may be wrong in thinking it is British —is certainly one which is finding favour more and more widely in the world at large. But it is not the approach of the Berne Convention and it is not the approach of this Part of the Bill that we arc now dealing with.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon (when he was discussing Amendment No. 10 and speaking of the conservation of birds) said that we like to think that in a way—and I think he was referring to this country or to the Government—we lead the European Community in conservation. This may be true as far as birds are concerned, but I am talking about animals other than birds. These are not animals that necessarily have the wide appeal of birds. Your Lordships laugh when I say, "bats". If I were to go on saying "bats" for long enough I would probably reduce your Lordships to hysterics; but one-third of our native mammal
1026
fauna are species of bats. This Bill purports to protect bats. Bats need protection more urgently, I would say, than do many of the birds that we have been discussing today; so zoologically and scientifically this is an important problem. The vulnerable animals that I am now concerned with also need protection for their proper management. We need the capacity to monitor what is happening to them.
Do we lead Europe in this? So far, we do not. If we take the amphibians and the reptiles alone, we find largely as a response to the initiative of the Berne Convention, that all native species are protected in Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Denmark. Even in France, where frogs are traditionally eaten, one will find—and I am afraid that I have forgotten to bring the newspaper cutting—recent reports in newspapers that the French have banned the sale of frogs which, where edible frogs are concerned, now may only be caught for home consumption. In our approach to EEC affairs, to European affairs, in many ways Britain is the maverick. The British are often convinced that their way of doing it is better. Often this may be true, but in this case I do not believe that the approach which is seen in this Bill—that is, the attempt to combine vulnerable and endangered species under a single clause—is better than that which is suggested to us by Europe.
I do not say that the list which 1 have offered as a schedule is in any way perfect. It will undoubtedly need amendment. There is a spelling mistake in it. The Latin name for crayfish is misspelt. I believe that there ought to be more invertebrates on it because it contains the sort of provisions that are needed for the control and protection of invertebrates. I may say that the introduction of a new clause of this nature is welcomed by the Amateur Entomologists' Society and by the British Herpetological Society whose interests are in both the amphibians and the reptiles, and is welcomed also by the Mammal Society. I beg to move
10.40 p.m.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl moved a very important and significant series of amendments. The intention behind them is certainly one that we would welcome and strongly support. The noble Earl was kind enough to give some support to my noble friend and myself when we moved our amendment on reverse listing, Amendment No. 81, and a long series of other amendments. Having listened carefully to what the noble Earl has to say, we would prefer our approach. It seems to us to have the enormous advantages of simplicity, and of compatibility with the first part of the Bill on the protection of birds.
With some alterations and additions we would cover a great deal of the ground—certainly not all—which the noble Earl wants to cover. We would have to include the sale prohibitions in our amendments, which we have not. We would not cover the pearl mussel and one or two other species which the noble Earl has in his schedule in Amendment No. 146. Nevertheless, the main point would be covered in a way that I would personally think more satisfactory than the separate listing of yet another category of a particular sort of protected group of species.
Having said that, the Government were kind enough

1027
to a say about Amendment No. 81, and all the consequentials that went with it, that they would take it away and look at it. If that is the case, that must subsume a look at what the noble Earl is proposing. A number of the species in his schedule would be covered by reverse listing, were that to be adopted, particularly the reptiles and amphibians. With the simple addition of a prohibition on sale in our amendments a great deal of the ground in his amendment would be covered.
This is a complex area. We have raised what seem to be important points, and so has the noble Earl. Would it be possible for us all to discuss this with the Government's advisers between Committee stage and the Report stage in the hope that, one way or another, the intention behind our amendments or the noble Earl's amendment, or a combination of those two, could be agreed upon so that we would come back at Report stage with an amendment with which both sides and the Government were happy? I make that suggestion with a view to the clock and the hope that we might speed things up.
The Duke of Atholl: Am I right in thinking that, if the amendment is accepted, you would not be able to offer for sale the pearls from the pearl mussel? This may be necessary; I am afraid I know very little about how common the pearl mussel is. I know that there are one or two people in Perth who are full-time pearl mussel fishermen, and I feel that they would not be at all happy if this particular provision went through, if my understanding is correct that it would ban the sale of the pearl from the pearl mussel.
My noble friend has the adder in his schedule. Much as I would like to support his schedule, I find the adder a very unattractive form of animal—if that is the right word for it. It also is of course a considerable danger. It has been known to kill children with its bite. I would think that to put an adder in any form of schedule that protects animals was not likely to enhance that schedule in the view of most people.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It is not my intention in any way to ban the activities of the pearl fishermen of Perthshire. It is in their interests that their activities should be monitored and, if necessary, controlled. If my amendment were accepted, it would be necessary for them to apply for a licence. There are not many people concerned. The licence, one assumes, would be readily given; but with the appropriate controls and returns this would enable our national scientific advisory body to control the pearl mussel to ensure that there was a continuous supply of pearl mussels of the right age bringing pearls on to the market. This is a traditional activity which is one I regard as of cultural and commercial importance in Scotland and also in parts of Wales where the water is of sufficient purity to permit the pearl mussels to live.
The second point is that I will say "adder" until I reduce your Lordships to hysterics. The adder is an important member of our British wild fauna. It may be a poisonous snake, but we are lucky to have a representative of a poisonous snake in our country. If I may compare your Lordships' attitude to that, for instance, of the Netherlands, our neighbour in the European Community, in the Netherlands there are
1028
notices in the reserves to remind people to behave sensibly and not to run barefoot where adders are suspected. The notices also remind people that the adder is a protected animal.
The adder is a declining animal and, with the declining habitat which so many people in this country deplore, is finding it increasingly difficult to live in this country. Adders are decreasing in this country and their breeding habitats are declining. They are, thoughtlessly and wantonly, being destroyed by people wearing boots, who have no right whatsoever to stamp on a snake which is incapable of harming them if they behave in a sensible fashion.
The Earl of Cromartie: Before my noble friend sits down, would he not agree that Ireland has done very well without adders since the days of St. Patrick? I cannot entirely agree that they are a completely disappearing species. I can assure him that in Ross and Cromarty I can show him quite a lot if there is a decent summer.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The adder is one of the pearls in the crown of the British Islands and I am delighted that the noble Earl has adders which he can show to us.
10.47 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that if he referred to "bats" sufficiently he would reduce your Lordships to hysterics. I can tell him that if there is one thing which reduces my own family to hysterics more than seeing bats coming at them it is to see adders coming at them. I am sure they are a highly desirable piece of natural fauna, but they do not necessarily appeal to the more simple of the simpletons among us. However that may be, my noble friend is a fund of knowledge on this subject and when he made his speech of course we listened very carefully. We will take account of what he has said, because what he has said is very important indeed. My own feelings lie in fact with those of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. It would be a pity to add yet another schedule of protected species to the Bill as it is now, because at the moment we have provided sufficient and adequate protection for animals, and I would be reluctant to add another category; because although these animals may be rare I am advised that they are not in danger of extinction. I would ask my noble friend to address himself to Clause 20(3)(a), which gives the Secretary of State permission to add
"to Schedule 5 or Schedule 7 any animal or plant which, in his opinion, is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken;".
I feel that we are here trying to protect a species which are endangered and those which are likely possibly to become extinct. I think if we then add yet a third category of those which are vulnerable we may get ourselves rather more convoluted than we might wish. I will, of course, consider what my noble friend has said but my inclination is that we would be ill advised to put in a further one—incidentally a category which would prevent all little "Billy Bunters" from having tadpoles; and that would be a pity.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Before withdrawing the amendment, I must make two points. First, if my

1029
amendment is adopted it will not prevent people from keeping tadpoles. This is the very point about it. It may be considered necessary to protect the frog, because it is over-exploited—and it will be overexploited, because Ireland has now protected its frog fauna entirely. There is a strong possibility that the minimum of 30,000 frogs per annum that at present are coming from Ireland may dry up.
My information is that the Irish are ahead of us in their protective legislation, so it may be necessary for us to protect our frogs, because there could be widespread anxiety among our people at seeing frogs disappear from the fields and into school laboratories, unless control exists. If the only course available is to put them into Schedule 5, then we shall have the absurdity to which my noble friend Lord Ferrers referred, that it will then become a criminal offence for lads to collect tadpoles in jars. That is precisely one of the ills that I want to prevent.
Lord Melchett: May I intervene briefly? The noble Earl called in aid what I had said, but I should like everybody to be clear that my worry about an additional schedule was simply in relation to the advantages of reverse listing for mammals, reptiles and amphibians, which we proposed earlier and which seemed to me to solve many of the problems to which the noble Earl was drawing our attention. I was only saying that of the two options I preferred the one we had suggested, but if that was not to find favour with the Government —and they have agreed to consider it—then I would see the noble Earl's suggestion as second best, but a great deal better than leaving the Bill as it is. I should not like anyone to have the impression that I was agreeing that the amendment should simply be withdrawn without any further consideration.
Although we are getting very near the end of our proceedings, this is an extremely important series of amendments which the noble Earl has moved and it would not be fair to him if we did not do them justice. It seems thoroughly irresponsible for people in this country to go around moaning about the way people in the developing world kill animals which we all like to see, particularly on television, such as lions and tigers, which are capable of killing people, and at the same time, giggle and make fun of the fact that adders are in some danger and people want to protect them. It seems that we are guilty of double standards when people adopt those attitudes. So I hope noble Lords will consider that point when they consider the rest of the points which the noble Earl is making so ably.
Earl Ferrers: If I have offended the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, by giggling or making fun of adders, then I shall be the first to apologise. All I can tell him is that my family—and I presume they are not unrepresentative of other families—do not like being bitten by adders. It was not meant as a frivolous interjection. It was merely a statement of fact.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think we have probably reached the stage in the Bill where we ought to finish for tonight.
1030
The amendment which my noble friend moved was No. 123 out of a very long list, and your Lordships have given a great deal of consideration to this Bill, as, indeed, it is your Lordships' right to do, and it has taken a certain amount of time. But my noble friend the Leader of the House, when we started this Bill, made an appeal that we should deal with the Bill expeditiously. In view of that, when we meet tomorrow on this Bill, I think that we must try to finish Part I which finishes with the end of Clause 25. It is very difficult to know how many amendments are consequential. My noble friend's amendment had five or six amendments that were consequential. So it may be that, in having dealt with 123 amendments, we have actually dealt with considerably more. But if your Lordships do agree, I think we must be absolutely certain of finishing Part I tomorrow night.
Lord Melchett: I do not know, because I am not aware of it, having been in the Chamber all day, how much of this has been agreed between the usual channels, but by tomorrow night we will have spent three days out of the five allocated to the Committee stage. Many of us had been hoping that we would get six days. The noble Lord has now asked us to reach Amendment No. 374, which is well over halfway through the Bill, and he is asking us to do it halfway through the time that I understood we were going to spend upon it. So he may be asking us to do a little more than we can. I think it is accepted that we on this side of the Committee have done all we can to see that we go as quickly as we can. I must say to the noble Lord that it is very much up to his side of the Committee to see how far we do get within what I hope will be a reasonable time to stop, for all concerned, on a Bill in which many noble Lords are very interested.
Lord Denham: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I assure your Lordships that I do not want to curtail the consideration by your Lordships of this Bill which is extremely important in many ways. The debates we have had on the various amendments have been extremely interesting and very helpful to Her Majesty's Government.
House resumed.