Lords Sitting of 3 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
The Lord Harlech The Lord Harlech— Took the Oath.

School Meals Provision
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: 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 will provide information regarding school meals provision since April 1980 when controlled pricing ended.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, in October 1980, about 4 million pupils at maintained schools in Great Britain were taking a school meal, or just under half of the pupils attending school on the days of the census. About 900,000 pupils received the meal free. Since April 1980, the charge for the meal has been a matter for each education authority to decide and in October charges were in the range 35p to 60p. The average of authorities' charges was about 43p. A detailed statement of the returns from local education authorities in England relating to October 1980 has been placed in the Library.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for that reply. One has to feel a little worried that the education service, of which school meals are part, is suffering the real brunt of the education cuts being made by the Government. I am particularly interested in whether the Minister could give us any information as to how she is protecting the interests of those children who are entitled to meals without payment, and that the nutritional standards of those meals are beneficial to the children receiving them?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, it was the intention of the Government that the bulk of the economies to be made in the education budget should come on the not strictly educational parts of that budget, but she will be pleased to know that two-thirds of the authorities in England have adopted criteria of entitlement to free school meals more generous than the statutory minimum; the statutory minimum being those families on supplementary benefit and family income supplement.
Baroness Bacon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many children are receiving school meals now? While she said that 4 million were receiving school meals, I did not hear her say what the figure was today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the figure of 4 million is the latest available figure we have, taken last October, 1980.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the department is taking any interest in the quality of the meals, and whether it is asking for information about that from the local education authorities?—because one reads possibly untrue accounts of the type of meal being offered by some LEAs?
Baroness Young: My Lords, under the Education Act 1980 it is for local education authorities to determine the type of meal provided and the charge that will be made for it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Minister say what action she takes with local authorities who might be envisaging the future complete disbanding of the school meal provision in their areas? How then will the children who should be entitled to free meals be dealt with?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Act is quite clear. Those children who are from families on supplementary benefit or family income supplement are entitled to a free school meal. The local education authority is under a duty to make arrangements for such a meal. There can be no question of their avoiding that duty. Whether or not an authority decides, as indeed Dorset has decided, to give up school meals for primary schools, is a matter for them. They must make arrangements for those for whom they must provide a meal. They must also provide facilities for the children to eat sandwiches at school.

Aldermaston: Nuclear Processing Facilities
2.40 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 new plant is to be built at the Atomic Weapons Research station at Aldermaston to process plutonium for nuclear weapons; when it will be completed; what it will cost; and whether part of its purpose is to serve warheads for the Trident nuclear missile.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, a new building will be constructed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston to replace existing facilities for processing nuclear materials. It is hoped that it will be completed in the late 1980s. Contracts have not yet been let and it has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose detailed costs related to the defence nuclear programme. The new facility is part of the continuing programme of replacement and improvement of the existing but ageing capital facilities at Aldermaston, needed to maintain

1035
the effectiveness of the British nuclear deterrent, including Trident.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not strange that Parliament should not have been informed of this expansion of defence equipment, and that we should learn about it only by the notification to the Berks. County Council and two letters to Members of Parliament? May I ask, further, whether it is not unwise to make this commitment of millions of pounds for the provision of Trident when it is very uncertain, indeed improbable, whether the Government at the time of installation will be in favour of it? Has the noble Viscount noticed that, in the last public opinion poll in November, 59 per cent. of our population were opposed to the Trident?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord as to exactly when the Government released this news. I ought to be able to and I shall write to the noble Lord to tell him. I think it happened before my day. In relation to the changing situation so far as public opinion is concerned, the public opinion polls have been studied and many different answers to hypothetical questions were given. Her Majesty's Government are clear that the British people, properly faced with the facts and not, if I may say so, with a degree of wishful thinking which is sometimes placed before them, will react to the absolute need to keep this country strong in every relevant respect.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, without wishing in any way to be controversial, may I ask if there is any doubt at all but that on "D1" of nuclear war, Aldermaston would disappear? In the light of that, is it really wise to expand Aldermaston instead of transferring its production to somewhere on the other side of the world where it would have a better chance of a slightly longer survival?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, even within the terms of his tacit assumptions, is correct; the production of the necessary material for nuclear weapons would take place before a nuclear war. But the whole purpose of our possession of nuclear weapons, within an alliance and particularly with the United States, is to ensure that no war takes place and furthermore that we cannot be coerced to surrender because we do not have those facilities.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while in no way questioning the need for Trident, may I ask the Minister to say what is the estimate of the life of this new plant and what will be the cost and method of de-commissioning at present-day prices and technology? Further, does he think it will be possible for men to work in the de-commissioning process and, if so, what will be done with the plant?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary is that we anticipate that these facilities, which is a new building within a compound where existing facilities con
1036
tinue, will still be in major operation well into the next century. The answer to the second detailed question is that quite obviously it is impossible to estimate in current-day prices what the cost of de-commissioning would be if indeed de-commissioning took place. The fact that de-commissioning can be a real problem has been well understood. The new plant is being designed in a way in which previous plants in this and other countries have not been designed—to make cleaning and de-commissioning much easier—and experience and research on the methods of cleaning and de-commissioning will continue to accumulate over the rest of this century.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from the Minister's earlier reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the strength of the opposition to this proposal?—in the Labour Party, not only Michael Foot but Denis Healey; in the Social Democrats, Bill Rodgers; the Liberal Party; and the Scottish and Welsh National Parties. Is it not unwise to be committing millions of pounds to a project which will be dismantled when they come to office?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think I can add to the answers I have already given. I believe the majority of experts who have a real knowledge both of defence strategies and the alternatives in these areas, are of a mind which fully supports the policy on which Her Majesty's Government are continuing. So far as future Governments are concerned, I believe we shall have satisfactory Governments who will put the security of the nation above all else.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, would it not be a crime, and a crime on the part of any Government, to leave this country and ourselves incapable of defending ourselves with adequate and competent weapons, whatever Government were in power?
Viscount Trenchard: We agree, my Lords.

El Salvador: Military Aid
2.48 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in line with their belief in self-determination by the peoples of Afghanistan, Poland and elsewhere, they have made any representations to the United States Government against the renewal of military aid to the military-civilian junta in El Salvador.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords. The situation in El Salvador is not comparable to that in Afghanistan or Poland, where there is direct, or the threat of direct, intervention by Soviet troops. We would, of course, like the people of El Salvador to be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the scale of military involvement in El Salvador is increasing and that, whatever the differences may be now, American military assistance is already being used by the Russians as a reason to legitimise their own imperialist adventures? Would he also agree that the military containment of the Opposition Front guerrillas is not the solution to El Salvador's problems but will merely prolong them? In so far as labels are put on the Opposition Front by both the Salvadorean and American Governments, may I ask him to recognise that virtually every Member of your Lordships' House would be considered by the civilian and military junta in El Salvador to be a dangerous Communist?
Lord Trefgarne: I cannot answer for the views of the junta in El Salvador, my Lords, but to pick one of the nuggets from the noble Lord's supplementary—to do with the opposition parties in that country and particularly the Salvadorean FDR, as they are called—while that organisation indeed includes respectable politicians, it also embraces groups dedicated to violence and kidnappings, and included among the victims are United Kingdom businessmen. The aim of those groups appears to be to precipitate a civil war as a means of ousting the present Government. Our policy is to recognise states, not Governments, and the question therefore of officially recognising opposition parties does not arise.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the archdiocese of San Salvador, 10,000 unarmed citizens, including priests and nuns, were killed last year and that our latest information is that the killing continues by the security forces and their paramilitary associates? Is he also aware that all the major Churches of the United States have protested at the renewal of military supplies to the perpetrators of these barbaric deeds? May I further ask him whether the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary might use his very considerable and attractive influence to acquaint his American counterpart, bearing in mind that he has been busy with the return of the hostages and the presidential election, with the feeling in many parts of many lands that renewed military aid will only exacerbate the conflict and encourage oppression?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate began his supplementary question by reference to the killings which he said had been perpetrated by the junta in power in that country. It is certainly the case that there has been a great deal of violence in that country, but it has not all come from the Government side. As for the United States action, they have said that they resumed military aid to El Salvador because there is foreign intervention in that country in support of the guerrilla forces opposed to the Government.
Lord Soper: My Lords, may I reinforce what the right reverend Prelate has just said, and ask the Minister whether it is true that the Churches in El Salvador, and notably Archbishop Romero, just before he was cruelly murdered, insisted to the American Government, so far as they were able to do, that what
1038
was required was not military aid but social aid? May I further ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the British Council of Churches has expressed itself in similar terms? Does he not agree that the practical step would now be to establish negotiations on the part of the USA with the so-called opposition, which is in fact the dominant group, in regard to food and aid, rather than to succour a so-called Government which is not in true authority on the basis of gunships?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is true that the position in El Salvador gives rise to very great concern, and it is of course also true that various Churches there have suffered cruelly in the violence which has taken place. The noble Lord referred to the death of Archbishop Romero. I in fact attended the memorial service to the Archbishop in London on behalf of my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and I am therefore well aware of the very real and justified feeling, and of the revulsion, which surrounded the tragic death of that Prelate. But on the general question of aid for that country, we have to decide our policies in that area according to the position as we find it, and I am happy that the present arrangements are appropriate in the present circumstances.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, serious as the question of El Salvador is, it is part of a much larger issue affecting the stability of Central America, including the Caribbeans? Can he assure us that when our Prime Minister meets the American President to discuss international affairs as well as monetary affairs a very high priority will be given to this area—a term which, in his last answer, he deliberately used? Both this country and the United States, hopefully with the co-operation of the Soviet Union, must do what they can to maintain and ensure stability in Central America and the Caribbeans.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot of course forecast in detail what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will discuss with the American President when she meets him, but I can assure the noble Lord that the affairs of the Central American region will be very much in the mind of my right honourable friend and, indeed, my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in their consultations with the American Government.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, in view of the situation in El Salvador, will Her Majesty's Government not at least consider putting the matter on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that it is already on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, who are I think meeting in a few days' time.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to aid and the concern which the Government have about that, and since there are over 150,000 displaced people who are in refugee camps still subject to harassment from Government troops, 10,000 children who have been orphaned and 100,000 people who have become exiled in neighbouring

1039
states as a result, may we ask the Government to show their concern by not being happy (as the noble Lord put it) with the present aid that we are giving? Can they not show their concern by making some contribution, perhaps through the voluntary agencies which have already given aid? As one gathers small sums may be available in the budget of ODA which have to be spent before the end of the financial year, can we not show what we feel about the human side of this tragic situation by making some contribution?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I can answer the noble Baroness in two ways. First, on the question of the refugees, we understand—in fact, we know—that the International Committee of the Red Cross are mounting an appeal for the refugees from El Salvador. Details of that appeal reached the Government only yesterday, I think, and we are urgently considering what response we can make. But on the general question of development aid, I have to say that all the technical co-operation officers, who were the principal feature of our aid programme in that country, had perforce to be withdrawn when the embassy was closed in February of last year. Our present commitments are limited, first to the completion of the training of 11 Salvadoreans in the United Kingdom, and, secondly. to the financing of a second instalment of about £75,000 for tools and equipment for self-help housing. I am sorry to say that local conditions (which the noble Baroness will understand, I am sure) have caused considerable delay in the disbursement of the first instalment, and it is not therefore certain when we shall be able to disburse the second instalment.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from an earlier reply, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the United Nations Human Rights Commission is now in session in Geneva—it opened yesterday—and will the Government instruct their delegate to raise this question as a priority matter during that meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Nations Human Rights Commission is meeting, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, indicated, very soon—in fact, I see from my notes, on 2nd February, so it is now already in session. It will complete its meeting on 14th March; and I understand that it will then be for the Salvadorean Government to indicate whether they will accept a mission, or whatever is decided upon, from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and we shall have to see what to do in those circumstances.

Mr. Stanley Adams
2.58 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 will make strong representations to the European
1040
Economic Commission to ensure that justice is done to Stanley Adams, who suffered imprisonment, bankruptcy, the suicide of his wife and received only derisory compensation after he had drawn the Commission's attention to the illegal practices of a drug company.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr. Adams is a Maltese citizen, who was tried under Swiss law in respect of information he was alleged to have given to the European Community Commission. The British Government have no direct locus to intervene. But our permanent representation in Brussels have discussed the case informally with the Commission, with whom prime responsibility lies. We understand that the Commission are seized of the issues involved. Their attitude was fully described in the two declarations made by the Commission to the European Parliament on 23rd May and 18th September 1980, which are to be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. The Commission made an ex gratia payment of 50 million lira (about £25,000) to Mr. Adams on 29th May 1980.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Lord verify these facts? Is it quite clear that there was no question at all of Mr. Adams's employers, Roche, marketing any drug which had been insufficiently tested, or anything of that sort, the offences committed being purely commercial; that he was an executive of Roche, enjoying their confidence, and that, without consulting them, warning them or protesting to them, he went and sneaked to the European Commission; that the Swiss, who in my view are certainly a very highly civilised country, regard this kind of private treachery as criminal; that on a charge of this private criminal nature he was tried and sentenced; and that, so far as the European Commission are concerned, what they do to compensate their "grasses" is their business and not ours?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I think that his supplementary question was a mixture of conjecture and his own opinion. The fact is that almost everything that the noble Lord has mentioned was a reference to the Swiss legal system, for which I am not responsible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend read the many press reports drawing attention to this individual's tragic circumstances; and would he say whether it is open to an individual to go to the European Commission of Human Rights to seek for such injustice to be put right? Would he say whether our strong representation at the ECC will do all it can to set this matter to rights; because an individual's suffering and an individual's freedom is of supreme importance when he has, in his opinion, drawn a malpractice to the attention of that Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand it, the European Commission on Human Rights has its doors open to any citizen of Europe or any citizen of a signatory state to make representations to it—which is doubtless what Mr. Adams will seek to do. But it is no part of my job to comment on how that Commission should go about its work.
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, did I understand the Minister in his original reply to say that because Mr. Adams was a Maltese subject, Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to intervene? Is it not the case that, as a member of the European Community, we are at least as much interested as is any other country in seeing that justice is done; and the original Question draws attention to the fact that there may be a miscarriage of justice here? Would the Minister therefore say that, if there is any suggestion of a miscarriage of justice, our representatives should make known to the European Commission the very deep feeling in this country about the way this has been handled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there were any miscarriage of justice—and I would not comment on that—it occured in Switzerland and not in Brussels.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there not in any event a case for restraint in character assassination in this Chamber?
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Mr. Adam's public-spirited action in revealing price-fixing practices has effectively saved the National Health Service and the British taxpayer substantial sums of money? If this is the case, has not this country a moral duty to do all in its power to assist him?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am wary about taking on board the moral duties which the noble Lord suggests. The duty that I have at this moment is to answer for Her Majesty's Government—and that I have done.
Lord Waddon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that a most disturbing feature of this case was the leakage by the Commission of information given to it in confidence which has resulted in these troubles? What action are the Government taking to ensure that security is considerably tightened so that future information will not be blocked off on allegations of this kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I can answer for the European Commission on the sort of point that the noble Lord puts to me; but, as I said in my original Answer, our permanent representatives in Brussels have discussed the matter informally with the Commission.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that a question-and-answer session is not the appropriate way in which to deal with matters of which this House is not fully apprised and of which the House has heard no evidence whatsoever?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinners will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill
1042
will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour. The Third Reading of the Bill of Rights Bill and two Northern Ireland orders will be taken during this adjournment.
It may also be helpful if I announce that dinners will be available this Thursday, 5th February, during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill; but it is not expected that the House will sit beyond ten o'clock on that day.

Public Passenger Vehicles Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to public passenger vehicles. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

National Film Finance Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Acts 1949 to 1980 and to repeal, as spent, certain enactments relating to the National Film Finance Corporation. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Film Levy Finance Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with some apologies because I am sitting judicially in the coming days, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Cinematograph Films Acts 1957 to 1980. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for Scotland as to the rights of occupancy of spouses in a matrimonial home and of cohabiting couples in the house where they cohabit; to provide for the transfer of the tenancy of a matrimonial home between the spouses in certain circumstances during marriage and on granting decree of divorce or nullity of marriage, and for the transfer of the tenancy of a house occupied by a cohabiting couple between the partners in certain circumstances; to strengthen the law relating to matrimonial interdicts; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to companies and business names. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

Matrimonial Homes and Property Bill [H.L.]
Lord Scarman: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, and to make further provision as to the rights of husbands and wives to possession or occupation of any matrimonial home or former matrimonial home, and as to orders for the sale of property under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Scarman.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That pursuant to the Motion agreed to by the House on Tuesday last there shall be a Select Committee to consider whether, in the light of the matters complained of in the petitions against the Order the area specified in the Order should be designated as an urban development area under Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Airedale

L. Ampthill

L. Cross of Chelsea (Chairman)

1044

L. Nugent of Guildford

L. Underhill

That the proceedings of the Committee shall be conducted as if it were a Committee on an opposed Private Bill;
That the order and the following petitions against it shall stand referred to the Committee.
Committee:—

1. Newham Chamber of Commerce.

2. Newham Voluntary Agencies Council.

3. Greater London Council.

4. Mrs. Anne King.

5. Bermondsey Forum;

North Southwark Community Development Group;

Mayflower Tenants' Association;

Southwark Docklands Campaign;

Surrey Docks Child Care Project.

6. Tower Hamlets Trades Council;

Southwark Trades Council

West Ham Trades Council;

7. Association of Wapping Organisations;

Stephen and Matilda Tenants Co-operative;

South Quay Tenants Association;

Limehouse Development Group.

8. Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets Borough Councils.

9. Association of Island Communities.

10. Proprietors of Hay's Wharf Limited;

London Bridge Properties Limited;

London Bridge Developments Limited;

St. Martins Property Investments Limited.

That there shall also stand referred to the Committee every petition deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments complaining of matters raised in a petition against the order and any petitioner whose petition stands referred under this paragraph may, not-withstanding the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), be heard upon such petition by themselves, their Counsel or agents, if the Committee think fit;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 10th February at 11.00 a.m. in the Moses Room.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this somewhat long Motion standing in my name, I think I should say a few words on its import. Last Tuesday, your Lordships agreed to the report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee on the London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980 and the Motion now before the House is to appoint the members of that Select Committee, and sets out the terms of reference to enable it to carry out the further inquiry into the order which was recommended by the Hybrid Instruments Committee. Your Lordships will note that the order and the list of petitions deposited against it are referred to the Select Committee and that its proceedings will be conducted as if it were a Select Committee on an opposed private Bill.
Lastly, may I say a few words about the last paragraph which gave me some difficulty last Tuesday in trying to explain to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, what it meant. I am afraid I was not as clear as I might have been and that I may have given the noble and learned Lord the wrong impression.
The purpose of the procedure provided for in this

1045
paragraph is to enable the Committee, if they see fit, to hear petitioners who complain of matters raised in any petition already deposited against the order. This procedure is most likely to apply where a petitioner against the order asks for an alteration in the boundary of the designated area and some other body objects to such alteration and should have an opportunity to be heard.
Perhaps a simple example is the clearest way of explaining it. The Greater London Council petition against the order (which is one of those to be considered by the Select Committee) seeks an alteration of the boundary of the development area to include certain land which is in the ownership of the British Gas Corporation. If your Lordships agree to it, this paragraph would give the Select Committee, if they so wish, the right to hear representations from the British Gas Corporation opposing the proposals of the Greater London Council. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Motion be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for clarifying the obscure so admirably.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Judicial Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Rate of pension]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to confer on a judge of the Court of Session an entitlement to a pension. Under Section 1 of the Judges' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1808 the award of a pension to a judge of the Court of Session is discretionary, whereas all holders of high judicial office in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have, in accordance with paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 to the Administration of Justice Act 1973, an unqualified entitlement to their pension. This is an anomalous situation. The amendment, which implements Recommendation 2 of the joint Law Commissions' report will have the effect of putting a Scottish judge on an equal footing in terms of pension with his colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships might feel that an amendment to a consolidation Bill is a trifle unusual, and indeed it is. But it is by no means unprecedented. An example which no doubt will spring to your Lordships' mind
1046
is that of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 when the party opposite of course were in power. An amendment was moved to that Bill to remove the discrepancy between the maximum penalties for taking spawn-carrying crabs and for taking spawn-carrying lobsters. I trust therefore that your Lordships will agree that this is a desirable change. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I view with alarm moving from seafish and shellfish about which we may hear a good deal in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill that follows. We covered a whole range of animal existence yesterday and it is interesting that we are now introduced to yet another field. To say that the purport of the amendment:
"Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4)"
is apparent would be an exaggeration. But I take it that what the noble Earl is after is to see that there should be equality even among judges of the law; and if that is the purpose of his endeavour, I support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, 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.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 10 [Exceptions to s.9]
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, leave out lines 23 and 24.
The noble Lord said: This is to some extent a probing amendment but raising a serious point which is also covered by Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. The purpose of my amendment is to try to ensure that bats that live in dwelling-houses will not be disturbed. We had a short and somewhat lighthearted discussion about this late last night. I said then briefly that the position of bats in this country was a great deal more serious and desperate than was generally realised.
As I said then—and I think that it is worth repeating—there are very few animals which are protected by the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, but two are bats. The greater horseshoe bat has been reduced to a very small number of colonies, many of which are extremely endangered for a number of reasons, particularly because the buildings which

1047
they use for breeding, where bats tend to colonise in large numbers and be concentrated, have one sort of problem or another. This has led voluntary wildlife organisations and the Nature Conservancy Council to take a number of steps which have proved extremely expensive: one example being to repair the roof of a kitchen of a school in a way that did not disturb the greater horseshoe bat colony which used that particular roof for breeding purposes.
The position of the mouse-eared bat, which was also protected under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act is a great deal more serious. In fact, I understand that there are probably no mouse-eared bats left alive in this country. It therefore probably has the dubious distinction of being the first species that we attempted to protect under the 1975 Act which has subsequently become extinct; that is depending on whether the large blue butterfly did become extinct last year. That underlines how serious the position is for bats as a whole.
This has been caused by a number of features. First, the general unpopularity and bad image of bats. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said last night that I should ask somebody who had had a bat caught in their hair what they thought of them. I have never yet actually met somebody who has had a bat caught up in their hair. I know it is a common belief that it happens, but I think myself it is an old wives' tale, unless the noble Earl has had personal experience of this. I certainly never have. In fact, bats have a very good and sensitive radar system and are very unlikely to get caught up in anything, and certainly not in a human being's head.
The second thing that has caused the problem is the number of buildings which receive annual remedial timber treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred to this last night. The number of bats which have died or have had their breeding habits interfered with has been very high indeed. For example, in 1953 the Dorset colony of greater horseshoe bats was virtually exterminated during remedial timber treatment. The problem is particularly bad if the treatment takes place at the wrong time of year because then it is possible to exterminate a whole bat colony, as they would all have got together for breeding.
The Bill takes a very useful step forward in providing in Clause 10 protection for animals; but the two lines I wish to delete make it lawful to do anything within a dwelling-house, even though it may damage an animal which we have taken particular steps to protect under the Bill. There are not many of them and I think it is important that we should find a way of excluding damaging effects on bats, even if something were done in a dwelling-house, from the scope of these two lines.
Having said that, I think my amendment would be a good deal less preferable than that of either the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, or the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Both are a great deal more specific in meeting the point I am after. I do not know whether it is convenient to discuss those two amendments with mine or whether your Lordships would wish to take them separately; but in any event I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us, if not on this
1048
amendment then on one of the others, that they will ensure that the Bill takes this point into account.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): I can understand the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, over the alteration of the amendment numbers, because I experienced some modest confusion myself. He said that the object of this amendment was to ensure that bats in dwelling-houses should not be disturbed. He said that we had had a conversation last night—indeed we had a debate on the subject—and he asked whether I had had a bat in my hair. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I have not had a bat in my hair but, having a less uncontrolled thatch on the top of my head than that of the noble Lord, no doubt the chances of a bat being caught in his hair would be greater than one being found in mine. All I would tell him is that there is a very real fear among some people, particularly ladies, about the possibility of having a bat in their hair; and when they are told by the noble Lord that bats have a sensitive radar system, I do not think they would find that particularly comforting. It may be perfectly true but—
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl has access to far more competent scientific advice than I have, and I hope that rather than encourage these totally unwarranted fears, he might listen to the scientific advice which I am sure would tell him that this does not happen and that, just like the noble Earl, people are believing something which is not true.
Earl Ferrers: I am not encouraging any such fears. I was merely reiterating the fears which had been expressed to me on occasion. However, to come to the point of this amendment, lines 23 and 24 of Clause 10 closely follow a similar provision in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Amendment) Bill which your Lordships considered in 1979. This exemption was accepted then and I would have thought that your Lordships would continue to regard it as reasonable to permit actions to be taken within one's house, without the necessity of obtaining a licence even against those protected species which may be using one's house for shelter or protection. Obviously one would hope that such actions would be taken only when necessary and after the most careful consideration on the part of the owner or occupier of the dwelling-house.
However, I am bound to tell the Committee that if your Lordships were to accept this amendment the effect would be that if one did have bats in one's attic it would be an offence to get rid of them. Notwithstanding the scientific advice and the rarity of the bats, I think this would be an unreasonable restriction to put on a householder, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Somers: It may be stretching the point a little bit far, but may I ask the noble Earl what is the legal definition of "dwelling-house"? Surely a stable is a dwelling-house for horses?
Earl Ferrers: In Clause 20, I think, there are a number of definitions. Whether "dwelling-house"

1049
is one of them I am not sure: I do not think it is. But a dwelling-house is a place in which one dwells: if the noble Lord wishes me to give a more legalistic definition, I am bound to say that I shall have to take advice about that.
Lord Melchett: I think it would be a mistake to delay the Committee too long over this amendment. As I say, there are two further amendments and I would hope that the Government might be able to accept one or other of them. I quite agree with the noble Earl that we would all hope that people would take action against a specially protected species only when it is necessary. It might be that when we look at this matter between now and Report stage it would be useful to see that sentiment which the noble Earl expressed reflected in the words of the Bill, so that people looking at this would know that that is what Parliament had intended. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 11, line 24, leave out ("a dwelling house") and insert ("the occupied quarters of a dwelling house, which term shall not be taken to include the roof-space, cellar, cavity wall or vacuity in the fabric of a dwelling house that is not ordinarily used for living purposes.").
The noble Earl said: Speaking from this side of the Committee and with the support of the Government, I must say I was very deeply upset to hear the noble Earl on the Front Bench just now speaking of Government opinion and reflecting the advice of his scientific advisers. I cannot believe that advice was given by dispassionate scientific advisers and I cannot help but feel that it must have been coloured by impressions of what people might or might not be willing to accept.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, last night said at column 949 of the Official Report:
"… 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".
If I may refer your Lordships to Schedule 5, the first two bats whose names are given on the list are—
"Bats, Horseshoe (all species)
Bats, Typical (all species)."
This is not any addition to the list I have been trying to promote recently in your Lordships' Committee; this is a list of the animals which the Government have declared it is their primary aim to conserve. I refuse to joke about bats. Bats comprise one-third, approximately, of our native mammal fauna. That will give an idea of their comparative importance—when we discuss bats we are talking about one-third of the native mammals of our country. They were adapted to a primeval environment, largely forest, in this country, in which trees, hollow trees, fissures in bark and so on provided their roosting space. They have so far proved adaptable to the altered environment by their capacity to occupy alternative roosting and breeding sites such as those that are offered by the buildings which man has erected.
Of the bats which were protected by the 1975 Act,
1050
the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has already mentioned the greater horseshoe bat. This bat has been very carefully and intensively studied by those who are interested in the mammals of our country, including the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, which is, as it were, the Government's wildlife research arm. There are six known colonies of greater horseshoe bats in this country. All six live and breed in buildings. All of those buildings were, or are, dwelling-houses. In those buildings they occupy roof spaces, crevices in the roof and parts of the buildings which are not lived in by people. Three of the dwelling-houses are still in use. The remainder, for one reason or another—including, in one case, the fact that the whole building was dedicated to the use of bats—are no longer lived in by people as well as by bats.
The close relative of the greater horseshoe bat, the lesser horseshoe bat, which is a bat which will be protected under this Bill, exists in a limited area of this country. There is no breeding colony which does not occur in a dwelling-house. Almost all these dwelling-houses are occupied by people. In order to illustrate more clearly than the noble Earl on the Front Bench the attitude which people will take, I may say that these people who have colonies of lesser horseshoe bats in their houses are immensely concerned that these rare and threatened animals should survive.
Public attitudes can be changed. The public attitude to bats, as being something nasty that gets in their hair, is not one which need be perpetuated. It is one which, again, our Institute for Terrestial Ecology and our Nature Conservancy Council have taken steps to remedy. There is a good pamphlet available, called A Focus on Bats: A Guide to their Conservation and Control. I have not ascertained whether this is available in your Lordships' Library. But I will deposit this copy in your Lordships' Library and I hope that it will be read with care and attention by those who are not aware of the importance of this subject in general.
I also hope your Lordships will realise why we have to care for bats in houses, and will see that, if there is to be any sense in legislating that bats shall be protected, there must be comparable consideration of bat colonies that occur in houses. These bat colonies do not occur in those parts of the house in which people normally come and go. They occur in roof spaces. Bats are essentially secretive animals. They hide away in that part of the house which provides them with a suitable environment, and what they seek is shelter, shade, darkness and freedom from interference. In many cases, the bats are unknown to the human denizens of the house. In some cases they are known.
My amendment seeks to follow up the lead provided just now by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in, I admit, an amateur fashion, and a fashion which has not been inspired by any legal inquiry, to define that part of the house which is legitimately the province of the bats, because it is not required by human beings for their survival. We do not exterminate human beings by denying them the facility to occupy dwellings which are occupied by bats. We can exterminate bats and, in some cases, we could exterminate in six simple moves the entire remaining breeding colony of one of our protected native bat species, if we do not give them the protection that I seek in this amendment. I stress

1051
again that, if we are to pass legislation here which makes sense, we must put these two points together. I beg to move.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My amendment is very similar to the amendment which was so ably moved by my noble friend, except that whereas his amendment would let some other nice, little, furry, rare beasties into Schedule 6, mine is exclusively directed at bats. I, too, was worried last night about the attitude of your Lordships' House towards bats and the feeling that everybody hated them. But I should tell your Lordships that, with the advice of the Institute for Terrestial Ecology and one Bob Stebbings, who designed it for me, I put a bat box into the Christmas catalogue of the World Wildlife Fund and we sold thousands and thousands of those bat boxes. In other words, people did want bat boxes just as they want bird boxes.
Bats are harmless, slow-breeding and easily disturbed to the extent of destruction. A survey in 1978–79 showed that the number and size of colonies has declined by 38 per cent. With the destruction of the usual habitat, some bats have become almost wholly dependent on buildings—not necessarily homes—where they live and breed. But the householder with a colony of bats in his roof can hardly be expected to put up with them unless he likes the harmless little creatures, and this is the dilemma.
I have already spoken of the terrible effect of the lindane and dieldrin preparations which, as I read the Bill, are illegal for wood preservation if bats are present. But as the Bill is now framed, they will be illegal except in a dwelling-house. The other danger, which is similarly made illegal except in a dwelling-house, is in Clause 11 (2)(c), which forbids the use of gas or smoke. Gas or smoke are now used either to drive out the bats, or to kill them when the exist have been closed. We must try to protect the bats living in our homes.
But those bats which are unwelcome are still in the house. My amendment presents a practical solution that would save some, but not all, colonies and individuals and this is the best we can hope for. Under Clauses 9 and 10, it is illegal to destroy the habitat, unless it is in a dwelling-house. My amendment includes a dwelling-house, provided it is not in the living quarters. But we may still want to get rid of the bats and their habitat, without breaking the law.
As my noble friend pointed out a moment ago, if there were bats in one's house it would be an offence to get rid of them if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were agreed to. So my next amendment—and I am not speaking to it, but it must be seen in the perspective of my present amendment—provides that one may destroy the bats' habitat in one's home, if one has first obtained clearance from the Nature Conservancy Council. My Amendments Nos. 115, 128, 139 and 174 present a complete package for the reasonable protection of bats and for complying with their welcome appearance in Schedules 5 and 6.
I hope that my noble friend who is to reply to this series of amendments will be able to say after I have moved the last two, not that he will consider the
1052
various proposals that we have put forward, but that he will do something in this Bill, because it is possible to have the best of both difficult worlds; that is, to have bats in your house if you like them, and to be able to get rid of them if they are a great nuisance. And this does not apply only to a house; it applies to a belfry or wherever it may be. If my noble friend on the Front Bench is not able to say that he will do something about bats, then I assure him that the whole conservation world will be dissatisfied and we shall have to continue to press the Government.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I wonder whether I may put forward a slightly contrary view. Within the rarefied atmosphere of your Lordships' House, it is of the greatest interest to hear two experts talking about bats, and to both of my noble friends I would say that, in general, I have every sympathy with what they say. The point that I wish to make quite briefly is this: my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that there is a good deal of concern on the part of certain private owners. But if any private owner has a colony of bats in his house, it is probably known about by the Nature Conservancy Council. Is it not possible, therefore, for the NCC to come to some voluntary agreement with the private owners concerned—
The Earl of Cranbrook: On a point of clarification, when I used those words I meant to say that the owners of these houses are very much aware of the colonies in their houses. They very strongly support the presence of the colonies in their houses and are good friends of the bats.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My noble friend is merely underlining what I have already said: That most owners of houses where there are colonies of bats are very sympathetic to them. All I am saying is: can we not avoid the heavy hand of government being implicated? Can this not be brought about by good will between bat owners and the Nature Conservancy Council? I could not agree more with both of my noble friends. What they are seeking to do is eminently right—that is, to preserve bat colonies, particularly the important ones. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that there was a dilemma. The dilemma is that on the one hand we have those who wish, quite rightly, to preserve bats while on the other there are in this country millions of people with houses who do not want the heavy hand of government telling them what they are to do with the bats in their lofts.
Lord Craigton: There are far more colonies of bats elsewhere than in private houses. I am seeking to ensure that every bat colony will not be destroyed, which is illegal under the Bill, without talking first to the Nature Conservancy Council.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I quite understand what my noble friend is saying. I was trying to shoot down the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who spoke specifically about dwelling-houses.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I have a colony of bats under the eaves, just above a certain room. We have found over the years that if we keep about 200 bats,

1053
there is no trouble. The unhappy fact is that they breed not quite so slowly as my noble friend suggested. Something has to be done about it when they get up to 2,000, because the bedroom cannot be inhabited by the people we want to put in it. If the amendment is accepted, I hope that it will allow us to "ration" the bats in a humane way.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend Lord Cranbrook talked about six colonies of greater horseshoe bats in private dwelling-houses and said that the six people concerned were all very reasonable and honourable and were prepared to look after them. That is absolutely super. But what happens if two of those people grow old, want a smaller house and sell it and the person who buys it has ideas about redecoration, is not interested in nature conservancy or in bats and indeed could not care a fig for the bats in his attic, loft or wherever they may be? Surely there is then a question of worry which we ought to take on board and which we ought to listen to. There is a possibility that when good, reasonable, nature conserving people sell they may sell to somebody who is not quite so conscious of our animal heritage.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Melchett: Could I say that we on this side support both noble Lords? Of the two options, I think that the package, as he described it, of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, probably meets the fears which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. In other words, if bats were causing anybody any discomfort or disquiet or if the numbers were getting too high, under Lord Craigton's amendment one would contact the Nature Conservancy Council for advice about how to overcome the problem or about how completely to exclude the bats. That seems to me to be a very reasonable and full response to the problems which have been raised.
We may be confusing two different points. First, there are the very rare species, like the greater horseshoe bat, which are already protected. The Nature Conservancy Council would be in touch with the owners and would have very close contacts with them. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, that does not meet the problem if ownership changes. That did happen in the case of one of these houses, or the owner could not afford to maintain the roof. It involved voluntary organisations in spending many thousands of pounds which were readily raised from the public—this would disabuse those people who think that there is not a lot of public interest and support for preserving bats—and it was spent upon re-roofing the building. But that clearly is not possible in the case of all but the very rarest species. That is why the amendments to which the noble Lords opposite have spoken certainly have our very full support.
The Earl of Malmesbury: I support what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. I was recently involved in trying to move a colony. It was a complete failure. This is one of the difficulties. One has to support the dwelling where the bats are at the moment. Moving them is almost an impossibility.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: May I re-emphasise what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt has said and also what was said by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. We do not want there to be unnecessary legislation but, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has said, what is a welcome phenomenon if there is a reasonable number can become an impossibility. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, I find that necessarily the roof space or the cellar has to be exempted, even though one does not live there. In the attics of my home I store a lot of furniture, and in my cellar a little wine and china which is not in use. I should not like to have in those places a colony of bats which I could not do anything about. Also I have stables which are not now in use except for the storage of agricultural implements. There the bats have a high and jolly old time and there they are most welcome. So we have to be careful about over-legislating. What the exact balance is I am not quite sure. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend will say.
Lord Hale: I am surprised that nobody has referred to the fact that a few days ago bat soup was being sold on the streets of London. In view of the failure of one or two canning firms over rare products which have proved not to be palatable, we were told that the crowd of people who assembled to try the bat soup were, with one exception, delighted with it. So I think we must anticipate the possibility of a demand for bats for canning. This possibility does not seem to be covered by any clause in the Bill.
Secondly, could the noble Lord tell us what is the medicinal treatment for the trees which destroyed a bat colony? So far as the popularity of the bat is concerned, I believe that it is due almost entirely to the fact that bats were an essential part of the old Witches' Sabbath, particularly in France in the 11th and 12th centuries when the great historian Michelet wrote his book La Sorcière, which was the suject of a great deal of criticism from ecclesiastical circles and others. He pointed out that the sorceress in the village was the local doctor. She sold her animal remedies which were of great value to the community. That is possibly true. Therefore, I was alarmed to hear a year or two ago that the Church of England had said that they were going to retain the ceremony of exorcism in the rubric. One fears that it could easily be directed precisely to bats in the belfry. This would call for consideration.
Finally, the statement that if you ring up the county council you get advice does not apply to the grey squirrels which I have in my house. The excellent officer who has dealt with our rats is of the opinion that the grey squirrel is not part of the family which he was called upon to destroy.
Lord Melchett: May I remind my noble friend that the person who was attempting to get people to taste bat soup was arrested for obstruction. I hope this will be a lesson to those who want to encourage this deplorable practice.
Earl Ferrers: If I may add to that, I will merely tell the noble Lord that in fact all bats are protected and therefore they cannot be used for canning or for other

1055
such purposes. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook chided me, quite deservedly, for being slightly flippant, I suppose, and he asked whether what I had said was the advice of the Government scientist. In that part of the answer which I gave I was merely responding to a personal observation which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had made. If I have given offence to the noble Lord, of course I apologise and I can assure him that that particular part of my remarks was not the advice of the scientist or indeed of the officials.
We are in a slight dilemma here and I feel strongly that what my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said was quite right. We have heard the opinions of two very distinguished experts and, indeed, scientists in regard to this problem and we have to balance the scientific argument against the practical realities of the people in whose houses these bats are found.
With regard to the definition of a dwelling-house, to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred earlier, a dwelling-house is a house with the added requirement that it is dwelt in and all the dwellers in which are absent only temporarily, having the intention to return, and therefore I think that the word "dwelling-house" in that respect would not cover a stable.
It is true, I suppose, that, in the words of my noble friend's amendment, bats would be found in the roof space, cellar or cavity walls of a dwelling-house and it could be argued—and indeed it has been argued by my noble friend—that their presence there could be tolerated or at least that the householder should not be able to act against them because they will not be infringing his living area. I accept that view as being one which would be expressed by those who are concerned to see the preservation of a species such as this, but, if one looks at the other side of the coin and one considers the position of the householder who may not have these particular affiliations to bats, I think it would be unreasonable to attempt to prohibit him from taking action to protect his own house.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that it would be wrong to take action against bats which were living in an area of a house legitimately occupied by bats. I really think that most householders would not agree with him: that if one purchases a house and that, if peradventure with the house or subsequently into the house comes a colony of bats, I do not know that most householders—or indeed lawyers—would consider that the bats were "legitimately occupying" the house. Despite the persuasive arguments of my noble friend I really do feel that it would be unreasonable to restrict householders in this way and indeed to put a curtailment upon them.
My noble friend Lord Craigton said that what he would like householders to do would be to get clearance from the Nature Conservancy Council before removing the bats. But supposing one goes to the Nature Conservancy Council and says, as my noble friend Lord Home said, "I have 2,000 bats and I should like to rid myself of at least part of that number", and the Nature Conservancy Council says, "Well, you cannot do that", is that a right power to give the Nature Conservancy Council? It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would merely like to see the Nature Conservancy Council consulted, but of course the Council is there to offer advice on any particular occa
1056
sion and I think that to write into a Bill that one should be obliged to consult the Nature Conservancy Council and, having consulted them, possibly pay no regard to what they have said, would be an undue restriction.
I am in sympathy with the scientific arguments which have been put forward by noble Lords, but I think that in practice it would be wrong to write into the Bill a restriction of this nature upon householders.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the noble Earl cast his mind on to the fact that there are six colonies of greater horseshoe bats and that the only ones are in private houses? What happens if all six houses are sold and the new owners say: "We do not like bats"? As I understand it, from what my noble friend Lord Craigton said, the greater horseshoe bat will then be exterminated in England. If the bats are there already surely a new owner, when he buys that property, must take on board the fact that there is something of great natural, historical and scientific importance in his house, and in the same way that he would not destroy a mediaeval flying buttress he would not destroy a colony of greater horseshoe bats.
Lord Melchett: I found what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had to say, particularly in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, extra-ordinarily unsatisfactory, and I cannot believe that what he said was based on any official scientific advice, because my understanding is that the NCC are regularly consulted by quite a large number of people who have problems with bats in their houses. That gives rise to no difficulties at all. They ask for advice and, on the whole, people take the advice. Occasionally they do not, and in such a case those bats are killed and there is nothing more we can do about it.
As I understand it, these amendments seek to ensure that in all cases where bats are going to be killed—and it is that which is involved in removing them from a house, unless it is done with the benefit of expert advice—those persons involved should be required to seek advice from the NCC. It is no more than that. That does not seem to me to be over-onerous or difficult. In fact it is probably doing people a service, because if somebody tries to exclude bats from their roof space without taking advice they are more than likely to seal up the hole that the hats are using to get in and out when the bats are in the loft rather than when they are outside, and be left with a lot of dead and rotting carcases in their roof. That would be a great deal more of a problem than live bats are ever likely to be.
I do not believe that the noble Earl has even remotely begun to give a satisfactory response to what seems to me to be a very moderate and modest proposal which would still leave a lot of bats being killed, but nevertheless would take some steps in the Bill very much in the spirit of the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that people should simply ask for and have the benefit of expert advice, but not be required to act on it. I do not think that is necessary, and from past experience it has not been necessary. I hope the Government will be a little more forthcoming to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, before he withdraws his amendment.
Lord Craigton: I hope that the Government will not come to any decision until we have considered the other two amendments. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said is quite right. I had no idea whatever of making it compulsory to follow the NCC's advice; simply that they should give people the best advice, and if the person wanted to get rid of the bats, then he must get rid of them. That was all I had in mind.
Earl Ferrers: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that if I have given an unsatisfactory answer that is a pity, but I really do not think there is much between us. The NCC gives advice on matters relating to bats. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett said, people frequently consult the NCC about bats. The only point I would wish to stress is, as my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt said, how far is it right to put an obligation in law in an Act of Parliament that a person must consult with the Nature Conservancy Council? I should have thought it would be undesirable to put that restriction in law, but of course we will consider the arguments which have been put forward today.
Lord Melchett: If I may respond briefly, there really is no point in listing bats as a protected species in the Bill unless the Government mean what they say, and it is quite clear that without something along the lines of the amendments, either that I proposed or those proposed by the two noble Lords opposite, listing bats as a protected species is a simple sham—a con trick. The Government do not actually intend to see them protected at all. That is why these amendments are so important.
Viscount Thurso: I think we are in danger of losing our sense of proportion here. There must be something like 15 million houses in this country and most of them are constructed as habitats for human beings and not as habitats for bats. In the case of six houses where there are interesting colonies of rare bats I think we have made out a very good case for special arrangements to be made to try to protect those colonies. This does not seem to me to justify our making it impossible for the owners of the other 14,990,000-odd houses in this country which arc constructed as habitats for human beings to be deprived of their ability to defend themselves from invading species of other sorts. I think we are tending to lose a sense of proportion.
4 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: May I be allowed to support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in regard to this particular aspect. As many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, know, I have a lot of bats, not only in my belfry, the chapel. I have a lot of bats in other parts of the house. What has happened? I make inquiries about capital transfer tax under the Heritage Bill. Then what happens? They say, "You have got to do this, you have got to do that, you have got to see to the dry rot, you have got to see to the woodworm, you have got to see to so-and-so". Your Lordships see what I am getting at. To treat your wood and your timber to see that your place does not fall down, under the rules appertaining to opening your house to the public and that sort of thing, you have got to do these things.
1058
As I see it, if these amendments are carried there will be another imposition. I do not know what my bats are. I am not particularly fond of them; my wife is, but that is another point. If these amendments are carried there will be one more imposition on the houseowner, that he cannot do this and cannot do that. I am trying to make the point that if he is to obey one set of rules about preserving his timber this will make him liable to be prosecuted because, by preserving the timber, he is getting rid of bats. I am all for having the least possible interference by Government or legislation in an Englishman's home.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Just briefly in answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken, may I once again draw attention to this pamphlet, which is produced by the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. I am sorry to have misinformed your Lordships. There are three paragraphs explaining precisely how bats may be driven out of a building without harming them, how bats may subsequently be excluded from a building, and how buildings may safely be treated against rot without in any way injuring the bat. These points have been thought of; information is available. Clearly this information is not yet widely enough disseminated.
If it is appropriate, I will say to my noble friends Lord Gibson-Watt and Lord Mowbray that, if we arc relying on goodwill, what on earth is this six-day performance for? We cannot, clearly, legislate for the protection of our wildlife without a great deal of really rather fearsome laws. I have been extremely heartened this afternoon by the realisation that in the main your Lordships have understood the problem and are in sympathy with what should be done in regard to bats. A considerable number of penalties have been proposed in regard to people who behave in an improper fashion towards birds, and I do not see any inconsistency whatsoever in applying the full rigours of the law in respect of bats. I envisage that, if suitable amendments can be found, there will be an obligation to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State if the owner of a house in which bats are found wishes to kill those bats, precisely as an owner of agricultural land which is suffering the depredations of a protected bird also has to seek a licence. I do not see any anomaly in those procedures. Again, the NCC would instantly be willingly engaged in activities to preserve those bats and to enable the householder to rid his house of bats if he so wishes—and, as I pointed out, many people do not so wish—keeping those bats alive and leaving them free to find an alternative roosting and breeding site. There are methods which are being perfected for excluding bats from houses where they are not wanted. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Home, and advise him that if he has a surplus of guano in his roof it is an excellent rose fertiliser.
It has become equally clear to me, that my amendment is a botched and amateurish attempt to get where we want to. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, with his far greater expertise and experience has put together a collection of amendments which I believe attain precisely the end desired, including the possibility of obtaining a licence if bats have to be killed, and otherwise seeking the advice of the appropriate experts if it is merely desired to exclude bats from a dwelling.

1059
I do not see why any householder need have a moment's concern if we support the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I am prepared to support him to the end, because I believe this is an important point. I believe, as Lord Melchett said, that if there is any sense whatever in legislating to protect bats, we must recognise the inevitable consequences of so doing and ensure that we give bats protection. My own amendment is not perfect, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert (" unless bats are occupying a place therein not ordinarily used for living purposes ").
The noble Lord said: I propose not to move Amendment No. 128. I wish to make the point on my last amendment.
(Amendment No. 129 not moved.)
The Chairman of Committees: I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 130 is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 132, 133 and 134.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 11, leave out lines 27 to 31.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move, page 11, leave out lines 27 to 31. Clause 9 defines offences. Clause 10 provides exceptions, and there are quite a lot of them. We are dealing in this particular respect with the listed animals in Schedule 5. The animals in Schedule 5 are those given the highest protection under this Bill. Clause 9 defines the offences that may be committed by people who harm animals in Schedule 5. The lines that I propose to omit provide a line of escape; they are a let-out. Under this paragraph, (2)(a)
"the killing or injuring of a wild animal included in Schedule 5 if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage ",
et cetera, it is not an offence under Clause 10. If those reasons are valid for killing or injuring an animal under Schedule 5 it is not an offence.
Later on, we provide another exception in Clause 15; on page 15, it says in line 9:
"Sections 9 to 12 do not apply to anything done …"
and then lists another lot of exceptions, and one of them is:
"(h) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority".
So it looks as if a person granted a licence under certain circumstance to kill or injure animals in Schedule 5 may be excused doing that if the reasons adduced are those set out in Clause 15. But he is also let out of any culpable action if he pleads, under the clause that I read out earlier, that the action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage, et cetera. So, he has two lines of escape. The first line of escape is if he has a licence and kills these animals under the terms of that licence. Secondly, if he has no licence—he has presumably failed to apply for one, or even applied for one but not been granted
1060
one—he can still plead, if he has killed an animal in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(a) on page 11, that he has a valid defence.
Do we wish to give people two lines of escape from their obligations to take care of the animals listed in Schedule 5? That is the point which I am raising. It is really first of all a standing exception and, secondly, it could be an emergency or other exception if a person pleads that he destroyed these animals to save crops et cetera as mentioned in Clause 10. I rather feel that, when we list animals—as we have in Schedule 5—for special protection, we must be careful not to provide too much licence to get out of it, especially when we consider the animals which are listed in Schedule 5. We have already spoken about bats, but there is mention in Schedule 5 of beetles, butterflies, crickets, a dragonfly, four moths, newts, the common otter, the harbour porpoise, three snails, a snake, a spider and the natter-jack toad. They do not sound to me a particularly dangerous lot from any point of view. I cannot imagine that selection of animals eating up anything very much or being a threat and causing
"serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries".
There is an amendment which is waiting to be discussed which adds "game birds". I am not fully familiar with the capacity for damage of all the animals mentioned in Schedule 5, but, at first sight it seems to me that we do not really need to give people two possible "let-outs" from observing the conditions for the protection of these animals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I wonder whether the Government could give us some possible catalogue of what damage could be done? I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is very valid. What could be done by the animals listed in Schedule 5 in relation to any of the matters for which excuses are laid down? I concede that dolphins could do damage to fisheries, but does "fisheries" in this context include cages for salmon in the sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland? As a farmer I spray in July against aphids on wheat. What is the position if by any chance—and I am certainly speaking with a certain amount of ignorance here because I presume that a chequered skipper butterfly is not likely to be on the wheat—a chequered skipper butterfly gets killed by accident or something like that? There seem to be questions which ought to be raised. I am not suggesting that we should support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton's, amendment but I think he has raised queries which need to be raised and to be answered.
Lord Kilbracken: I should like for a moment to support my noble friend Lord Houghton as regards this amendment. I moved a similar amendment to delete a corresponding paragraph—Clause 4(2)(a)—which was a similar escape clause in the case of birds. I pointed out then that if it was to be allowed at all it should be limited to authorised persons. The Minister gave an undertaking then that my proposal for the deletion of that paragraph would receive consideration. I think that it is just as necessary in this case and I certainly agree with my noble friend that, with the possible exception of the otter, all the species on the list seem to be extremely innocuous and will not cause

1061
any damage, let alone serious damage—as they have to do. However, the otter is such a delightful animal that I hope that this escape clause will not be permitted to remain in the Bill even in the case of the otter.
Lord Somers: I support the spirit behind the amendment because I must point out that one animal which has been looked upon as doing a great deal of harm to fisheries is the otter, which is now nearing extinction. I suppose that the kingfisher could also be included in that category. So, even if the amendment is not accepted as it stands, I hope that there will be provided an alternative which will have more or less the same effect.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said. As he said, the same philosophy, was discussed very fully when we were considering Clause 4, and I think that on that occasion I supported him and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the view that it should be done by an authorised person. I think that the Government promised to take the matter away and to look at it. I hope they will take it away on this occasion too. The only other point that I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—because I cannot support his amendment—is that Clause 15, as he knows as well as I do, would be very slow in action, and I think that it should be slow in action. I do not think that licences should be granted overnight, and this clause would help in that respect. The other matter that has been raised previously—and I do not want to go on about this because the principle behind all these points has been raised before as regards Clause 4—is that Schedule 5 could be changed very easily to include something else. I do not think that I can go along with the noble Lord's amendment, and I am sure that he would not expect me to do so. However, I do support him on the question of "authorised".
Lord Northfield: Before the Minister replies, I ask him to take his mind back to some of the discussions which we have had on the Deer Bill over the last three years. We originally had a very similar subsection to this one about which we were worried because it left such a great loophole in the Bill. We finally reached agreement—and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who has just spoken will remember this—on a form of words that tightened the situation up considerably: that it was not just a case of allowing killing when it was necessary for the purpose of preventing damage—we included such things as reasonable grounds for believing that the species had actually caused the damage; that the damage was serious; that it was likely that further damage would take place and that the action was absolutely necessary in order to prevent the damage. In other words, instead of having a great big loophole in these sort of circumstances, we tightened the matter up enormously. It is now part of my amendment, No. 188, dealing with deer. But this was an agreed form of words by the House as regards the Deer Bill, and in exactly similar circumstances. I hope that the noble Earl will look at that even if he cannot accept the amendment as a whole.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in the amendment at all and I do not think it would have the far-ranging effects about which some of your Lordships have been concerned. This is a type of exception which is by no means new. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to the Deer Act; but this particular exception is one which is found in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. Of course, my noble friend Lord Stanley put his finger on the nub of the question, which is, as your Lordships will see in Clause 20(3)(a), that the Secretary of State has the right to add to any of the schedules any animals which he thinks may be in danger of extinction. Therefore, this is a provision in the Bill which protects a person against certain action which he may take to protect his property against animals which either are or may later be in Schedule 5.
Although we are anxious that people should not act in a way which would kill or injure any Schedule 5 creature, we must recognise that there may be occasions when such action, however regrettable, is necessary. We would hope that people who were faced with a persistent nuisance on the part of a protected animal would wish to obtain a licence to cover their actions. In that way they would better avoid the risk—and it is a risk—of successful prosecution, and the effects of their actions on the local population could be determined and might be a factor to be taken into account in setting the conditions which would be stipulated in the licence.
But there may be occasions when action, if it is to be effective, must be taken quickly, when time would not permit an application for a licence to be made, to be considered and to be granted. Subsection 2(a) has been drafted to cater for that situation. Without it, people may be tempted to act in defence of their livestock, crops and other forms of property, and in doing so would inevitably commit an offence. Even if they took this action now, they could still be prosecuted, but it would be up to them to show, as a defence, that the action which they took was in protection of their crops.
We do not wish an offence to be committed in the circumstances outlined in subsection 2(a); nor do we wish to see increasing offences in this manner to proliferate the number of offences. This leads to problems of enforcement, difficulties with the police, and burdens the courts unnecessarily. I believe that the defence which is available to persons acting in order to protect their properties to be reasonable, and I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would not seek to press his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend tell us what damage is possible under these provisions? My noble friend said several times "protect their property". Of course, people must protect their property. Having looked at the list of animals on Schedule 5, I do not think that a great deal of damage would be caused, with the possible exception of the dolphin which may cause damage to sea cages of salmon. What damage do greater horseshoe bats do? What damage do wart-biter grasshoppers and Essex emerald moths do? I do not know. But as my noble friend has gone on about the protection of property—which we would all

1063
accept and agree with—can Her Majesty's Government give some inkling of what damage they actually foresee?
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that my noble friend could possibly have heard what I said, or, if he did, he did not address his mind to the problem. I tried to explain to him that in the Bill we are creating conditions for the future. I told him that it would be perfectly possible for other animals to be added to Schedule 5, in addition to those already on it. In framing legislation it is necessary to look to any eventuality for the future, and that is what we seek to do. My noble friend asked what damage was likely to be done, and he said that dolphins and otters could do a certain amount of damage. So they can. But we are trying to incorporate in a Bill the correct provisions for the future.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am probably deaf, but I thought that the whole object of this was to try to subtract animals from Schedule 5 and not add animals to the schedule. I do not know what damage any of the animals on Schedule 5 can do to anything, with the possible exception of the otter.
Earl Ferrers: In that case there would be no prosecution.
Lord Melchett: But there would be if people kill something and claim that they were doing so to protect property which they should not protect. I should like to pursue another point. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said and it mirrored very much what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said when we looked at Clause 4, where, before we amended it, exactly the same wording appeared. What the noble Earl said—just as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said—was that Clause 10(2)(a) has been drafted to allow people to take emergency action. But with great respect, it has not been drafted to allow people to take emergency action because there is nothing about emergencies, or taking such action when you cannot get a licence, and that sort of thing in the paragraph at the moment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said and as I can see, there might be occasions when it is not possible to obtain a licence. I am not thinking of any of the existing species in the schedule but, for the sake of argument, let us assume that something enormously damaging had to be added. Then it might be necessary to take action and it would need to be such an emergency that you could not get a licence. Even if one accepts that fairly tortuous series of steps—and I can see that there is a line of argument there—it seems to me that that ought to be reflected in the wording in Clause 10(2)(a). When we raised similar problems about Clause 4 the Government, in the shape of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, very kindly said that they would take the matter away and consider it. They had to consider the point about authorised persons, as my noble friend has already said, and they said that they would look at the general wording as well. I think that there is an overwhelming case, because it has already been accepted by the Government now on two occasions, that this let-out—which is what it is—should apply to
1064
cases where people are taking emergency action. If that is so, I cannot see any possible objection to the Bill saying that and I should have thought that it would be perfectly straightforward for the Government to draft something on those lines.
As they are looking at this in relation to Clause 4 anyhow, I would suggest that it would be sensible to look at Clause 10, because the wording, the intent and all the rest are exactly the same. They could take on board the various points, including the one about authorised persons, and try to reflect their intention in the wording; and I would accept that this should be there to allow people to take emergency action. I think that that would probably satisfy at least a great many of the fears that people have about this.
4.26 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I find this rather curious. On the one hand, my noble friend Lord Onslow is saying "What on earth is the matter with the animals listed in Schedule 5? They will do no harm". My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said the same; he said that these animals are perfectly harmless. Then the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, gets up and says that as the Bill is at present written this is giving a carte blanche to people to take these animals, which are totally harmless. That is the effect. If the animals are not doing any harm, the chances are that they will not be taken.
I am told by my noble friends that the animals listed in Schedule 5 are so harmless that they will do no damage. Then the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that there is a provision in this clause to allow people to take these animals if it can be shown that they are causing damage to their property. I am simply saying that there seems to be a non sequitur between the two arguments, but, of course, in the light of what has been said, I shall look at the problem again.
Lord Melchett: The reason that there was a non sequitur was that I was agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and he did not realise it.
Earl Ferrers: I am very stupid. I do not always realise it. It is such a rarity and it comes rather unexpectedly.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, withdraws the amendment—as I hope he will—I think that there is common ground here over authorised persons; and there is another point of commonality which I think both the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett, have missed. It is the point about adding to the schedule, which my noble friend Lord Ferrers raised. Believe it or not, I should like to see more animals on Schedule 5. But, if they are to be added, before they are added no doubt the Minister will consult the relevant people. I strongly suspect that one section of such people will be those concerned with agriculture. If there is no control over those animals, farmers will strongly object to them being put on Schedule 5. I think that this clause helps to put more animals on Schedule 5, with which I think we all agree.
Earl Ferrers: It will not have escaped the notice of my noble friend, nor indeed the rest of the Committee,

1065
that there is an amendment later to add the red squirrel to Schedule 5.
Lord Kilbracken: That amendment stands in my name and the red squirrel is another animal which has never been known to do any damage at all. It seems to me that the noble Earl has admitted that none of these animals ever does any damage because he cannot give any examples and he can only say that possibly at some future date other species will be added to the schedule. Surely no species would be added to the schedule if it is found to be liable to do any serious damage. If none of these animals does any serious damage what is the point of having this paragraph in the Bill at all? I strongly support my noble friend in his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It is obvious that a number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee are a little uneasy about this matter, to put it no higher. If we are setting out to give full protection to certain limited species which are in need of it, then we must be seen to be giving that protection, otherwise people will be disposed to say, "Yes, but you can get out of that. It is all eyewash. There is no real protection for these animals because the moment they begin to damage any crops the owner can run for his gun and shoot them off, and if he is prosecuted he can raise as a defence that they were causing serious damage to his crops."
I shall in a moment, with some hesitation, beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that further thought will be given to this matter by the Government and also by those of us who still feel uneasy about this proposal. I should like to make one comment to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. We hear a great deal about farmers and how quickly they will be upset if their crops are damaged and their work is interfered with. As a matter of general doctrine, I think that farmers should understand that they are working with nature in natural surroundings. They are exploiting the land and the fruits—
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No. Allow me to say that they are exploiting the fruits of the land and there are certain tolerances which are called for in that situation. If there are species which the whole nation feels should be preserved and which are doing a little harm here and there to the farming industry, I think they must be prepared to put up with it. They are doing pretty well. I was chairman of the Farm Prices Review Committee three times when I was in the Government, and I used all my endeavours to give the farmers a good settlement—despite the fact that they threw chickens (dead chickens, I may say) at my noble friend Lord Peart after the first one.
There is something here that we must expect of the farming community; that is, that they should not regard damage to crops and the rest of it as providing them with an immediate cause for complaint and an immediate justification for action. I live among farmers. I come of a farming family, and I think I understand the problems pretty well, but the farmers would earn
1066
greater public approval if they were occasionally to understand what conservationists and others desire to achieve.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.].
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 11, line 33, after ("his") insert ("unlawful").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 135 perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 136. We wish to make clear by these amendments that a person who injures a protected wild creature and takes it, tends it, and later releases it, or who kills it because it has no reasonable chance of recovery, would not be guilty of an offence if he could show that the injury was not brought about by an unlawful act on his part. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 11, line 38, after (" his ") insert (" unlawful ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
4.35 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert ("or that in relation to bats he had before such act obtained authority from the nature conservancy council.").
The noble Lord said: To my mind, this is the most important amendment of the four that I have moved. As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has pointed out, we really have this Bill to protect the bat and are doing nothing about it in this Bill. In this easy and slight amendment we have an opportunity, if your Lordships agree with me, to do something to protect the bat. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that many people have bats in their houses and appreciate them, but my advice from the ITE is that there are very many colonies of bats not necessarily in private houses but elsewhere which are being destroyed every day. As I said on a previous amendment, the population in the last two years has dropped 38 per cent.
I take the view that for many people who do not like bats a legal prohibition against destroying the colony in their building, barn, have it whichever way you will, would just not be obeyed even although under this Bill such a destruction would be illegal. If, before doing so, one had to take the advice—and that is all one has to take—of the NCC as in this amendment, then surely we should get results not only in the home but also wherever bats were in fact living.
Bats breed from June through to August. The colony is more likely to survive elsewhere if they are not driven out during those months. Furthermore, the Nature Conservancy Council, if asked, could advise the householder, or whoever owns the barn, how rare are the bats that they have, and they could either persuade him to treasure them or, if they felt that he was completely opposed to them, maybe for a very good reason, maybe not, they would give him the all-clear to perpetrate the deed but to do it at the right time and in the best way.
Unless it is the breeding season, the bats leave in the evening to feed, and my next amendment puts the exclusion operation into perspective. There is no need to use smoke or poison, or other illegal and unpleasant methods. The person owning the barn, or the householder, can make preparations well in advance knowing that it is quite legal to block up the holes while the bats are away feeding. This might take several evenings. It might be difficult, but on the whole it is possible to block up the places where the bats come in and out. It might take a little time, and the bats would find other entrances, but it would be done. The bats would not like it, but it would be done.
Experience is that some of the bats would then find new roosts and join other colonies. All I am asking is that anywhere where bats are roosting they should not be destroyed without clearance from the only experts we have in this country. It could be done by a telephone call. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Nature Conservancy Council should first be consulted before bats are destroyed. I beg to move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Can my noble friend enlighten me on one point? I have no argument at all with what he has just said to the Committee. What worries me is what is written down in his amendment. He said that there would be reasonableness and all would be well. However, what we have here is that you have to obtain authority. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the NCC have a mental obstruction at some moment and do not give permission? I agree it is unlikely, but nevertheless we are giving them an absolute power if they so wish.
Lord Craigton: I would be quite happy with simply consultation rather than authority, even though I know the NCC are now prepared to let the bats be destroyed if the owner wants that.
Lord Swinfen: I am very fond of bats, but I am wondering whether their protection, particularly that of the horseshoe bat, would not be best dealt with under Clause 26. Then, houses in which rare colonies are found could be designated as areas of special scientific interest, which might make things easier all round.
Lord Melchett: We strongly support the amendment, and I think that is clear. As I see it, the difficulty of dealing with this problem under Clause 26, apart from the enormous complications that that would lead to in the system of sites of special scientific interest—whether an attic could be such a site we could, I suppose, discuss at enormous length—is that the Bill would list all bats so that all bats would he protected, and clearly it would not be feasible to make all bat colonies sites of special scientific interest; there would be far too many. That is why I believe it is important to have something like the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is suggesting, with the change from "authority" to "consultation". I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, would prefer "consultation", and we should be happy to see that change made.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is
1068
right to say that if an amendment such as this were accepted it would cover all bats and not just those of a particularly rare variety, of which we heard earlier. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton is also correct in saying that the amendment as drafted would require any householder to get the authority of the Nature Conservancy Council and that, if that authority were not given, the householder would not be permitted to rid himself of those bats which he might wish to get rid of. My noble friend said he would be happy if the NCC were consulted. I should like to consider that suggestion. One hesitates to put into the Bill more and more obligations on people who may not realise that there are obligations on their dwelling-houses, but in view of my noble friend's request I will willingly consider what he said and perhaps at this stage he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am delighted with that response. All my hard work has been repaid and I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Melchett: In debating an amendment to this clause earlier the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked what "fisheries" meant. Because I was anxious to raise this point on the clause stand part, particularly as we did not get an answer from the Government earlier, I will pursue the point now, having given the Government some notice of my intention to raise it at this stage. I should like to know how wide the provision goes. Does it apply simply to fish in captivity, to any fish in any river, to part of the sea, or what? Perhaps the Minister will clear this up for us.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether I shall be able to clear the matter up for the noble Lord, but I will explain the position. As I understand it, there is no statutory definition of the word "fisheries". When using the term in the Bill we have had in mind its use in the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967, which are of course re-enacted in the Bill. The term "fisheries" is normally taken as a generic term—water where there is fishing—and it has been used in a similar manner in several international instruments of wild life conservation; I am thinking, for example, of the European Community's directive on the conservation of birds and Article 9 of the Berne Convention. If the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, considers that a generic term like "fisheries" is unduly wide and thereby widens the scope of the defences provided in Clause 10(2)(a), then I am willing to look again at the wording in an endeavour to meet his concern. There is no statutory definition of the word "fisheries" but my understanding is that it would cover those things to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: The Government had an amendment down which they did not move. I refer to Amendment No. 133 and I should like to know whether, when we speak about subsection (2)(a)—
Lord Melchett: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but perhaps it would be simpler to stick with fish for the time being before moving on to game birds, otherwise I shall get confused and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may find himself joining me in that confusion. I simply wanted to thank the noble Earl for what he said about the term "fisheries". It seems rather foolish if one could legitimately kill a protected bird or animal which was, for example, killing eels or pike, which would be desirable certainly from the point of view of those interested in catching things like trout and salmon. I cannot believe the exemption needs to go as wide as that and I am grateful the Government will be considering the point.
Lord Kilbracken: The Minister explained that fisheries were water where there was fishing. May I ask him to take that a little further and explain what "fishing" means? Does it include, for instance, fish farming? I imagine "fishing" means taking fish out of an expanse of water with a rod and line or a net, although I do not know if a net would be included. It would be relevant to know whether the removal of fish from a fish farm where fish were being raised commercially could accurately be described as fishing.
The Earl of Onslow: I am delighted to hear what has been said about a possible tightening up of the definition of "fisheries". It struck me that if one had a dolphin, then, if the definition means water where fishing takes place, it means that one could shoot or trap dolphin anywhere on the high seas, and I am sure that that is not what anyone wants.
Earl Ferrers: As I say, we will certainly look into this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked if it covered fish farming, and that is one of the points I shall be looking at in detail. I am bound to say that at the moment my opinion is that "fisheries" covers what might be described as wild fish, whereas fish fanning is a captive form of farming and in a way they are grown as a crop. Probably they would not come under the title of "fisheries", but I shall certainly look into that.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I apologise for raising another point earlier before the Committee had finished discussing fish. When we are dealing in Clause 10(2)(a) with serious damage to livestock, crops and so on, we know to what we are referring. "Live-stock" one normally thinks of as being captive bred animals on the farm, on the hoof in the field. The Government had tabled Amendment No. 133 concerning game birds and I wanted confirmation that game birds, wild or reared, were included in the word "livestock".
Earl Ferrers: I think game birds are one's property and are livestock in so far as they are being reared. However, once they are let out of a cage there is nothing to stop them from flying on somebody else's land, and one could then ask: Whose property are they, the property of the person who reared them or of the owner of the land on which they are temporarily sojourning? In effect, once they are released they become wild, and that is why we did not include the
1070
phrase "game birds" in the clause as was originally suggested by the amendment which I did not move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Is my noble friend not slightly leading me astray? I am talking about game birds on one's own land, land which one is farming or otherwise owning; I am not talking about what happens when they have flown elsewhere. If I see predators coming along and damaging game birds, shall I be allowed to take action?
Lord Melchett: We had quite a long discussion of this on Clause 4 when we were considering the protection of birds and where exactly the same provision appears. My recollection is that we all agreed that when game birds were birds being reared; in other words, pheasants in a release pen or on a rearing field were included in the word "property". However, once it was wild, a wild bird, whether or not it was a game bird, was not included. But, of course, if a species of vermin comes along and attacks any of these things none of this applies, anyhow, because it applies only to specially protected things, and I do not know that the chequered skipper, the harbour porpoise or any of the other various things are all that likely to do enormous damage to the noble Lord's pheasants when they are at liberty.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put the point infinitely clearer than I would have been able to put it. All I would tell my noble friend is that if he is rearing birds and he has got them in a cage and some pest eats them, then he is entitled to kill the pest. If some rare animal mentioned in the schedule eats them, then he is entitled to take action while they are in the cage; but once my noble friend has released his pheasants from the cage and they fly about, whether on his land or on anybody else's land, the provisions of the Bill apply.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Other animals which are protected]:
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
4.52 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 49, line 48, at end insert—
("Moth, New Forest Burnet Zygaena viciae").
The noble Lord said: This is an unusually modest amendment to add to Schedule 5 a particular, rare moth, the New Forest Burnet moth. My information is (though I do not claim to be any great expert) that this moth is the only species of insect in regard to which there is documentation of its destruction by collectors in its original New Forest habitat. It has been particularly carefully studied. At present, in spite of its name, it is not found in the New Forest at all but is known from only one locality a long way away from the New Forest, in Scotland. I am advised that it is certainly an animal which should be in Schedule 5 and which badly needs the protection that that schedule would provide for it. I hope the Government will be able to accept its inclusion, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has been so particularly helpful that, despite the fact that the New Forest moth does not live in the New Forest but in Scotland, I am more than happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 50, line 5, leave out (" common ") and insert ("aurasian").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment my intention is to draw attention to certain anomalies in the construction of these schedules. The earlier schedules to this Bill list animals (by which term I include birds) in the alphabetical order of one or other name arbitrarily chosen from their vernacular English name. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in moving Amendment No. 86, discussing whether the birds concerned were rosefinches or grosbeaks, has already drawn attention to the sort of anomaly which can arise. Where birds are concerned, on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Avon, from the Front Bench, pointed out that there was a single authority available, and this is the 1977 helarctic bird list, which was in fact published by the British Ornithologists Union under (if I may claim so) my editorship. Therefore, so far as birds are concerned there is one authority and it is sensible to use vernacular names.
Where other organisms are concerned, there is a sort of hotchpotch of names. For example, "Beetle, Rainbow Leaf I know for a fact is a name which was invented for the purposes of the amendment to the 1975 Bill that was proposed by my late father, but I think that I myself had a hand in that invention. So that is a name which has no currency whatsoever, really, apart from the fact that it appears to be quite a nice name to give to that particular beetle. When we come on to other insects in Schedule 5, again in certain cases the names are just invented for the purpose.
It is extremely difficult for anyone with any zoological background and it is extremely difficult for anyone who is not a native English speaker—that is to say, the many people in the European Community who will be referring to our schedules in order to check what animals are or are not protected in this country—to make head or tail of a list of organisms which has no relation whatsoever to their natural ordering, to the kind of animal that they are, broadly speaking, and uses names which cannot be found in any other published source. I suggest that the style and approach of all the schedules should follow that in the latter part of our Bill, beginning on page 55, where the Latin name, which is of international currency, is indisputable and cannot be argued about, is the dominant name in law and the first name to appear.
I draw attention to this whole anomalous situation (which, I repeat, to a zoologist is as crazy a hotchpotch as a mad woman's shopping list) by pointing out that the animal which we consider so rare and so endangered that it requires protection is called in one list, in this list in Schedule 5, the "Otter, Common", which seems to me to be an anomaly, and yet when you look at Schedule 9 you find that it is called the "Otter, Aurasian", which seems to me to be a nonsense. I do not seriously propose to insist that we should begin to call our otter, which surely is of that ilk (if I may use a
1072
Scottish phrase) by any name other than "otter "; but in moving this amendment I would be grateful to hear the opinion of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that when I first saw this amendment I had a horrible feeling that my noble friend (dare I say it?) had made a mistake, or that the printers had made a mistake. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that in fact it was supposed to be "eurasian", whereas in fact what is printed on the Marshalled List is "aurasian". I may well be wrong about that, but it does of course reflect what is known as the common otter, which, as my noble friend quite rightly said, is a curious misnomer for something which is endangered. I think that probably the best way of resolving this problem would be to refer to it as "Lutra lutra" and just the "otter". If my noble friend were happy with that position, perhaps we could put it right at the next stage.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am absolutely delighted with that solution, which is precisely the one I proposed. I would only point out in self-defence that this curious word "aurasian" is taken directly from Schedule 9 of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 143B:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert—
("Marten, Pine Martes martes").
The noble Lord said: For the information behind this amendment I am indebted to Dr. Kathryn Velander, of the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Edinburgh, who is currently conducting a study on the pine marten. Until the early 1900s the marten was widespread in Britain, and as a result of persecution by man by 1926 it had in fact become very rare. It was pushed back to restricted areas on the West Coast of Scotland. By the 1960s, helped, probably, by the lack of keepering during the war, the marten was beginning its recovery and had spread inland as far as the Great Glen, and into North-East Scotland in some cases. The increase took 40 years, and was a very slow comeback, possibly due to the relative reproductive potential of the marten, which produces only one litter per year with only two to three young born per litter. Hence, if the population is diminished, replacement is slow.
Perhaps some of these facts and figures are not in the possession of the department at the moment. Dr. Velander's study only began in October and she is already finding that in some places where in the recent past martens used to occur, they are no longer present. They are still being trapped, shot and poisoned, where they still exist, and in some cases pelts are being sold and appear to be desirable to the locals because of their rarity as well as their beauty. The attitude of many, she reports, seems to be, "We ought to get one before they die out ". I am not necessarily asking for a complete answer at this stage, but I think there must be

1073
a considerable amount of up-to-date information in that which I have received from Dr. Velander. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would consider its insertion in the schedule. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. Some 30 or 40 years ago it was almost extinct. It is true that it is still rare, but it has increased, particularly in the Eastern Highlands. This is largely due to the great increase in afforestation that we have had; but I still think that it ought to be included in Schedule 5, because it is still a rare animal and also a comparatively harmless one. It will certainly take poultry and eggs, but I have always said that it is up to the poultry keeper, the farmer, properly to fence in his poultry. If he properly protects his poultry, the pine marten cannot damage them at all. I ask that the pine marten be included in this schedule. It is a most likeable animal and it is comparatively harmless.
Lord Dulverton: While having some sympathy with my noble friend in what he has just said, may I say that the pine marten can climb fences of whatever height.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for putting down his amendment and for giving us the opportunity of hearing the result of the research to which he referred. I am advised that the pine marten does not fulfil the criteria for addition to Schedule 5; that is, it is not in danger of extinction in Great Britain or likely to become so endangered. My information is that the species has spread considerably since its range became greatly restricted in the early years of the present century and it is now found in the Lake District, in the Scottish Highlands and in Wales. As a tree-living species, it has been considerably helped by afforestation, and the animal has benefited from a reduction in its persecution by gamekeepers and fur hunters. Therefore, I do not think that there is any justification at the moment for including it in the schedule, but I will give consideration to the views expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: Certainly, I think it would be accepted that there has been some increase in numbers of the pine marten from a very low base indeed in Scotland. But it is possible in the schedule to limit protection to particular geographical areas. The otter was protected in England and Wales. Now that the pine marten is managing to spread to the Lake District, would the noble Earl consider Lord Beaumont's information, which the rest of us have not seen and which may well present a strong case for protection throughout Great Britain? If that is not the case, it would be worth considering whether protection might be given in England and Wales, and not in Scotland. That could be considered at the same time.
Earl Ferrers: I should be delighted to do so.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I accept what the Minister has said. I think that this amendment may have been useful, in that I hope it may alert the authorities to the possibility that we are seeing a reversal again.
1074
Dr. Velander's evidence does not cover the whole of the field, but if she has begun to see that territory occupied by this animal is ceasing to be occupied, given the low rate of reproduction, there may be a need to act if the population goes into reverse, so I hope that this debate will ensure that the authorities keep an eye on the possibility of including the pine marten in the schedule if at any stage the position gets worse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 50, line 13, at end insert—
(" Squirrel, Red Sciurus vulgaris ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 190, which I think is consequential. The purpose of my amendment is to add the red squirrel to the animals protected in Schedule 5. Amendment 190 would remove it from Schedule 6. Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am not clear why some animals appear on both schedules. Schedule 6 deals with those which may not be killed or taken by certain methods. If they are already completely protected under Schedule 5, I do not see why they need the special protection of Schedule 6; although nearly all the mammals in Schedule 6 are also included in Schedule 5. Be that as it may, I hope very much that the Government may find it possible to include the red squirrel among those specially protected.
Most of your Lordships over the age of 40 or 50 years will know from your own personal experience how the number of red squirrels has diminished steadily over the last 15 years. I remember—although this is in Ireland, and beyond the scope of the Bill—that when I was a boy they were common in the woods and then the grey squirrel came in and, in the course of time, the red squirrel disappeared. That is happening all over the country. I have not done the amount of research that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, showed with respect to the pine marten, but I believe that it must be considered a species that is now endangered. If that is the case, then it would qualify for inclusion in this schedule. As it is a particularly attractive animal and in view of the fact that, to my knowledge, it does no harm of any kind, I hope it can be given this special protection. I beg to move.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like very much to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in this amendment, together with his Amendment No. 190. I was slightly frightened—I was about to say, "alarmed", but that it too strong a word—by what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said a moment ago about the pine marten: that because it was not to his mind sufficiently in danger of becoming extinct he saw no necessity for it to go into Schedule 5. The red squirrel is at the moment in no danger of becoming extinct, but it is rapidly being squeezed. As we all know, the grey squirrel is not a very friendly animal to his cousin the red squirrel—if it is his cousin. We really should do everything possible to encourage its protection. I can see no reason why anyone should want ever to kill a red squirrel. I can understand it being taken for a zoo by certain methods but for killing the red

1075
squirrel I cannot see any justification at all. I am slightly frightened by the fact that we are not prepared to protect an animal while it is still in reasonable numbers in only small parts of this kingdom. I happen to be lucky enough to still have the red squirrel as the natural animal at my home in Angus. I have no grey squirrels, happily. God forbid that the day should come when, because there are a few red squirrels about, one can be told that it cannot go onto the list. If we do not do something now, then shortly it will not exist.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when we were talking about bats and dolphins, was saying, "Yes, we can add to Schedule 5". Here is a perfect example of something to add to Schedule 5.
Baroness David: We should like very strongly to support this amendment. The evidence that the red squirrel is disappearing is pretty strong. In 1945 it was still found in most counties of England, and in some areas such as East Anglia it was quite abundant. By 1971, when the Mammal Society published its provisional distribution maps of British mammals, the red squirrel's distribution was a bit patchy but it was totally absent only from the Midlands through to the South-East. Now, a decade later, the red squirrel has almost disappeared from the English countryside and its place has been taken by the invading grey squirrel. A few severe winters could even wipe out the Scottish populations (which, it has been recognised, are greater than the English) just as happened, apparently, in the last century. So we hope very much that the Minister will be prepared to add this. We do not want the red squirrel just to remain as a character of fiction in Beatrix Potter books.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Will the Minister explain why some names are on both schedules and some are not? That is beyond me. My noble friend raised that point.
5.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is quite right, his noble friend raised the point. I was going to try to explain it to him. These matters are a trifle complicated even after one has looked at them several times. Schedule 5 refers to animals which one cannot kill or take without a licence. Schedule 6 is a restriction on the methods of killing for those particular animals which appear on the schedule; but other methods can be used for other animals. That is the complication on those two schedules. Regarding the red squirrel, which the noble Lord asked to be put on this schedule, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, castigated me for making a speech which I had not made. He said "Why on earth can we not add these things to the schedule? We must be told why they cannot be added to the schedule ". But had he held his patience a little, I should have been able to tell him that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Onslow that this is a perfect example of something which could be added to the schedule.
It is said by some—indeed the noble Baroness said so earlier—that the red squirrel was being pushed out by the grey. That is what I understood was the practice.
1076
In fact I am advised that very often the grey squirrels move in where the red squirrels have become rare. In some parts of the country the red squirrel is a rarity. In others, I understand, it can almost be a pest.
I propose to accept Lord Kilbracken's amendment and include the red squirrel. In those cases where the red squirrel is a pest, a licence can be provided after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that that will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Craigton, even though it does not refer to bats.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Can my noble friend tell me where his advisers have ever found the red squirrel to be a pest?
The Duke of Atholl: Perhaps I may answer that. It is very difficult to keep the red squirrel from the seeds of trees, fir cones and such like, when you wish to gather them and grow young trees in your nursery. The red squirrel has the advantage that it can get up a tree when the seeds are ripe much more quickly than any forester can. Foresters find the red squirrel a great nuisance. I am pleased to say that I have only red squirrels, so there is no doubt that it is the red squirrel and not the grey that does the damage. I thoroughly support the view of my noble friend on the Front Bench that they can be a pest. I do not say that it would ever be such a pest that it would be right to kill it in large numbers, but I can see that there might be an occasion when people might have to kill one or two red squirrels which could be particularly damaging to rare trees which they wished to propagate.
Baroness Phillips: As the Government have accepted the amendment, particularly on the injunction of my Front Bench, I should not like to prolong the discussion. I found some of the arguments slightly strange, in that, if the grey squirrel is so unkind to its cousin, any Act of Parliament which protects the red squirrel will not be read by the grey squirrel! It seems a curious argument to advance in favour of protecting the squirrel.
I think that we have to go on the record as saying that surely the predator here both for this and for the pine marten must be the people who want the furs. Furs from both are still available. Although we know that these animals are not supposed to be killed for their fur, undoubtedly this goes on. In blaming the poor grey squirrel for killing his cousin we are introducing a provision in an Act of Parliament which will do nothing to stop that at all.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The grey squirrel does not only kill his cousin. He strips all the sycamore trees and other trees from the top when they are about 8 or 10 years old. He kills hundreds of thousands of young hardwood trees.
Viscount Mountgarrett: Could there be some compromise? Perhaps we could put the red squirrel onto a list of completely protected animals and then, if anybody found that a substantial amount of damage had occurred, they could apply to cull a certain number of them, as in the case of certain protected birds.
Earl Ferrers: In the interests of expedition, if by accepting an amendment one gives rise to such a rumpus and disagreement, I shall be very much inclined not to accept amendments! As I said I would on this occasion, I shall. In answer to my noble friend Lord Mowbray, who asked where this had been found to be a pest, I am advised that in certain Forestry Commission areas and certain northern parts of the United Kingdom it can be found to be a pest.
Lord Kilbracken: I am delighted that, having got the bewick swan on to one schedule yesterday, I have managed to get the red squirrel onto another schedule today. I know that the noble Duke may feel slight apprehension about this, but I must mention that in my own experience the red squirrel does not do any damage to trees; but perhaps I grow different trees from the noble Duke.
The Duke of Atholl: If I may just interrupt, it is not damage to the trees (which I agree is virtually nonexistent); it is that they take the seed from the trees when the seed is ripe for taking and propagating in the nursery. That is the trouble. I agree that the damage to trees is minimal.
Earl Ferrers: May I suggest that we get on? We are hoping to get to the end of Part I of the Bill tonight and that means dealing with 40 pages of amendments. So far, we have completed 3 pages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If the pine marten is going to be added to Schedule 5 of the Bill—which I would support—I wonder whether the Government will bear in mind that farmers will need the provisions we have been talking about under Clause 10 which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said might not be needed.
Earl Ferrers: The point is taken. I said that I did not think that it would be suitable to include the pine marten in Schedule 5; but of course I take into account what has been said.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 12, line 2, leave out (" self-locking ").
The noble Lord said: We come to Clause 11, which deals with various methods of killing and taking wild mammals, which are to be prohibited to a greater or lesser extent. I must say for myself that I find the whole clause fairly difficult to follow, and we have already had some fairly detailed debates on certain aspects of it, such as those relating to automatic and semi-automatic weapons, which are mentioned further
1078
on. I suppose that the answer is that the clause has been drafted on the basis of some European provision. Nevertheless, it seems to me a fairly difficult clause to follow in any logical way.
However, having said that, by deleting the term "self-locking" in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 11(1), Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 would make the snaring or the injury of any wild mammal an offence. I realise that the amendment goes rather farther than some noble Lords would think practicable, but it seemed to me important that when we came to this clause we should discuss the issue of snaring, and in particular the appalling consequences of snaring which is carried out in the countryside at the moment. There are other amendments, which we are to come to later, proposing the banning of the snaring of foxes, but perhaps it would be convenient to discuss them with this amendment. I want to say a word on this point, because my amendment would achieve that purpose, along with a number of others.
One mammal which suffers from snaring is undoubtedly the badger. Badgers are not suitable animals to snare. Snares set for foxes, rabbits and other creatures undoubtedly regularly catch badgers in areas where they are common and cause them enormous suffering. As noble Lords will know, the badger is a very strong, robust animal. It is extremely difficult to kill a badger at the best of times, and a snare is certainly not a suitable means of doing so. No doubt many badgers suffer very long, agonising deaths or appalling injuries, with legs bitten off, when caught in snares.
The fact that snaring is cruel and is a danger to domestic stock is I think incontrovertible. A booklet which looks at methods of control in general of wild animals in this country has been produced by a working party which includes in its membership representatives of a wide range of organisations, including two from the British Field Sports Society, and representatives from the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Masters of Foxhounds and Otterhounds Association, as well as assessors from the Home Office and a number of other bodies. The booklet said of snaring that,
" There is no doubt that snaring, though effective, does involve a degree of cruelty and also a danger to domestic stock ".
I now turn to the question of foxes. We have in the past had discussions on this matter in your Lordships' House in relation to another Bill, and there is no doubt that foxes arc being snared in quite enormous numbers in the countryside and that this has increased a great deal very recently. For example, in 1975, 9,810 red fox skins were sold by Hudson's Bay and Annings Limited, which is the largest auction house, and which is to be congratulated on keeping accurate records of the furs that it sells. Of that total, 565 skins were from Britain or Ireland. Four years later, during 1979, the same company sold 50,000 red fox skins, which were caught from the wild, including 16,182 of British and Irish origin, the market value of which approached £400,000.
Looking at the total trade in fox skins, it seems that from those handled by the trade there were probably about 100,000 red fox skins of British and Irish origin sold in 1979. Then of course a large number changed hands privately. One dealer—who may be the largest,

1079
but nevertheless is a single dealer—had a mailing list of 10,000 skinners, all of whom would be sending him at least two or three skins a season. So that is another 30,000 skins on top of the 1000,00 skins going through trade sources.
People at Oxford University who have carried out a careful study of this matter say that an estimate of about 100,000 red fox skins from Great Britain would be of the right order of magnitude. It seems to me that that rise in red fox skin trade has enormously increased the number of snares set in the countryside, since almost all foxes taken for their skins will have been snared. The researchers who produced those figures on the number of foxes taken also looked at the effect that that was having on wildlife in the countryside in general. They based their research on having contacted a number of gamekeepers, which was done with the aid of the Gamekeepers' Association. Almost all the gamekeepers contacted agreed that more foxes were being killed in their areas, many by people other than gamekeepers themselves. Gamekeepers knew of people who were specialising simply in snaring foxes for their pelts.
The authors of the research say that,
" Even in the most skilled hands the unintentional capture of other non-target species cannot reliably be avoided when snares are set ".
Of course, the non-target species, besides the badger, that I have mentioned, and the otter, which is another regular victim of snares, will include deer and domestic pets. The authors of the research go onto say that,
" Although skill and thoughtfulness in setting and checking snares can minimise the risk of a lingering death, it cannot eliminate it. Some of the hands now setting snares for foxes are inexperienced and neither skilled nor compassionate. So it is undeniable that if the lure of monetary gain encourages more people to set snares, then more individuals and non-target species will have been caught, and very probably caught badly. Badgers arc frequently caught in snares set for foxes ".
The authors go on to conclude that the badgers are probably the real losers in the present vogue for fox fur.
I hope that I have said enough to illustrate the dangers of the use of the snare and the problem that has been caused by greatly increased use over recent years, encouraged by the enormous market which has grown up in a very short period of time—four or five years—for fox furs. I hope that on that basis the amendments will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
5.29 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support the noble Lord. The trouble with snaring is that it is so indiscriminate. It requires a very experienced person to avoid catching a badger when a snare is being set for a particular animal. On the whole the badger tends to carry its head lower than does the fox. A man who knows his job will probably not catch a badger in a snare. Apart from that, I have always regarded snaring as the most horrible form of trapping animals. When I was a boy I used to go around with keepers and they used snares to catch thousands of rabbits. Presumably in those days before myxomatosis, when there were plagues of rabbits, snaring was the most effective way to get rid of them; but it was horrible, most distasteful, to see the swollen heads.
1080
Also, if a man sets a snare he would of course set it in the evening; but if he does not go round the next morning the wretched animal may be in the snare for 36 hours or even longer. It is fiendishly cruel. I have seen foxes, and badgers too, which have dragged out the snaring pin and which have died from gangrene. The snare may get caught round their body and their stomach is almost cut in half. Also it is well known that the fox and the badger, if caught by a foot or leg, as happens sometimes, will bite their leg off. I think the whole procedure is most horrible.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right in what he said about fox skins. A tremendous number of foxes are being snared now and one can get between £20 and £30—perhaps even more—for a fox pelt. Snaring does not hurt the fur and therefore is the most effective way of trapping a fox. I know a keeper who made over £3,000 the winter before last in snaring foxes: I do not know whether his employer knew that, but I knew it. I will not delay the Committee any further but I should like to support this amendment because, apart from the cruelty aspect, it is rather illogical that we have the badger as a protected species and it is quite likely, if you put down a snare for a fox, that you catch a badger.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that the Committee will insist on this amendment going into the Bill. It took us a long time to get rid of the gin trap in England, and longer still to get rid of it in Scotland. I thought that the assurances given to some of us during the period of the Labour Government meant that we were really going to see the end altogether of snaring when this legislation came forward. The snare is a horrible thing, and if one sees animals in a snare—the RSPCA have been collecting photographs and so on throughout the country—one must feel that this way of taking animals should stop.
Who, after all, is asking for it to be retained?—only those, I suggest, who have a commercial interest in exploiting our wildlife in the manner which my noble friend Lord Melchett has described. I recall the attempt which was made by my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton to stop the export of furs from this country to Europe. He got the Furskins Bill through this House, but no time was found for it in the other place and so it fell. But my noble friend drew attention to the increasing traffic, in fox furs especially, of exports to Europe, and to the high prices being paid for them.
With all the care and all the compassion, the erudition and talent of all your Lordships on this Bill, wildlife is fighting a losing battle everywhere. It is difficult to foresee the survival of species that are commonplace today if the present rate of commercial exploitation goes on. It is incredible to me that there are people who are ready to see any crime committed against wildlife so long as there is commercial profit in it. It is disgraceful. And when we talk of the depredations of birds and other species on other birds and species, we ought to take into account also some of the dreadful specimens of humanity who are doing this enormous damage to our wildlife heritage.
So I hope that the snare can now be banned altogether. There are other and more humane ways of taking animals these days, if they must be taken.

1081
Quite obviously, we are going to suffer serious damage if this traffic is allowed to continue. I think it is a pity that we are not taking into account in this Bill the damage done by making it possible for profitable exports to expand as they are doing at the present time. I hope emphatically that your Lordships will pass this amendment.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Glenkinglas: I think every single member of this Committee would agree that a snare is a nasty method of catching any animal, and so indeed was the gin trap, to which the noble Lord referred. He said that the gin trap had continued to be used in Scotland for some time longer than in England. That was for one reason and one reason only, which was that at that time it was the only method by which you could keep foxes under control on your farming areas. As many of your Lordships know, I happen to live in a farming area. I suppose we have killed in the last 30 or 40 years an average of 80 to 100 adult foxes every year, sometimes by shooting and in the old days by gin traps. Now a certain number are taken by snaring.
It is all very well for noble Lords to say that the fox is an inheritance and that we must keep it, and how wicked it is that one should use a snare; but I should like your Lordships to see a few photographs of mangled sheep. I do not think they would find the sight particularly attractive—and that is what happens, year in and year out, to attractive little things like lambs, which everybody is fond of. I am not a passionate admirer of the fox. We are keen on preserving endangered species: the fox is not. It will eat every single one of the animals we put on our various lists if it is good to eat. The fox does not care in the least, except to be able to eat. I think it is perfectly right and proper that one should ban the snare, but only when someone has devised some method of controlling foxes on the hills. I know that is not easy to do because many who arc concerned in these matters in the Ministry of Agriculture and in the Department of Agriculture for Scotland have spent a lot of money and many years in trying to find a method of controlling foxes in hill country. We have all waited, hoping that they will get results, but not one has yet come. There is simply no method at present except continuously prowling round with rifles or guns in the hope of controlling the numbers. It is not just a simple, easy problem of whether one uses snares or gin traps: it is a question of the proper balance and the proper use of your land.
In the old days we used to export foxes in considerable quantities from my part of Scotland to areas in England which wanted more healthy hill foxes so that the hunting was better. I personally did not mind too much whether we exported them or not so long as we got rid of them off the hills. My only worry at that time was not as great as it is today about endangered species—because now I realise the great danger that was to your Lordships, who are yourselves likely to become an endangered species! Perhaps we ought not to have encouraged so many noble Lords to damage themselves considerably on horseback in pursuit of foxes. Be that as it may, this is not an absolutely simple and straightforward question. It is something with which I would agree 100 per cent. if there were some alterna
1082
tive method of saving the lives of tens of thousands of sheep all over Scotland.
The Earl of Onslow: May I—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May we have a word from this side, please? What we who are supporting this amendment object to is cruelty. It always seems to me that the people who arrange the good hunting country and see that there is good hunting know how many foxes there are where they are, and if there are too many they hunt them and also gas their earths. Why should this kind of thing not be done in the noble Lord's area? It is only a question of taking trouble and using modern methods.
Lord Glenkinglas: May I just answer that point, because the noble Lord is perfectly right; it is only a question of taking trouble. As regards gassing, we would need more gas than the whole of Porton could produce in a year, in order to deal with the kind of places that our foxes live in, because they are not earths; they are enormous falls of rock and no amount of gas would deal with them. If the noble Lord used his influence to see that we had a subsidy for about three men full-time every year, then I could control the foxes. But, without that, it is a human question and a cost question. One is dealing with many tens of thousands of acres of hill land, often with no keepers on at all.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say, first, that one could probably get a licence for dynamite, and, secondly, it seems to me that the area which the noble Lord is trying to control is too large for him.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, because it is not only in the hill areas where it is very difficult to kill foxes. In some areas, particularly in the South of Scotland where there are enormous forests, it is quite impossible to hunt foxes. Hunting is one of the ways in which we used to kill them, but you cannot do that now because there are hundreds of foxes and, if you go out hunting, the hounds get into a vast forest and they are all lost. So far from hunting being any good for killing foxes, it does no good at all.
As regards the number of lambs who are victims of the cruelty of the fox—and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is very concerned about cruelty, as we all are—the fact remains that the number has grown vastly. I live in the middle of the forestry area. I have lived in the middle of a hill area where our main crop was lambs, and the shepherds became absolutely hysterical at lambing time, because we simply could not keep the foxes down. We tried to gas them in their earths and we tried to shoot them, but it is jolly difficult to shoot foxes. It is much easier to chase them with hounds. That is not particularly kind either, but nature is not kind. Foxes are not kind and you cannot be sentimental about these problems; otherwise you will simply be overrun by vermin.
There is a great deal of well-meaning rubbish talked about how to deal with these matters. You have to deal with them as best you can, and if you do not deal with them you will absolutely ruin the sheep industry. I feel very strongly about this, just as strongly as I feel

1083
about not being cruel. But it is just as cruel for the foxes, or any other vermin, to eat the lambs, as it is for us to kill the vermin, which is what we must first do.
The Earl of Onslow: As one of the noble Lords who have been an endangered species—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: May I speak from these Benches? I have not intervened often in your Lordships' debate this afternoon, in the vain hope that we might make some progress. It seems to me that the cases which are being made out by the two different sides in this argument are both valid. We all agree that snares are a very cruel form of killing and should not be used by man, unless he cannot help it. Equally, I am quite clear that the case which is being made out for the necessity of keeping them on large hill areas is also valid, and that the amendment as it stands is not one which we should support.
But I suggest that we ought to take this away and try to approach the matter on an area by area basis. Just as we are doing certain things in this Bill for the protection of animals, by giving licences for them to be killed in certain areas where they may be a pest, although they are rare elsewhere, we should take this away and see whether we can put together a series of amendments to this Bill which will outlaw all snares in the greater part of the ordinary cultivated countryside, which covers most of England, and a certain amount of Scotland and Wales, but which will give licence to continue using snares in those parts of the country where there is obviously very little alternative. That might be a way forward.
The Earl of Onslow: I think I was referred to as the unintentional victim of foxhunting. Two or three points have arisen, but there are a few which have not arisen and to which I should like to speak. First, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke about the unintentional victims of snares. I suggest that fen traps, poisons and any legitimate form of taking wild animals will also have unintentional victims. Secondly, the fox is so widespread. Noble Lords have spoken of the hill farm foxes. The numbers of foxes that there are in Putney and Wimbledon are legion. The other day, I met a gentleman who was out shooting. He said that he has a farm which is close to somewhere like Caterham, and that this year they have shot 120 pheasants—it is only for the family—and 140 foxes. These are suburban foxes and they are a problem.
In good hunting country, there is a certain discipline about where the foxes are. It is good hunting country mainly because there are special preserves for foxes and large areas where they cannot live. There is a certain balance about it, and those areas are very carefully conserved for lunatics, such as myself, to go leaping across other people's fences and chasing them after hounds. There is a fox habitat and they cause damage in forestry—though less, perhaps—and in hill farms.
The health danger in towns, which could arise as a result of rabies, or something ghastly like that, is something about which we must be very careful. We should be very careful before we outlaw snaring, because it may catch something else or because we do
1084
not like it. We should not like killing anything but we do, and that is the way of the world.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I shall not detain your Lordships for more than half a moment, because most of the points have been made. But I should like to support my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas. Nobody likes snaring, because it is snaring. But, at the moment, it is an essential way of doing something in a practical manlier on large parts of hill country. My noble friend said that if you can find other ways of doing something, without needing three extra men, well and good. But if you abolish snaring in these areas there is one point which must be thought about. The farmers will not want to see a great increase in vermin. They will use poison even more than they do now. There is great danger of poisoning many more animals than you intend to kill. The indiscriminate abolishing of the snare, before there are satisfactory ways of killing vermin, will lead to illegal and greater use of poisons.
Lord Melchett: The noble Lord corrected himself. That is the very point that I was going to raise. Poisoning is illegal and, speaking as a farmer, I deplore the noble Lord's suggestion that a farmer would break the law on the scale he is suggesting.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: A short time ago my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas said that at one time he exported a lot of live foxes to hunting countries. Surely he did not snare those foxes? They would be in no condition for hunting. I should not like to hunt them. So how did he get those foxes? Presumably he dug them out. Why can he not do that now? Some noble Lords also said that foxes are bad for forestry. That is complete and utter nonsense. The Forestry Commission like foxes because they kill the small mice and the rabbits which eat the young trees. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that the fox is a very cruel animal. A fox can eat only by killing. But we do not have to eat the fox. I do not think that that argument is valid.
Earl Peel: I listened with interest to the arguments on both sides and I share the sympathies of those who have expressed concern about snaring. However, I support most fervently those who believe that snaring is a most important part of controlling the fox. We have talked about conservation and about the decrease in this country of many animals, birds and mammals. The fox is not on the decrease; it is very much on the increase.
If I may confine my remarks mainly to my own area which is the upland area of the North of England, this increase has been brought about by two major factors: by the very substantial reduction in the number of keepers and by the very substantial increase in the large forestry blocks which are to be seen in this part of the world.
If I may refer to Lord Melchett's remarks about fur skins, I fail to see what this has got to do with the argument. We are talking about keeping down a pest for agricultural purposes, for livestock purposes, or whatever. I do not see that the motives behind killing the fox are relevant to that part of the discussion.

1085
To take the matter a stage further, I believe that a very fine balance exists in the uplands and that the fox is included in that balance. As noble Lords know, most of upland Britain is utilised for two purposes: agriculture and grouse shooting. I make no bones about mentioning that subject, contentious though it may be. The combination of these two factors has for many years managed to maintain an indigenous population and the heather-clad rolling hills which we all enjoy so much, for whatever reason, and which have become such a major feature of this particular type of environment. However, when shooting interests have waned—and for various reasons they have waned—my experience has been that very often the agricultural pressure increases, to the detriment of the aesthetic aspects of the uplands. Then, inevitably, one finds what might be described as a monocultural environment. This I believe is detrimental to every aspect that we are looking at.
Farming is a vital characteristic of the uplands. It retains a population which otherwise would go. I think everyone agrees that that would be a very great shame. Farming is under continual financial pressure. Margins are dropping. Increased subsidies are vital in order to maintain upland farming. So this vital balance which exists is a crucial part of maintaining what we see at the moment.
One might well ask how the fox fits into this. If the shooting pressures go, we see an increase in the agricultural pressures which often tend to result in this monoculture. In Scotland we have seen the effects of the louping-ill and the tick. This is where there is a direct correlation. The louping-ill and the tick have had very serious effects on grouse. The result has been that agriculture in itself has failed to keep back the increase in forestry. Very substantial tracts of land which up to now have managed to retain, through the combination of grouse shooting and sheep farming, a viable upland environment are being wiped out.
I can see a correlation in my part of the world if the fox is allowed to become a major attacker of game birds. It is a major attacker already, but at the moment we have the snare. As one noble Lord said earlier, if an alternative method could be found to take the place of the snare I should welcome it, but to my knowledge it does not exist. If the fox is allowed to take over, the same situation will arise. Hill farming will not necessarily be able to stand up against the increase in forestry. Vast areas will go, affecting not only the environment but also tourism in this particular part of the world.
I think I have said enough. I am very conscious of the fact that the Government wish to deal with other amendments. However, I must add that I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton who mentioned poisons. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about poisons. Certain poisons at the moment can be taken. Cymag is one; it is a vital means of controlling foxes. I am quite certain that illegal poisons which unfortunately can still be obtained—there is no doubt about it—would be used in much greater numbers. I am sure noble Lords agree that this would be a very great shame.
Finally, may I refer to a passage from the winding-up speech at Second Reading of my noble friend Lord
1086
Avon. Referring to the Bill, he said that it is primarily a conservation, not a protection, Bill. Excessive protection of the fox would, in my opinion, in no way enhance conservation.
5.58 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I have a certain amount of hesitation in involving myself in the debate. Whatever one says, one is bound to incur the odium of at least half the Committee. However, that will not be an unfamiliar posture. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a very persuasive speech on the amendment. The amendment would have the effect of banning the use of snares without a licence. One has to balance, as the Committee have balanced, on the one hand the natural human sensibilities which everyone has over catching or killing any animal and, on the other, the need for adequate and proper pest control.
Snaring is, and always has been, an emotive topic. I can understand that. Having seen the terror of an animal caught in a snare, no one, by their nature, would wish such a device to be used. Having said that, one ought to emphasise that in fact snaring can be humane. A well-made snare, expertly set and free-running can cause death within seconds. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that it was only the profiteers, the profit-makers, who use this method. I think he described them as a dreadful specimen of humanity. I do not know whether in that engaging, all-embracing term he included my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas and several other noble Lords who said that they have used this method. The noble Lord was not quite fair over that, because it is a method which is used by people other than fur gatherers and fur sellers. It is even used by the Ministry of Agriculture for catching badgers and for tuberculosis research, a point which I know interests the noble Lord.
Of course, one forgets that snares can be used not to kill but to catch. It is possible to catch a badger and to use that animal for research purposes without killing it, provided that the snare properly set and that it is regularly inspected. indeed, in some cases it can be even more humane than trapping because if you get an animal in a cage it can become so frustrated that it goes round and round the cage and damages itself in the process. When it is used as an instantaneous instrument, even if death is not instantaneous, provided the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture is followed and the snare is properly set and inspected regularly, suffering need not be prolonged and it might be much less than that caused by a lingering death brought about by many other causes, such as disease or poor shooting.
Snaring can be selective. I am advised that a snare which is set on a fox run with a noose fixed about nine inches above the ground would be most unlikely to catch any badger which used that run. Its head would be carried low and it would tend to knock the snare up. To catch a badger, the noose would have to be larger, with the bottom of it almost resting on the ground. I accept of course that it is not always certain that a snare set for a fox would never catch a badger or anything else, but it is possible to reduce the chance to a minimum by skilful sighting and setting, and if in fact a badger were caught as a result of trying to catch something else, the person concerned would be guilty of an offence. Everything depends upon the

1087
skill and the care taken by the operator and I realise that some people are better at this than others.
If these two amendments were accepted it would mean that snaring could only be carried out under licence, and I do not believe that this is the best way of dealing with the problem. One of the reasons, and probably the most obvious reason, is that snares are cheap and can be made at home, and if such a ban is imposed snares will be made illegally and they will be set illegally. They are widely used and are necessary for farmers, gamekeepers and forestry workers, and illegal setting would be very difficult to control. The constraint of having to acquire a licence to snare, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said, would undoubtedly encourage the use of more dangerous alternatives, the most obvious being the widespread misuse of toxic chemicals and spring traps. That must be avoided.
I think my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas put it most succinctly when he said that this is not a straightforward problem. If there were a suitable and an adequate alternative, then it would be possible to say that we will do away with the snare; but as he and many other noble Lords have pointed out, there are occasions when the snare is the only proper and reasonable method to be used. I would only remind your Lordships that there are other people who have said—indeed, I think the Nature Conservancy Council said it—that there are occasions when the snare, used reasonably, can contribute to conservation in the control of pests, such as the rabbit. I think the problem of unskilled and careless operators will be better solved by education rather than by legislating against them.
I know that this will not be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I doubt whether it will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. What I ask of both noble Lords is to be generous enough to concede that while, quite rightly, they hold their views on this subject very strongly, there arc nevertheless restraints in the nature of pest control which would make the use of these undesirable instruments, as they are, nevertheless desirable on certain occasions.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Melchett: I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that he did not see what relevance my statistics on the huge increases in the snaring of foxes had to the debate on whether snares should be banned or not. I tried to make the point clear and I will briefly repeat it. This huge increase in snaring has this impact on the debate today, that inevitably this has led to a large number of snares being set by inexpert people, and inevitably a large number of animals which were not intended to be caught in the snares, have been caught, often with appallingly cruel consequences resulting in long cruel, agonising deaths. The animals included badgers, otters, domestic animals, deer caught by the leg and so on.
The noble Earl the Minister suggested that a snare set well for a fox would not catch a badger. All I can say to him is that the experts who have advised him have never watched a badger stop and sniff, because on occasions it holds its head very high indeed, quite high
1088
enough to be caught even by a well set snare for a fox. But the basis of my argument and the reason why I believe that the Committee should take a decision in favour of these amendments is that in the last four or five years there has been a massive increase in the use of snares.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said this did not matter because there were plenty of foxes; but the research workers at Oxford University who compiled these statistics said that in their own area of Oxfordshire, farmland fox home ranges averaged 234 hectares, each occupied by two or three adults. A population at that density could only just sustain the mortality of 1·7 foxes per square kilometre inflicted by farmers each year. So any further increase in hunting pressure due to the efforts of a pelt hunter could easily precipitate a decline in local numbers.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe the sale of fox pelts has fallen very rapidly in the last 12 months; they have gone out of fashion.
Lord Melchett: So far as I know, there is no evidence for that. The report from which I am quoting was published on 1st January 1981, and the figures contained in it go up to last year, and show quite the contrary trend.
A number of noble Lords have spoken of the damage done by foxes in a number of ways, and in response and in an endeavour to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is worried about the amendments, I should like to quote a letter from the infestation control branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. First, they say that the estimated damage to crops by foxes is nil, and I do not think that point was seriously raised. They go on to say that there is no objective estimate of damage to poultry. It is thought to be small because so few free range poultry are kept these days, but clearly such damage is a grievance to owners. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of localised problem which the licensing system is designed to deal with.
The letter from the Ministry of Agriculture goes on to say that it is estimated that the loss of lambs to foxes does not constitute a loss of economic significance to the farming community nationally, the losses have a much greater impact on individual farmers. Again, that is exactly the sort of problem which the licensing procedures in this Bill are designed to deal with. The letter points to a mass survey of farmers' estimates of Iamb loss in three predominantly sheep-rearing counties in mid-Wales, and I take it that was the sort of area that the noble Baroness was referring to in particular. In the survey the figure is given of a 0.5 per cent., loss of lambs to foxes. That was asking farmers themselves what happened. Again, of course, there will be individual farms where there are particular problems, exactly the sort of problem which the licensing procedures in this Bill are designed to deal with.
If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave this away, by himself referring to the use by MAFF officials of snares. That is done under licence and has no relevance to this amendment. This does not ban the use of snares under licence.
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, of course he has got the wrong end of the stick, which is unusual for him. I was not saying that it would be altered under this Bill, because he is quite right in saying that it could be done under licence. What I was trying to point out was that there are occasions when one can use a snare for the purposes of capturing an animal without necessarily intending to kill it.
Lord Melchett: I would not deny that, although I understand that MAFF themselves have adopted the use of a live trap, which is a far better system for catching animals if you want to keep them alive.
Somebody doing some research on otters in Scotland had the following to say about the problem of otters being caught in snares:
"Otters, like cats and badgers, are very strong and agile creatures, and when they are snared they do not die quickly or easily. Indeed they are rarely killed by a snare and are usually caught round the belly. They have to be hit over the head repeatedly with a stick to be killed. It has been known for otters caught by a limb to bite the limb off in order to free themselves."
It is that sort of despicable practice that we aim to prevent in this amendment. A number of noble Lords have said, "Well, show us an adequate alternative and we will agree with you". That is exactly the same argument that was used against the abolition of gin traps in this country. We left that too late, and I sincerely hope we shall not leave the abolition of snaring too late.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 147) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gridley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Banks, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beswick, L.

Hertford, M.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Brockway, L.

Kaldor, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

David, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McNair, L.

de Clifford, L.

Maelor, L.

De La Warr, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Diamond, L.

Melchett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milverton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Nathan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Garner, L.

Peart, L.

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Glenamara, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rhodes, L.

Gregson, L.

Ridley, V.

1090

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Underhill, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wade, L.

Seear, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Walston, L.

Shannon, E.

Whaddon, L.

Shepherd, L.

White, B.

Shinwell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Armstrong, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Atholl, D.

Loudoun, C.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Balerno, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barringlon, V.

Mansfield, E.

Bathurst, E.

Margadale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Marley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clinton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Congleton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Crathorne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cromartie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Peel, E.

De Freyne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Digby, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Exeter, M.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Falkland, V.

St. Just, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gibson, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Gibson-Walt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Slim, V.

Glasgow, E.

Somerleyton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Spens, L.

Gormanston, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Teviot, L.

Holderness, L.

Thurso, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Trumpington, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Tryon, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ullswater, V.

Killearn, L.

Vickers, B.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Westbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 12, line 11, leave out first (" mammal ") and insert (" animal ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 151, 178 and 179. These amendments all relate to the same small point, which is that Clause 11 is mainly intended to implement the European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Convention, Article 8 and Appendix 4, which use the words "live animals" and not "live mammals". The amendment that I am moving to substitute "live animal" for "live mammal" is simply to try to extend the range of statutory powers—for example, so as to avoid further primary legislation if the European Convention should be extended to additional types of animal. There may be nothing very important in this, and the Minister may well have considered whether this is a valid point or not. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I think that there are difficulties here. I quite see why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has put down this amendment. But, if one can use colloquial terms, "mammals" are what one might describe as furry animals and "animals" include birds and fish and other creeping objects. One of the effects of the noble Lord's amendment—and I know that he is a great humanitarian as regards, for instance, fox-hunting, badgers and, indeed, snares—is that, if it were to succeed, he would, in effect, ban much fishing, because the effect of the amendment might well be to prevent fishing with the use of live bait, live fish and, indeed, even maggots. I think that that is probably going rather further than the noble Lord expected and, therefore, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I think that it probably would be going rather further and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The next amendment is No. 150. I point out that if Amendment No. 150 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 151 and 152.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("any live mammal whatever ") and insert ("any tape recording or any live mammal whatsoever which is tethered or which is secured by braces or other similar apparatus or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 150. The subsection concerned makes it an offence to use as a decoy any live mammal whatever which is blind, maimed or injured. The prohibition in Clause 5(1) in the case of birds uses different wording. It says:
"uses as a decoy … any tape recording or any live bird whatsoever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is blind, maimed or injured".
I have put down the amendment to ask why the provision which applies to birds should not equally well be applied to mammals. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The justification for having a few reservations about this amendment is that we would not wish to see a general ban on the use of tape recordings as a decoy. I understand that there is the possibility that tape recordings could be a potentially effective tool in pest control. If the amendment were moved into the Bill it would lead inevitably to a demand for licences to employ the method. We would wish to avoid any unnecessary licences. But the use of any live animal which has been tethered or secured in some way as a decoy is, I think, reprehensible if, indeed, it is practised. So far I have not heard of any instances and I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to give any instances. However, I would not wish to oppose the amendment so far as the use of live mammals as decoys is concerned, and I would only ask my noble friend that if he has any particular examples perhaps he would care to produce them to me before the next stage of the Bill and we can see exactly what it is that he is getting at. I am still not absolutely certain myself what he is getting at with this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I would be very happy if my noble friend would consider just leaving out the tape recording reference which, in any case, probably ought to refer to a wire recording, and just consider tethering and securing by means of braces. I have no example. However, it seems to me that if it is suitable for birds it should be suitable for mammals. I simply leave the matter at that.
Baroness David: Our Amendment No. 52 does exactly what Lord Craigton's amendment would do if he deleted the reference to "any tape recording". I am afraid that at the moment I, too, have no examples.
Earl Ferrers: If I am not totally out of order in referring to the noble Baroness's amendment, I should like to say that when she moves it I was going to say that I had not any idea of what examples she might have in mind and I was hoping that she would be able to produce some. But, as, in fact, she is unable to produce any, I shall not make that remark when she comes to move her amendment! What I shall say is that, of course, I shall consider the matter but, without any obvious reasons for introducing the amendment, I cannot see why we should be tempted to agree it at the next stage. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is about to fulminate and I shall certainly listen to him and consider what he has to say.
Lord Melchett: The debate on Amendment No. 150 has really covered all the amendments, because they all deal with exactly the same point. I think that the argument in favour of introducing it would be twofold. First, the noble Earl was asked earlier whether he could think of any examples of things causing damage and he said "No, but something might come along in the future which this applied to". So, it seems to me that, even if none of us has come across this reprehensible practice—I think we all agree that it is a reprehensible practice—during our walks through the countryside, that is not a sufficient argument against ensuring that legislation makes it impossible that it should happen.

1093
The second argument—and I think that this is a good deal stronger—is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has pointed out, this is already banned as regards birds. I do not know very much about the interpretation of statutes, but it seems to me that if it is explicitly included in the birds part and excluded in the animals part, the inference that somebody reading the Act is likely to draw from that is that it is okay for mammals, even though it is not okay for birds. That would clearly be an absurdity and something that none of us would want. I cannot think of any good reason for not accepting Amendment No. 152. That seems to me to be the question that really needs answering.
Earl Ferrers: Of course we shall look at it again. I am bound to say that I thought that the second of the noble Lord's arguments, which he said was even the more forceful, was, in fact, infinitely less so. To say that you use something for birds and therefore you use it for animals, invites the obvious retort that birds are, different from animals—birds fly and animals do not—and certain restrictions which may be required to be applied to birds need not necessarily be required to apply to animals. However, I shall certainly look at it.
Lord Craigton: Perhaps my noble friend will also consider the bird wording, because it says, "any live mammal", not "any live bird".
Earl Ferrers: I shall look at that as well.
Lord Craigton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("which is blind, maimed or injured").
The noble Lord said: We all agree with the Bill as it stands, as far as it goes. We would certainly object to using as a decoy a live animal which is blind, maimed or injured. But my amendment seeks to outlaw the using of live mammals as decoys at all. The need is not very clear to me, but I am sure it might be explained where a live decoy is justified in the purpose of killing or taking any other animal. It is an underhand way of catching anything.
Noble Lords opposite are the great sportsmen of the nation; they believe in fair play, fair dealing, high moral standards and all the rest in relationships with each other, and sometimes in relationships with animals themselves. So I look to them to justify the use of a live animal, uninjured, not maimed and not blind, as a decoy for the purpose of capturing and killing some other animal. That really is the purpose of a decoy. I leave it at that. It is part of a general campaign in the course of this Bill to try to eliminate undesirable practices which come to light in our general consideration of conservation. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to this amendment, I think that the same stricture applies as applied to the
1094
previous ones; that, in fact, this would prevent some forms of fishing. It is difficult to say in exactly what cases it would be desirable to use live decoys. However, there are occasions when these are used in fishing. I will consider the noble Lord's point further because I am not wholly unsympathetic to the idea. I think that the amendment would effectively ban that.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not think that people use tethered mice to catch pike; I think that they only use pierced gudgeon, or something like that. I cannot think of any excuse for using a tethered or live animal as bait. In India in 1880 they tethered goats to shoot panthers, but I do not think we are talking about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is asking for support from this side from the sporting fraternity among us, I would tend to support him.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am absolutely certain that if anyone was to use a mammal as live bait it would be under his control and it would be an offence under the Cruelty to Animals Act. Equally, I am sure that it does not occur. I also believe that if my noble friend Lord Ferrers was to consult with the fishing community at large, he would find that on the whole there is a general distaste for the use of live bait of any kind. This he will be able to verify by reference to the representative voluntary bodies concerned with fishing and also by perusal of the fishing literature. On those grounds, I do not believe that he need fear the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Earl Ferrers: As I said, I shall certainly look at this again.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I did not catch what the noble Earl said.
Earl Ferrers: I said that in view of the remarks that have been made I would look at this again. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that, even though the fishing fraternity do not like or do not approve of the use of live bait, it is of course used.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thought for a moment that the noble Earl had accepted something. At least he is to look at my amendment again. We have to be content with small mercies in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("; or
(d) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal—

(i) any bow or crossbow,

(ii) any automatic or semi-automatic weapon; or

(iii) any device for illuminating a target or sighting device for night shooting; or

(e) sets in position any of the following articles, being an article which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild mammal which comes into contact therewith, that is to say, any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substance.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154, in effect I should like to speak only to the second half of the amendment for reasons which I shall briefly

1095
explain, and I apologise for any confusion or inconvenience that that causes. First, in paragraph (d)(i) my amendment would seek to make the use of a bow or crossbow illegal. Amendment No. 155A has been tabled which would do that, and that seems to me to be the more straightforward way of approaching the problem. I hope to support that amendment when we reach it.
Paragraph (d) (ii) deals with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. We have had such long and extensive debates on that particular subject that, as someone who is extremely inexpert in the field of firearms, I do not wish to attempt to get involved in that. Therefore, it would seem sensible to leave that to the particular amendments which are aimed at automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and for me not to attempt an amendment on the subject.
Finally, paragraph (d)(iii) does not seem to me to be entirely apposite now, because following our debate on the possibility of making night-shooting illegal, we decided that that should not be allowed and I can see some good arguments for having devices which illuminate targets if people are to shoot in the dark. On welfare grounds, if for no other reason, animals are more likely to be killed cleanly than otherwise. Therefore, as a result of debates we have had since the Marshalled List was drawn up, paragraph (d) seems to be redundant.
However, I should like to refer to paragraph (e) and to treat this at this stage as a probing amendment which I hope will receive a favourable response from the Government so that either we or they can return to it on Report. As I made clear in interjecting in remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, made on a previous amendment, the present position on poisoning is that the, Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was amended. in 1927, applies to England and Wales. Section 8A of that Act prohibits the sale or giving away of poisoned seed or grain, except for bona fide agricultural use. Section 8B prohibits the placing of poisonous matter on any land or building. However, provided that reasonable precautions arc taken to prevent access by domestic animals and wild birds, the use of poison to destroy insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice and other small ground vermin is permitted.
The position in Scotland is similar but not exactly the same. There are two important differences. First, vermin is not qualified by the adjective "small", and although reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent access by domestic animals, this apparently does not extend to wild birds in the same way as it does in England and Wales. Incidentally, given our previous discussion, it is unclear whether foxes would qualify as vermin. As this has not been tested in the courts, although poisoned baits are often put out for foxes, this may well not be legal under Scottish law. I understand that the Lord Advocate gave an opinion in 1924 that they did, but that was not the main point of the case and, therefore, the matter still has to be tested in the courts, if anyone wishes to do so.
The Protection of Birds Acts 1954 and 1967 prohibit the use or setting in position of poison or stupefying substances with the intention of causing injury to any wild bird. The same section recognises the existence
1096
of the other legislation to which I have referred. Its wording disallows the defence of an accident, except where the defendant can show that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to wild birds. Stupefying baits may, of course, be used under licence to control species in the pest schedule, and that will of course remain the position under this Bill. So the use of poisoned baits to control wildlife at the moment is strictly controlled and we have a number of international obligations which reinforce our obligation to control to the use of poisons.
Clause 5 of the Bill continues the strict prohibition against the use of poisons to kill birds which were in the protection of Birds Act. However, the purpose of my amendment and the argument behind it is my concern that there is a potential conflict between this Bill and existing legislation, which may complicate the position and may even increase the use of poisons in the countryside, something which I think all of us would deplore.
Poisons are notoriously unselective in their operation and a poison bait can kill whatever comes into contact with it, whether it is a bird, a badger, a fox, or some other creature after a free meal, in particular domestic pets. Recent answers to Parliamentary Questions have shown that in 1980 over 100 confirmed cases of the deliberate misuse of poisons came to the attention of the authorities and to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in England and Wales, and those are undoubtedly the tip of a very large iceberg. The number of reported cases, each of which is already an offence, is increasing each year.
This problem has been highlighted in particular by the RSPB in their report Silent Death, where there is a quite appalling catalogue of the damage done to some of our rarest birds by poisons, and also to mammals and pets, does, and so on. Indeed, even examples of children who have picked up eggs, taken them home and cooked them and been saved from a quick and painful death in the nick of time. These things are extremely dangerous.
In Clause 11(2) certain methods of killing wild mammals listed in Schedule 6 are prohibited, and these prohibited methods include poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substances. This is reasonable so far as it goes, but anybody reading this clause who is unaware of the provisions of Clause 5, which is quite likely because on the whole one would turn to Clause 11 to look at restrictions on methods of killing, or even more likely is unaware of the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 and 1912, may believe erroneously that it is legitimate for them to use poison against those wild animals not listed in Schedule 6.
I assume that Clause 11(4) is intended to make clear that that is not the case, but it does not seem to me that that clause achieves that purpose. I, for one, from reading the clause, did not understand that to be so. There is widespread agreement—and in particular the Minister, Mr. Monro, in another place reinforced this—that we should do all we possibly can to stamp out the illegal use of poisons in the countryside. In reading what the Minister said about this in that particular debate, I was delighted where he took a very firm and welcome line to all of us concerned about this matter.
My amendment clearly goes further than would be

1097
desirable because it would exclude the use of poisons against small ground vermin, for example rats and mice, and that would need to be seen to if an amendment of this sort were to be included in the Bill, unless that were to be got over by the use of the licensing procedure. But I think that would be going too far in the licensing. However, I think it important that licensing procedures are used much more strictly to control the use of poisons and in particular strychnine, of which there is clearly a far larger amount in circulation than is needed to control moles, which is the only legitimate use.
In 1976, 26½ lbs. was issued in Wales alone. That was a good deal more than in the two subsequent years, when about 14 lbs. was issued. Nevertheless, it seems to me far more than could possibly be needed for legitimate uses. No doubt that is why we find badgers, buzzards, red kites, and many other animals and birds being killed by the use of poisoned bait.
An amendment along these lines, with the sort of exception I have mentioned, would clarify what I hope I have demonstrated is a pretty confused situation with different prohibitions existing in different Acts, some of them dating hack to the early 1900s. It would not represent a major change from the existing position because, despite the opinions in some quarters, it is illegal to set poisons or poisonous baits to kill wild birds and most mammals. I believe that that should be made absolutely clear because there is a quite appalling catalogue of the misuse of poisons in the countryside at the moment, and I hope an amendment along these lines would prove acceptable to the Government.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt: This is really an omnibus amendment, and I do not intend to reply to everything that the noble Lord has spoken about. I agree with him when he says that certain poisons are sometimes over-used, and wrongly used. I would remind him—I think he is aware of it—that the use of strychnine is against the law except, as he rightly said, for the purpose of dealing with moles. I should not like your Lordships' Committee to say that all poisons could not be used. There is one particular poison that is cymag, which, if it is used properly, can be very sensibly used to get rid of vermin. I am not saying that it should be put indiscriminately down badger holes to control foxes.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, spoke on an earlier amendment, and I come from the same sort of area—an area where we have no hunt and have to dispose of large numbers of foxes by various means. There are occasions when the sensible use of cymag in a single hole is perhaps not the most cruel way of disposing of a fox which is worrying sheep. I would hope that this amendment would not in itself be accepted. In fact the noble Lord himself did not expect it to he. In the same way, the use of warfarin for grey squirrels is another thing which has to be watched, but which I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to see removed. I will not speak any longer. I merely wish to put a balance in this debate for your Lordships' convenience.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: While agreeing with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said about the undesirability of poisoning practically any animal—and particularly it is true that there is a misuse of strychnine for moles—I should like to point out that in our part of Scotland, and in Scotland as a whole, the use of poison carefully placed in a mole run is now practically the only method of mole control that we have. We cannot get people to trap them any more; that has gone. This is an important agricultural process. I do not know whether better control of the issue of the poison can be devised, but that it is essential for the control of moles there is no doubt whatsoever under present circumstances.
6.48 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for saying that he would not press this amendment. Had he indicated otherwise, I would be bound to say that in the nature of it, as it is, it would be unacceptable. I am also grateful to him for highlighting, the problem as he has, because it is a real one. He said that there was a confused situation with regard to the use of poison. I would not call it confused so much as intricate. In fact, all poisons which are used in pest control are covered by legislation; but the legislation is, I agree with him, piecemeal and complicated. It would probably he imprudent and indeed undesirable for me to go into its ramifications here.
He is quite right to draw attention to the fact that when poisons are misused—and they are on occasions misused—they can cause a great deal of damage, and a great deal of damage to animals and indeed birds which were not the subject of the use in the first place. The use of poisonous substances and stupefying agents is controlled, and I suppose that of those two things strychnine and alphachloralose are the best examples. They are in fact covered by Section 11, as amended, of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and by regulations made in 1963, and the Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962 also covered the point. But this last Act makes it unlawful to use strychnine to kill any mammal except moles, and the fact is that strychnine is by far the most effective method of controlling moles, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. Were there any equally efficient and less dangerous alternative which met the criteria of being humane and of low risk to other wild life and to the operators' safety, we should be happy to see the use of strychnine abandoned, but at the moment it does not seem that there is that alternative.
A great deal of research has been done by scientists in the past decade but they have had little success so far in finding an acceptable alternative. The use of strychnine and pure alphachloralose is strictly controlled and the problem with those two substances would appear to be not the use of them but the misuse or abuse of them. We are at present looking at ways of tightening up the use of strychnine, even by putting a colouring agent in it so that if an animal or bird is killed it may be possible to determine from the colour of its flesh whether it was killed by strychnine sold under permit. We are conscious of the danger which can be caused by these particular substances, and I take note

1099
of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. My initial feeling is that this Bill would probably not be the right vehicle into which to put all the regulations in regard to poisons, but I shall certainly see if anything can be done and, if so, what.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I was particularly heartened to hear his remarks about Government moves to tighten up on the use of strychnine. It seems that this problem has reached such serious proportions that unless we can find some way of tightening up on the illegal use of strychnine and these other substances, we shall have to take drastic action to curb their use, including banning them, and that would clearly be objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and others. Nevertheless, the Minister in another place, at column 163 of Hansard on 10th November, described the illegal use of poisons as one of the biggest threats facing some of our rarest birds. He went on to say that it was extremely difficult to detect all such offences because they occurred in remote areas of the countryside and it could be many days, if ever, before the stricken bird was detected.
What the noble Earl said about colouring strychnine would clearly be of assistance, but the fact that there is so much legislation on this subject seems to reinforce the case for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, which we discussed last week and which I hope is being seriously considered by the Government, for passing some liability to landowners for the illegal placing of poisons on their land. As I said at the time, that seemed to me to be a modest amendment. Having heard what the noble Earl said and having considered this particular point, that seems to be the very least we need to do.
Earl Ferrers: I would add in confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that I am acutely conscious of the fact that it is the misuse and abuse, and not the use, of the poison substances that is doing the damage. I am also acutely conscious of the fact that if there are those who abuse it, they will, possibly in the long run, deter proper use of the product, and that of course would have deleterious effects such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("; or
(d) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild animal any air weapon").
The noble Lord said: I return to the subject of the air gun. This matter was raised earlier in relation to birds, when the Minister said that consideration would be given to including an air weapon in the list of prohibited ways of killing certain animals. I had hoped to see the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, include the catapult this time, as he did for birds, and I shall, with permission, link the two for the moment. A feature article appeared in my local paper, the Surrey Mirror,
1100
last Friday drawing attention to the importation into this country from the United States of what is called a slingshot. This is a high-powered weapon with a range of 225 yards: the instructions and guidance which come with the weapon make it clear that it is a hunting weapon, and the makers give hunting tips:
"Be a good sportsman … Hunt only game animals and only in season … Never take over the legal limit … Always secure permission before hunting on private property … Slingshot shooting is a real challenge which you will master, but the sport also expects responsible action by all who are part of it".
Then they show a rabbit or hare, a bird which could be a pigeon or dove, another animal which could be a rat, another which could be a sparrow or a songbird, a squirrel, an otter and and a snake. That is the slingshot. It is £2·50, on sale to anybody of whatever age who likes to walk in and buy it. I am not a bit surprised that the leading article in the Surrey Mirror warns all parents locally to look carefully before they allow their children to buy this slingshot.
This may persuade the Minister to look at the air gun in relation to mammals and the catapult or slingshot in relation to mammals, as he undertook to do in connection with birds. I think I have said enough to impress the Minister with the seriousness of the air gun and the slingshot as methods of killing both birds and mammals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to look at the same time at Amendment No. 165, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It refers to the air gun, air rifle and air pistol and would insert a provision in another part of the Bill. However, as the Government are looking at the matter with regard to birds, if we could have an assurance in relation to my amendment, that might help to speed up our proceedings.
Lord Melchett: I hope the Government will look at this at this point in the Bill, which they promised to do when we discussed the subject on an earlier amendment. The week-end after that debate, I heard from somebody who had visited a cave with bats in it; the Committee will not be surprised to hear that I am returning to that subject again, but I promise to do so only briefly. There were about 350 live bats in the cave and 80 to 90 dead ones lying on the ground, some of which had been crushed by stones but the majority of which had clearly been shot with air guns. That is the sort of sport which we hope will be prohibited if we get the ban on air guns which I think is desired by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee.
There is another point which I wish to put on the record so that when the Government are considering the matter they can take it into account. I am looking at a leaflet produced on predator control by the working party to which I referred earlier and which is representative of a great number of organisations, including the British Field Sports Society, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Masters of Foxhounds' Association and Masters of Otterhounds' Association, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was also a member representing the Mammal Society and will know about this better than I do. I have looked at the shooting recommendations in their booklet because, when the noble Earl, Lord

1101
Avon, agreed to look at this matter, I think I heard him say—I have not had an opportunity to read his speech in Hansard—that it might be necessary to allow the use of air guns for predator control. However, this booklet says clearly, and this was agreed by all the different bodies, including the nature conservation organisations whose representatives were on the committee:
"Air weapons are not considered to be suitable for use in predator control".
I hope the Government will take that into account when they are considering this point, which they have undertaken to do.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is always a fund of information and instruction, and I was surprised to hear of some of the things they get up to in Surrey. As my noble friend Lord Avon has given a commitment to consider a similar amendment in regard to birds, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall certainly give consideration to this amendment in regard to animals.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert —
("; or
(d) uses for the purposes of killing or taking any wild mammal any bow or crossbow.").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 155A and 162A. The purpose of these amendments is to ban bows and crossbows. I can see no reason whatsoever for using bows or crossbows. In every way a gun does a better job; added to which it is necessary to have a licence to possess a gun, which gives some control of its use. But no licence is required for bows or crossbows. Modern crossbows are very dangerous and powerful. They can easily kill an animal as big as a deer; and there have been many recorded examples of misuse of bows and crossbows, including damage and death to livestock, particularly sheep. If your Lordships accept this amendment—I had the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was certainly going to support me, and I believe that, perhaps, not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might support me—I feel sure that, apart from the points I have already made, it would give greater protection to wildlife, as does the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Caithness on the control of air guns. I beg to move.
The Duke of Atholl: I should very much like to support this amendment. I can see no reason why bows or crossbows should be allowed for killing any mammal, and I would have thought that this was an amendment which the Government could well accept.
Baroness David: I, too, should like to support this amendment.
Lord Dulverton: I should like to rise momentarily to support my noble friend's amendment. On this occasion I speak on behalf of the British Deer Society, who have experience of the most fearful occasions of deer being maimed—
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I am sure he will be expressing the views of the British Deer Society but he does not speak for anyone other than himself.
Lord Duherton: I beg to support my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers:I really did not mean to truncate my noble friend too quickly, and I apologise if I did. All I would say is that I should like to support the amendment, too, but I cannot actually accept it because I think it may not be technically correct. But on the understanding that I will look at it and put down an amendment which will be correctly acceptable, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to thank my noble friend very much for that statement. I feel it must have something to do with the fact that my noble friend the Chief Whip is present, about to announce a pleasurable experience for us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham:I think this is probably a suitable moment at which to adjourn for dinner, if noble Lords on the other side will agree; and after we have completed the intervening business, perhaps we should resume the Committee stage of this Bill at eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bill of Rights Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It seems a long time since I first embarked on this subject. As to the Bill itself, if today this House approves the Third Reading, I calculate that I shall have gained a Second Reading in this House four times and a Third Reading twice; and in due course, if it finds its way to another place, it will twice have been sent to the Commons. I hope that that is an augury for the future. I am certainly grateful for the patience of all those noble Lords who have taken part, whether for or against the Bill.
Since the Report stage of the Bill, which was only a week ago, I have had the opportunity to read the report of the Lords Select Committee—that is, the 71st Report, 1980—on the proposed accession of the European Communities to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the outcome of that report is more or less what I had anticipated. Certainly the committee deserves to be thanked for its work. It recommends that the report be debated, but it points out certain technical and other difficulties in accession (if I may call it so) en bloc. In my view the report

1103
strengthens the case for the Bill which is before your Lordships. It certainly does not detract from the arguments which have been put forward for incorporation, as suggested in my Bill.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to avoid repetition, but for the benefit of those who may not have had the opportunity to read Hansard I should like to mention two basic issues—and I do so for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments. The first question is as to whether, in our present stage of constitutional development and in the complex society in which we now live, we ought to move towards greater protection for basic liberties and rights. This can conveniently be referred to as a Bill of Rights, hence the Title of the Bill now before us. Your Lordships will be aware that the Select Committee set up by this House to study my Bill decided that if a move towards a Bill of Rights was desirable then the most satisfactory way forward would be to use, or to make use of, the articles of the European Convention which have been signed and ratified. So that is the first basic issue. It is so well known to some of your Lordships that I apologise for repeating it, but I think it needed stating.
The second basic issue is this. Should the articles of the convention and protocols that the United Kingdom ratifies be treated as part of the law of our land and not merely as treaty obligations? There are many people who still do not understand this. If they feel that they are suffering in some way for some action that appears to be in conflict with an article of the European Convention, or if in the process of court proceedings they raise an article of the convention, they expect it to be a matter which the judge of whatever court it may be can properly regard as if it were the law. But what is contained in a treaty is not the law of the land. That was pointed out very clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the Second Reading debate. It is not necessary for me to repeat it; but the object of my Bill is to rectify what some of us regard as an anomaly. Those are the two basic issues as I see the matter.
I should like to turn for a few moments to Article 60 of the convention, which is also contained in the definition clause in my Bill. I refer to it for this reason. In discussions that take place among the general public about standardisation between this country and European countries, I sometimes find it alleged that the original position (in standards, for example) which prevailed in this country earlier is better than at the present day. I am not going to enter into that controversy; I am not going to say whether those arguments are sound or not sound. What I wish to say now is that there is no necessity tonight to enter into that controversy; it is clearly stated in Article 60—and it was deliberately included in this Bill—that nothing in the convention shall be construed as limiting the rights or freedoms ensured under the existing law; so we are not limiting existing law.
Returning to the basic issues—and here I explain why I have made special mention of them—I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in the debate on Second Reading. In effect, he said that a Bill ought to receive due consideration in the Commons if it has been passed through this House, and especially if it has been passed twice
1104
through this House. It is not for me to say what another place should do, but I should like to add this observation. If we are to have a single Chamber, if the House of Lords is to be abolished and no other Chamber put in its place, I would not expect those who support that view to be particularly interested in a Bill that has gone through this House even though it has been approved several times. But if there are those—and certainly I am one of them—who believe in the value of a Second Chamber, the position is different. I believe that the parliamentary system can only function satisfactorily if both Houses have an opportunity of debating basic issues. I take the view that this is such a case. I cannot do more than express a hope, but I hope that the point will be kept in mind in another place.
My Lords, I know that it is customary on an occasion such as this, when one has reached the Third Reading, for the sponsor of the Bill to express appropriate thanks at the end of the debate; but I should like to slip in three expressions of thanks now before I sit down. First, I should like to say that I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, because throughout he has constantly disagreed with me on certain aspects; and the fact that he has done so has helped to make for a more balanced debate. Secondly, I should like to acknowledge—and I hope that I am using just the right words—the courteous neutrality of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Thirdly, I must express my gratitude for the contributions from the Cross-Benches including, in particular, the three noble and learned Law Lords who made some very important contributions to the debate and who were extremely encouraging to me. Having said that, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to pass the necessary Motion to give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Wade.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for his very kind words, and also to offer him warm congratulations on the way he has piloted this Bill and the earlier ones through this House and on the enthusiasm and constant determination that he has shown in this cause. Without entering into the details of the merit of the Bill tonight, there is one thing that I would say about its possible passage through the other place—and, who knows, the other place deciding to pass the Bill?—and that is this. It will be an occasion for at least some regret that there would then be no further cause for us to continue the "club" which we have formed, which has continued for these past few years and which has been a very enjoyable one.
Lord Wade: My Lords, if I may interrupt for a moment, I should be very surprised if there were no amendments.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we shall see. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I do not want now to go into the detailed merits or otherwise of the Bill, but I should like to take up one matter arising from what he said tonight about the possible future parlia

1105
mentary discussions on the Bill. First of all, your Lordships know and appreciate the reasons why we from this Dispatch Box—and I do not speak for my party generally because there are different views held—have not been able to support the Bill although we have also not felt disposed to seek to obstruct its passage through the House. As we have seen previously, the Bill has itself drawn support and opposition from the three parties—and indeed the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, too, have been divided on the Bill.
The matter it deals with, the whole matter of human rights, is clearly of continuing and crucial importance. We have all been united in upholding the fundamental importance of protecting and developing human rights. What has divided us is not ends but means. We have been divided about the best means, the best machinery, to achieve the ends which I believe we all seek. This is why there are differing views about incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our law; why there have been differing views about the difficulties, as some would see them, which it would give rise to in our courts if it were incorporated, and why there have been differing views about whether or not the individual would benefit more from incorporation than under our present system. At the very least, continuing discussion of these matters is part of the responsibility of Parliament; and surely only good—certainly no harm—would he done by sending this Bill to another place. There would then be an opportunity for further productive examination of the great issues which arise from it—the arguments for and against.
My own party—like others—has been in the forefront of the battle to set up effective machinery to deal with human rights matters. We have strongly supported and welcomed the extension of the right to petition individually, and our view certainly has not changed about the importance and great value of the convention itself. It is right that these matters should receive full consideration. This is what I would be inclined to say in response to the point introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about future parliamentary discussion: if in another place it was decided to give further consideration to these matters, that certainly would not be unwelcome to us on this Bench. We would in those circumstances look forward to further progress in seeking the best means to advance the cause of human rights which all of us seek.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as your Lordships know, I have indicated on earlier occasions that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is very strongly in favour of the promotion of human rights; but as the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has pointed out, there are differences as to the way in which that can best be achieved in present circumstances. The Government's view is that the best way forward in this situation is, if possible, to attain a fairly large measure of agreement. That would be a matter which would be expected to be attained under the machinery of, first of all, talks between the major interests concerned, and then the promotion of a measure with detailed consideration
1106
behind it.
The Government's view is that the discussion which has taken place here has been extremely useful. As I said in the Second Reading debate, it is very remarkable how much new can be said after there have been so many debates on the same subject. I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to thank him for what he said about my "courteous neutrality". I believe that he has done a great service to the cause of human rights by what he has done in this House. It is not appropriate for me to say what will happen in another place or to discuss the procedures in another place. The present anticipation is that the amount of business with which another place is presently charged is so pressing, so great, that it is unlikely that much further progress can be made in this particular subject in this Session. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke of this at Second Reading and the judge's dream. I was thinking afterwards that perhaps the words of John Bunyan might be appropriate:
"I awoke and, behold, it was a dream".
7.25 p.m.
Lord Wade: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships. I will of course study what the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have said. I have the impression, from comparing remarks that were made a year ago and those made today, that although perhaps cautious, there is indicated some movement in the course of the year. To that extent I am gratified by what has been said.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, is certainly in favour of continuing discussion, and I gather that he would be in favour of continuing discission in another place. I have already observed that I must not say what ought to happen in another place, but when I refer to basic issues what I have in mind in a two-Chamber Parliament is this: the Second Reading in both Chambers provides the best opportunity for debating the basic issues. From that there follows a Committee stage and possible amendments.
When I said that I should be surprised if there were no amendments, I had in mind that if it received the discussion that I should like in another place I should not be surprised if someone thought of some amendment to send back to this House so our task would not be finally completed.
In view of the time and the many discussions that we have already had, your Lordships would not wish me to enter further into some of the underlying problems. I express my gratitude to all those who have spoken and I hope that your Lordships will see fit to agree that this Bill be read a third time.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December

1107
be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order proposes to make changes in the fisheries law of Northern Ireland affecting punishments for offences, the regulation of sea-fishing and the culture of shell-fish.
There are two fishery codes in Northern Ireland—the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, which, in parallel with similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, applies to the fisheries in the basin of the River Foyle, and the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which applies to other inland fisheries and to fishing for sea-fish.
Article 3 and Schedule 1 alter the maximum punishments which may be imposed for offences under the Acts of 1952 and 1966 and also the punishments for offences under two other Acts—namely, the Diseases of Fish Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the Fish Industry Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. In the more serious cases, such as the unlawful capture or sale of salmon or trout, the offences have been made indictable an an alternative to the present procedures whereby offences can be prosecuted only before a court of summary jurisdiction.
There is concern about the threat to salmon stocks, especially in the Foyle area, by poachers and illegal dealers with ready outlets in hotels and restaurants. The severity of the proposed punishments reflect this concern. The activities of poachers in the Foyle area have had a serious effect on the stocks of salmon trying to make their way to the spawning grounds. In fixing the new maximum punishments, the order seeks to standardise them, so far as is possible, between the Foyle area and the rest of Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Article 4 extends the scope of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, enabling the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to regulate the records to be kept and returns of sales and catches to be made by sea-fishermen and fish-salesmen; namely, those who auction or deal in fish at the point of landing, including those selling fish by contract. The information provided by these records and returns will be of considerable importance if conservation measures are to be successful. Returns are at present made on a voluntary basis, but there is little or nothing that the department could do if, say, a fish salesman were to refuse to make returns.
The provisions contained in Article 5, which give the Department of Agriculture powers of inquiry and examination in relation to all licensed fish farms, are mainly concerned with finding a more suitable position in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 for provisions formerly in section 137(3) of that Act. However, the powers in that section were in respect only of shellfish fisheries. The new provision will extend to freshwater fish farms and will enable authorised officers to enter and examine all things used in the running of a fish farm to determine whether the licensees are complying with licensed conditions. The maintenance of strict hygienic conditions in these establishments is of the greatest importance, if they are not to become breeding grounds for disease. In fact, the standard of hygiene in existing fish farms is at present very high, and this is of great importance in securing the export
1108
of their produce. The article aims to ensure that that remains the condition.
Articles 6 and 7 are concerned with the regulation of sea-fisheries. They re-enact existing legislation in simplified form, and in particular remove a restriction under which prohibitions on the taking of particular species of fish are limited in duration to one year at a time. That has given rise to difficulty, because it has meant that the problem caused by the erosion of fish stocks to a critical level has, up to now, had to be dealt with piecemeal. In future the period of a prohibition will be fixed by the regulations themselves, and this will make the Government's strategy clearer to the fishermen concerned.
Article 8 and Schedule 2 replace existing sections of the Act of 1966 relating to oyster bed licences and oyster fishery orders (which to some extent overlapped) with a single set of provisions for the granting of shell-fish fishery licences. The new provisions to a large extent re-enact the substance of the existing ones, but they overcome a difficulty which has been encountered with regard to the grant of licences in respect of Crown foreshore.
Article 9 extends the powers of an authorised sea-fishery officer so as to enable him to require the cooperation of the crew of a fishing boat which he boards in the course of his duties.
Although the amendments made by the order are comparatively minor, they will make useful improvements in the legislation affected. I commend the order to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
7.33 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the draft amendment order. Though he said that the amendments made by the order are minor, they are far-reaching in many respects, and I think that in general they are welcomed within the fishing industry. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, upon the extension of his ministerial duties in the Northern Ireland Office. In addition to his Department of Education brief, he now has direct responsibility for the Department of Agriculture, which embraces the fisheries that we are discussing this evening. I know that the noble Lord will find the Northern Ireland farming community, as well as those engaged in fishing, most hardworking and energetic people. I am sure that he will have the good will of both the farming and fishing industries, and he certainly has my best wishes for the promotion of the wellbeing and prosperity of these industries.
We on this side of the House support the order. I believe that the measures contained in it have the general approval and support of those directly concerned with fisheries in Northern Ireland. While the fisheries industry in the Province is relatively small, I understand that last year it accounted for over £12 million in gross value to the economy. I know that it will not be disputed when I claim that the five branches of fisheries are experiencing very difficult problems with steeply rising costs and overheads, especially for oil fuel. One vessel owner who had been out three or four nights fishing told me that it

1109
took almost three weeks of continual fishing to cover the cost of the fuel and oil for the earlier trip. This is an onerous burden facing many fishermen at the present time. Various representations have been made to me concerning the order, even within the last hour. In my view many of the representations, while fair and understandable, do not fall within the order at this time.
The five branches of the fisheries in Northern Ireland are all dealt with in this amending order. The first branch is that of the sea fisheries, which consists of about 140 small vessels and about 100 small boats, mainly engaged in inshore fishing around the coastline of the Province. Then there is the eel fishing in Lough Neagh, and then the salmon fishing in Lough Foyle and in the North Antrim area. The Minister referred to this in his explanation of the order. Extreme difficulties have been experienced because of illegal fishing and poaching in both those areas, and there is a view that the order will help considerably to ease the problem and enable salmon fishing to be much more remunerative to those who depend upon it for a livelihood.
Then there is a relatively new developing industry in commercial fish farming, which I understand last year produced 300 tons of rainbow trout for marketing. The last branch within the ambit of the fisheries in Northern Ireland concerns the small enterprising experiments and developments in shellfish cultivation. This takes place in Strangford and Foyle Loughs, and involves oyster and mussel beds, and lobsters; I do not know whether it is cultivation or breeding, but it involves lobsters, anyway.
All those branches are I believe covered in the amending order. The main question which emerges from representations made to me is that, while the order is certainly welcomed, and stronger and more realistic penalties will be imposed, do the Government have readily available the manpower and equipment to enforce the regulations? One appreciates the good intentions behind the order, but unless its objectives are enforceable, those who rely on these industries for a livelihood will still be at risk.
As I said earlier, the five branches of the fisheries have their own particular approach to the order. However, they are all agreed that there is need for efficient management, improved conservation, and better control and development measures. I believe that the order helps to prevent over-fishing and gives the department more powers to deal with persons who offend and contravene the regulations, by imposing more realistic penalties.
I should like to put to the Minister a couple of questions which have been raised with me. The first relates to Article 3—and here I repeat what I said in my earlier comments. Unless there is effective manpower and equipment to go after persons who are poaching or misusing the fishing fields, then to some degree the order will be nullified. Article 4 deals with improved records. I totally agree that the voluntary system does not give the information that helps the department. However, it is felt that the records should be kept in a simple form, easily controlled and regulated, and written up by the fishermen and those directly involved.
1110
Article 7 deals with the question of unlawfully-caught salmon or trout. The question that has been posed to me is: many retailers, restauranteurs and hoteliers come into possession of these poached salmon and trout—I mean "poached" in the sense of illegally possessed rather than cooked. Will these retailers be subject to these regulations, or are there any other powers which can be brought to bear on those involved in such misdemeanours in this respect?
I am sorry that I did not get the chance to speak earlier to the Minister about this last point. It arises from Article 8, Schedule 2, dealing with the licensing of the shell-fishing industry and the right of appeal. Schedule, 2 paragraph 132, of the order states:
"accord to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Department;".
There is concern that the person appointed should be someone approved by both sides of the industry. He should be an impartial person and not a departmental official of some description. That will be an important aspect of the administration of the order. With those remarks, we on this side of the House approve the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this somewhat complex order. I have listened, as always, with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has said. The only thing I should like to say at this point is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very sincerely on his promotion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have congratulated me on my added burdens of responsibility. Indeed, I do find it a most agreeable and interesting responsibility to be given. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, has rightly said that the fishing industry and all its five branches recognise the common interest that they all have in the proper regulation of the industry. Only those who pursue the life of an honest fisherman can suffer from the permission for dishonest fishermen to pursue their trade or indeed for disease to proliferate.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also asked about the manpower required for the implementation of this order. In fact the changes made by the order do not imply a noticeable extra burden on manpower and therefore the present level of manpower will be applied to implementing the revised regulations. On the question of records, I think the noble Lord agreed that it is necessary to keep them if one is to control the trade of what is potentially a diminishing stock of fish, not only in the waters that surround the Province but throughout the world. I sympathise entirely with his wish that records should be kept simple. I imagine that they will often be kept in fact by people with cold, wet fingers standing in the open. But I will take that very much on board and I will see that what can be done is done to ensure that nothing needless is recorded and that the form of the record is one that is easy to keep up.
On the question of fish that are poached, in the venal rather than culinary sense, there is provision for the prosecution of those who knowingly sell either salmon or trout which have been illegally taken. Of course,

1111
there must be a defence for those who do so unknowingly.
The noble Lord then asked about the appointment of a person to hear an appeal not to grant a licence. Consideration will, of course, be given to the appointment of a suitable person who is acceptable to all concerned. I am not saying that precise machinery exists for this, but it will be my intention to see that such a person is appointed, as that will obviously make things run more smoothly. I think that covers all the questions which the noble Lord has asked, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981
7.46 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Ireland (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1981, a draft of which was laid before the House on 19th January, be approved. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has made no comment on it.
The order seeks to increase the maximum amount which may be spent by candidates contesting district council elections in Northern Ireland. The increase will compensate for inflation since March 1977 when the rates were last fixed. The current limits of £72 plus 1·5p per registered elector in the district electoral area will be increased to £110 plus 2·3p per elector. In percentage terms this will mean an increase of just over 53 per cent., which is closely in line with the increase in the general level of prices since 1977. These, of course, are limits on expenditure by candidates and public funds are not involved.
My Lords, I commend to you this limited but important measure, which will ensure that candidates in the local general elections in May can effectively put their case before the electorate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th January be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, we on this side of the House agree with the principle involved in taking care of inflation. The one question I would ask is: Is the order consistent with the regulations governing the expenses for local government elections in Great Britain?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I did not quite catch what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain whether this is any different from the rest of the United Kingdom—I beg your Lordships' pardon; I realise that is what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for giving me time to discover the answer to that question. The limits in Northern Ireland are not the same as those which apply in local authority elections in Great Britain. The reason can be found in the differences in the size of electoral areas and in the
1112
proportional representation system of elections, which give rise to that increase in area. These factors are bound to affect the level of expenses which candidates need to incur. However, as in Great Britain, the limits are raised in line with changes in the value of money, so that the rate of rise is pari passu. Therefore, I think that the answer to the question of whether these rises are consistent is "yes" As to whether they are the same, the answer is "no".
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.49 p.m. until 8 p.m..]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill, may I say that conversations have been held through the usual channels and, although we were very much hoping that we might reach the end of Part I tonight—that is, the end of Clause 25—I do not think it really looks very likely or achievable at the moment. So we have arranged that, with your Lordships' permission, the House shall sit until the most suitable and convenient moment around half-past twelve.
I hope that the House, interested though noble Lords are in this Bill and important though some of the provisions are, will treat the matter as expeditiously as possible. Having the cut-off point at round about half-past twelve, let us try in that time to get as far as we possibly can towards the unachievable goal that we have set ourselves. If your Lordships will be kind enough to aim to get as far as possible it will be very helpful indeed. Otherwise it might prove difficult in future years for us to get our right share of important legislation starting in this House in the volume that we should like. I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I respond to what the noble Lord has said? We on this side entirely agree about the timing. But I am not sure that it might not be politic and useful for him to repeat the last part of his statement when his own Benches are rather fuller. I am sure that the Committee will give him permission to interrupt and do so. He would have, anyway, a great deal of support from this side.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee, on Clause 11.
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 159 not moved.]
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 12, line 24, after ("aforesaid,") insert ("unless any such trap be designed to hold the animal alive and uninjured and any such animal caught is intended to be and is subsequently released alive into the wild").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is raised because there is some concern among members of the Mammals Society, concerning the interpretation of Clause 11(2)(b). I must say that it has a phraseology which I find extraordinarily difficult to interpret. It reads:
"uses for the purpose of killing or taking any such wild mammal any such article as aforesaid, whether or not of such a nature and so placed as aforesaid".
This seems to bring into the range of forbidden methods of catching not only mammals in Schedule 6, but also wild mammals in general, something that is roughly like a kind of trap, but not precisely the type of trap which is specified in the previous paragraph. Therefore, I feel that clarification is necessary.
This is particularly so because mammalogists, for purposes of education and for purposes of research, make use very widely of a small type of trap, known as the Longworth trap, which is a highly successful design of live trap for small mammals. The makers of this trap inform me that they sell about 1,500 a year within this country and there is also a considerable export market. The Longworth trap is a very important and widely used tool for individuals conducting their research, for schools in teaching, for universities, for adult education centres, including field study centres, and so on. Naturalists' trusts make use of it in survey work, in class exercises, for research and so on, wherever it is desired to catch small mammals, to do no harm to them, to mark them in some way, quite often, or to inspect them, to examine them and subsequently to release them.
So this is not a trap which causes injury to the animal, which is released alive. The only possible injury that it can cause is to shrews, which are in Schedule 6. But any man operating a Longworth trap, with the foresight to place in that trap a little piece of dog meat or something like that which can be eaten by the shrews, will not kill such shrews as enter into this trap. The types of mammal that enter this trap are small field mice, wood mice, voles and so on. As I say, it is extremely important and each year some hundreds of operators are using the Longworth trap.
It it is the case that this rather incomprehensible wording in subsection (2)(b) would prevent the free use of a catch-alive trap, when it was not designed or intended to kill the wild mammal caught, whether protected or unprotected, then there is concern and I shall press my amendment, or some similar amendment that would take care of it. If it is intended by these words to ban the use of live traps, then it must be realised that every year there will be several hundreds of individuals, and certainly dozens of institutions and those running field courses, each of which would probably have a dozen or more members who would use these traps. So several hundred licences would have to be issued each year to people who are making use of this trap for highly desirable, non-damaging, non-injurious purposes. So, if it is not the intention that such a trap should be covered by the Bill, then I would ask for a
1114
very clear statement from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The Bill, as it is drafted, provides that a licence can be given by the Nature Conservancy Council for scientific and educational purposes. This is the course which we favour. It may seem unnecessarily bureaucratic, but the restriction on methods of killing certain mammals—and the shrew is one of them—arises from the Council of Europe Convention. it is also a requirement of the convention that every two years the contracting parties to it report to the standing committee on the exceptions which they have made. The record of licences which are issued, and which permit certain methods to be employed against certain species, will, in fact, provide the basis for that report. But I can assure my noble friend that no obstacles will be placed in the way of licences which permit the use of traps such as the Longworth trap for scientific and educational purposes. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will be satisfied and will not press his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That does not really answer my question. I heard my noble friend very clearly refer to the killing of animals and I want to stress again that I am not discussing, a trap which kills. I am discussing a trap which keeps alive. If the Nature Conservancy Council wishes to be burdened with this excessively large number of licensing requests, then that must be so. I am perfectly certain that schools, universities, adult education centres and so on throughout the country, which are making use of that Longworth trap, will find this a bureaucratic nuisance. But if my noble friend is able to consult with his advisers, and to stress the fact that I am not talking about the killing of any Schedule 6 mammals or, in fact, about the killing of any mammals at all—I am talking about the kind of trap which catches them and keeps them alive—I think he will perhaps be able to reassure me that this peculiar phraseology in paragraph (b) is not necessary under the convention.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend may be under a misapprehension, which is probably due to me. The fact is that there will not be any restrictions upon the use of the type of trap to which he referred, the Longworth trap, though in some cases some traps incidentally happen to kill shrews, although they may be used for the trapping of other animals. The fact that I used the word "killing" in the explanation of the reasons for having this in the Bill may possibly have misled my noble friend. However, I do not think that there is anything between us.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I am greatly reassured to hear from my noble friend that there is no restriction on the Longworth trap. That fact now being on the record, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 162A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should state that if the next amendment, Amendment No. 163, is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 164.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 163:
Page 12, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lord said: We probably dealt with the points concerned in this amendment while discussing an earlier one. Therefore, it might be quickest if I did not move it.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("or semi-automatic")
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that last week, when we debated Clause 5 which contains a subsection identical to this, I moved an amendment to leave out the whole of the line. Clause 11 gives us a second chance to discuss the question of semi-automatic or self-loading weapons before we get to the Report stage.
So far as automatic weapons are concerned, I have no particular quarrel with the Government if they wish to retain in the Bill the prohibition on their use. I still think that it is superfluous, but on the belt-and-braces principle it probably does no harm to leave it in, provided that we understand quite clearly, as I said last week on Clause 5, what is meant by the term "automatic". Noble Lords may have noticed that I have put down a fresh amendment to the interpretation clause to cover that point.
So far as the present clause is concerned, originally I had tabled an identical amendment to that in respect to Clause 5. Since then I have withdrawn it and substituted the present amendment, simply to leave out the words "semi-automatic". It is quite illogical that this Bill should seek to prohibit semi-automatic or self-loading weapons when nothing is said about repeating weapons, by which I mean those with a magazine which are reloaded by the manual operation of some part of the mechanism. If these are acceptable and not to be prohibited, as it appears at present, what is the objection to the use of semi-automatic weapons?
The Government will have to produce a better reason for this provision than to say that they are bound by an EEC directive. My understanding is that these so-called directives are not binding and that some member countries have not accepted this provision in their own territories. If there is evidence in existence that semi-automatic weapons are being misused to a considerable extent, that could be a reason for prohibiting them, but so far the Government have not produced any evidence of that kind. In the absence of such evidence, it is surely absurd to ban something on the grounds that it might be misused. It is sheer supposition. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said a short time ago in connection with an earlier amendment that he was not aware of the use of animals as decoys, so he saw no need for an amendment to be moved to prohibit their use. If there is no evidence of the misuse of semi-automatic weapons, then there should be no grounds for prohibiting their use.
Shotguns of this class are very useful for the control of certain pests—for example, pigeons. At certain times of the year pigeons come in enormous flocks to feed on the crops or to roost in the woods. When one has to keep a pest like that under control, surely
1116
one needs the full resources of whatever weapons one may have available. In that connection, there can surely be no harm in allowing the unrestricted use of semi-automatic or self-loading shotguns. One could make out a case for restricting the magazine capacity for use against game. However, I suggest that for the control of pests—in other words, the birds included in Part II of Schedule 2—there should be no restriction on the use of these weapons.
This clause, like Clause 5, draws no distinction between shotguns and rifles or between rifles of different classes. One class of rifle which should certainly be exempted from the provisions of this clause is the ·22 semi-automatic rifle, which is a very useful weapon for the control of such pests as rabbits, pigeons and rooks. There are very many in use throughout the country. It would be quite absurd and impracticable to prohibit their use or to say that the magazine capacity should be restricted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment seeks to remove the use of semi-automatic weapons from the methods which may not be employed against Schedule 6 mammals unless a licence has been granted. The Government are required by the terms of Article 8 of the Berne Convention to prohibit particular indiscriminate and non-selective means of killing some wild animals which are in need of protection. Semiautomatic weapons are included in the list of indiscriminate and non-selective methods of killing. A
similar provision appears in the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds. To omit these weapons from the provisions of the Bill would be contrary to the obligations which the Government have undertaken, so I hope that my noble friend will see the reason why we find it difficult to accept his amendment. I would point out to my noble friend that it is not a ban on semi-automatic weapons in toto. It is merely a ban on semi-automatic weapons against those mammals which are listed in Schedule 6.
I understand from what my noble friend has said that he would like to know what the Government consider to be automatic and semi-automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is one which has a mechanism for loading, firing and ejecting until the ammunition is exhausted or pressure on the trigger is released. A semi-automatic weapon is one which has some particular feature of an automatic. In practice, I am advised that it must mean that the weapon ejects the spent cartridges and loads itself automatically, but that a separate pressure on the trigger is required for each missile to be discharged. These weapons, I am advised, are also known as self-loading firearms.
With that explanation, I hope my noble friend will be satisfied and will feel obliged and content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swansea: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I agree entirely with him so far as the definitions of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are concerned. I went into that very point in some detail on Clause 5. I am also aware that the scope of this subsection of Clause 11 is not so broad as that of Clause 5, but even so I thought it a suitable opportunity to make a fresh approach to the question of semi-automatic weapons in the hope of saving a little

1117
time and having a second bite at it before the Report stage. I think that I shall have to pursue again the question of the ·22 semi-automatic rifle at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert ("other")
The noble Earl said: This is in the nature of a drafting amendment, recognising that a mirror itself is a dazzling device and that it is necessary therefore to refer to "other" dazzling devices. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 165A to 168 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 169:
Page 12, line 38, after ("vehicle") insert ("or a pack of hounds")
The noble Lord said: I think I sense the mood of the Committee, which would be to press on with more practical business. Apart from that I am lacking a certain amount of support on these Benches. I think I had better defer the abolition of foxhunting until another day. I doubt whether I could persuade your Lordships to a favourable decision on this amendment in less than about 45 minutes; therefore I shall not move this amendment.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("immediate")
The noble Lord said: When a gang of poachers are rounding up a herd of deer prior to slaughter, can every poacher's car be said to be in "immediate" pursuit? I think the word "immediate" might prove to be a technical loophole in this excellent provision. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The intention of the subsection as drafted is to prevent vehicles being used as gun platforms for hunting Schedule 6 creatures. It is not our intention, as it would seem to be that of the amendment, to prevent the use of vehicles like Land Rovers to approach areas where Schedule 6 creatures may be causing damage and where it is necessary to control them. Indeed, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted we should be in the curious position of finding that we should be unable to approach the particular site by Land Rover, for instance, but we could get to the site by shanks' pony, by a stage-coach or by a camel. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Craigton: I am quite happy about the camel! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 173 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 12, line 40, at end insert ("; or
(f) uses any method other than structural exclusion to exclude from a dwelling-house wild mammals included in Schedule 6.").
The noble Lord said: As I said briefly when speaking to my amendment No. 139 about bats, I envisaged getting rid of a bat colony in a house at the right time and at the least dangerous time—not the breeding season, June to August—and to get rid of this colony with the help of the Nature Conservancy Council. It must be done in the right way, not by the use of gas or chemicals or other maiming or killing devices. The householder should have materials ready to fill in the entrance and exit apertures and do it early in the evening when the bats are away feeding. The bats will not like it but with patience and perseverance they will be forced to join other colonies and to find new places to roost. This amendment would also prevent the unnecessary destruction of other delightful visitors from Schedule 6, dormice, red squirrels, shrews and even the polecat, all of which have been known to enter occupied buildings.
I do not expect a reply to this because I know from what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said that he is going to consider the whole question of bats, but I think it is very important (and so do people who are keen on bats) that some effort should be made to use what is called the mechanical exclusion of certain animals, especially bats, from dwelling-houses. I beg to move
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining to me exactly what this amendment does, because I am bound to say that when the amendment was tabled I was not clear as to exactly what effect it would have. I realise that the problem of bats is one to which my noble friend has given a great deal of attention, and of course I will consider this along with the other amendments which have been tabled about bats.
Lord Craigton: That is all I can ask for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert ("and be liable to a special penalty")
The noble Lord said: The point here is that the penalty applicable in this clause is anomalous in comparison with that applicable in relation to birds under Clause 5. At present, subject to the provisions of the Act, if any person uses a prohibited method of killing any bird he would be guilty of an offence liable to a special penalty, which is a fine up to £500 or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. In the case of a mammal, however, a similar offence would be liable to a maximum penalty of £500. Therefore, I propose to add the words "and be liable to a special penalty" to bring the penalty for wrongdoing to animals—that is, using an outlawed weapon to kill—into line with the penalty for a like offence against birds. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This seems to be an entirely reasonable amendment, but perhaps I could be permitted to consider it further before accepting it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 12, line 43, after ("obligation") insert ("or otherwise")
The noble Lord said: After the decoy animals, which were in favour of birds and unfair to animals, and after the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, this is yet another one. Why is the Secretary of State limited in his powers of amendment about mammals to an international obligation? In relation to birds referred to in Clause 5(2), the Secretary of State has the powers that I wish to see here, similar to the one we are discussing on mammals. I wonder why he is limited to an international obligation. That is why I put in the words "or otherwise": in order to tie it up with the situation in regard to birds. I beg to move
Earl Ferrers: The clause as drafted is designed so that the Secretary of State may give speedy effect to any international agreements which the Government have concluded, relating to the prohibition of certain methods of the killing or taking of animals. The amendment which my noble friend has suggested would give the Secretary of State a much wider power and it is conceivable in certain circumstances that the power might be used to vary the methods of killing for other than conservation reasons. I should have thought it would be bad for the Secretary of State to have more power than Parliament specifically permits him. I would hope my noble friend would agree not to press this amendment.
Lord Craigton: I certainly would not press it, but I would ask my noble friend at a later date to have a look at the situation of birds, because as I read the Bill he has these powers in relation to birds and not in relation to mammals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 177 to 180 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("those subsections")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: Accept.
Earl Ferrers: I am not so sure. We have run on so quickly that it is not always easy to keep pace with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I think this is a question of semantics, but I am advised that the clause as drafted is quite sound. The effect of adding or omitting any method in subsections (1) or (2) would be to vary only one of the subsections and not both, and "that subsection" in line 3 is correct. With this short explanation, which I hope the noble Lord will find acceptable, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the amendment. He moved it very hastily. He did not
1120
explain what he was trying to do, but I think what he is trying to do is not correct.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If the noble Earl is satisfied, so am I, on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided that no such order adding any method of killing or taking any wild mammal 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 this point was very adequately covered in Amendment No. 61, and we got a totally satisfactory answer from the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
8.35 p.m.
Lord Gibson-Watt Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("(5) An order made 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 a similar amendment to one we have had in the past. Some of my noble friends and I do not really think that in this clause—during consideration of which we have had one quite important Division; there is certainly feeling about the matter we divided on—this should be a matter for an order made by the Minister. We think it should be for an affirmative order, and therefore for debate in both Houses of Parliament, either by the present Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State.
Lord Melchett: We discussed a similar amendment, No. 66, at much the same time as we discussed a similar amendment at No. 182, namely No. 61. I said then, and I think what I said found some favour with noble Lords opposite and possibly even with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that of the two alternative approaches—and I see these as two alternative approaches to the problem—we much prefer the approach being adopted by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, subject to the Government's consideration of the exact terms of the qualification, because, as Lord Avon said, the wording needed looking at. I would hope we would do the same here as we did previously; in other words, leave this to be looked at by the Government, and hopefully be able to adopt the procedure which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, had their eye on.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I just say that this is slightly different, in so far as under subsection (3) it might be for the purpose of complying with an international obligation, and we should not like this to be slipped through without proper debate. I think there is a great deal of suspicion about the European decisions on this matter. We think that something of this importance should be properly debated in both Houses.
Earl Ferrers: I hope there will not be any feeling of suspicion. The Bill provides that any order amending the lists of protected creatures or restricted methods of killing shall be made by statutory instrument. It is not considered that the content of any of the orders concerned will be of such importance as to justify a parliamentary debate. I would only say to my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt that it is relevant to point out that the absence of any parliamentary procedure in relation to these sort of orders accords with the present provision under Section 13(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. So far as I am aware, no one has previously suggested that there was any need for a more elaborate procedure. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that that is reasonable.
Lord Gibson-Watt: On reflection, I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Duke of Atholl: I should like very briefly to raise one point. Would the Front Bench consider making sub-aqua guns, harpoons and such like weapons illegal for the killing of animals? It seems to me that they can do a lot of harm. They are getting more and more common in many Scottish rivers, and it seems to me an undesirable trend. I apologise that I have not put down an amendment to this effect, but I think it would be desirable to include such weapons in this clause.
Lord Craigton: I would support that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We support it.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asks whether I will consider it. The answer is, yes.
The Earl of Onslow: Before we suddenly say, "Will everybody accept sub-aqua guns being stopped?", I think the matter should be given considerably more consideration than just to say "Heigh ho, let us stop aqua-gun shooting". That is basically what my noble friend has said.
Earl Ferrers: I said it would be considered.
The Earl of Onslow: All right, I withdraw the words "heigh ho". We should be much more careful when we launch into considerations of such things as this. Aqua-lung fishing is a very great sport.
Lord Dulverton: It may be a very great sport, but it is also a very fine weapon in the hands of the salmon poacher in Scottish rivers. I would suggest that in considering the point raised by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl it might be a good thing to consider banning these underwater weapons in fresh waters.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As well.
Earl Ferrers: I will consider that as well.
Lord Gibson-Watt: May I ask my noble friend one quick question? In Schedule 6, which is really what we have been discussing with this clause, we come to the question of the polecat. The polecat is a rare beast in most parts of Britain, but it certainly is not in mid-Wales. It is extremely prolific and we get population explosions from time to time. If we have to deal with this when it happens, would it be covered by the possibility of applying for a licence?
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend is disturbed by polecats then the right thing to do is to apply for a licence, and if he has a licence he will be permitted to take them.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Melchett: moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Badgers Act 1973
The Badgers Act 1973 is amended as follows:—

(a) in section 1(2)(a) leave out "recently killed "and insert" dead";

(b) in section 1(2)(b) leave out "freshly skinned";

(c) in section 1(2) leave out "he shall, subject to subsection (3) below, be guilty of an offence" and insert "which is not shown to have been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence;

(d) in section 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

"(c) save as may be authorised by licence granted under section 9 of this Act, dig for any badger, or;

(e) section 6 shall be omitted;

(f) section 7 shall be omitted;

(g) section 8(2)(c) shall be omitted save for the final word "or";

(h) in section 9, there shall be inserted after paragraph 9(1)(d) the following paragraph:—

"(e) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property to kill or take badgers within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified, provided that the appropriate authority may only issue such a licence if satisfied that all reasonable means of preventing such damage by methods that are not likely to injure or kill any badger have been thoroughly tried by the person applying for the licence and have failed to prevent such damage.";
(i) in section 9, there shall be inserted after paragraph 9(2)(b) the following paragraph:—
"(c) in the case of a licence under paragraph (e) of that subsection, the Secretary of State for the Environment after taking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State after taking advice from the Nature Conservancy Council";

(j) in section 10(1)(c) leave out "badger whether alive or dead, any weapon or article capable of being used to kill or take badgers, which may be in that person's possession" and insert "anything which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be forfeited under subsection (3)";

(k) in section 10(2)(a) leave out ("£20") and insert ("£500");

(l) in section 10(2)(b) leave out ("£100") and insert ("£500");

(m) in section 11, leave out the definitions of" area of special protection" "authorised person" and "local authority";

(n) in section 11 at end insert" "sale" includes hire, barter and exchange";").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 185. I am afraid this will take a little longer than some of the amendments we have just been dealing with

1123
because it is a fairly substantial chunk. But I think it is important—
The Earl of Caithness: May I interrupt the noble Lord? This is quite an important point. I should like to ask the Government whether they consider this amendment, the next amendment, No. 186, relating to the Conservation of Seals Act, and Amendment No. 188, relating to the Deer Act, as appropriate amendments to this Bill? If the existing legislation specifically on deer, badgers and seals is inadequate, surely the advisers to the Government or to noble Lords would have recommended that separate Bills be introduced to deal with the appropriate problem? Perhaps the Government spokesman could comment on this point before we continue?
Lord Melchett: If the Committee agree, I think that I might be allowed to move my amendment and then the noble Earl and anybody else who wants to do so may comment on whether they think it is a good amendment. As I understand it, once it has been accepted by the House authorities as coming within the required rules of your Lordships' House, I am entitled to get on my feet and move it as quickly as I can.
My reason for moving this amendment was that I took my inspiration from statements by Government Ministers. First, during the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in response to something that I said in my Second Reading speech pointed out, at column 1090 of the Official Report for 16th December:
"The badger is already afforded a measure of protection by the Badgers Act 1973".
He went on to spell out what that protection was and then said:
"In this Bill we are proposing to increase the degree of protection which a badger might enjoy by including it in the schedule of mammals against which a range of methods described in Clause 11 should not be employed, except under licence".
The noble Earl went on very kindly to say, at column 1091, that if new proposals were made at this stage—the Committee stage of the Bill:
"obviously we shall consider them carefully at the Committee stage".
His honourable friend the Minister, Mr. Monro, in a debate in another place on 10th November last year, at column 165, went a little further than that and said:
"I feel that it is a sad fact that the Badgers Act 1973 has not provided the protection for which many of us hoped. We all know that an unauthorised person may not kill a badger. In an area of special protection an authorised person may kill only to prevent serious damage, which must be obvious and easily proved".
The Minister went on:
"Yet, we know that badgers are being killed without those qualifications being satisfied".
It seemed to me at any rate, taking my cue from statements by the Government which I personally very much welcomed, that it would be useful for us to look at some amendments to the Badgers Act when discussing protection for the badger which is already, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, pointed out, covered by a particular part of the Bill. I thought that it would be useful in particular because the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that aspects of animal welfare were covered in other legislation—for instance, the Badgers Act, and he
1124
said that at Second Reading as well. It seemed to me that it would not be possible to provide the sort of protection which I, and I think the Minister in another place, considered was now necessary for the badger, without actually amending the Badgers Act. The substantive parts of this Bill were not the right means to employ. That is why again I have gone for an amendment to the Badgers Act itself.
Briefly, to support the case for further protection, which I think is substantively accepted by the Government and I hope will be accepted by many noble Lords, I point out that there has, as noble Lords will know, been a problem with badgers in the South-West of England where they have been gassed by the Ministry of Agriculture because it is felt that they are transmitting a disease to cattle. Nothing that I want to do in my amendment would affect that one jot. The Government have a report from the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, suggesting that these procedures should continue. It does not seem to me that this Bill is the place to debate that or to try and alter those procedures. Those procedures are carried out under licence and that would, as far as my amendment is concerned, continue completely unaltered and for my part I would not wish to raise that issue in this debate at all.
What I do wish to raise is something which many of us were worried about when provisions to allow the gassing of badgers were originally introduced. I held a position in the Government when those amendments were made to the Bill and went through your Lordships' House. What worried me and a number of other noble Lords at that time was that the publicity which was generated by the controversy over whether badgers should be gassed in the South-West or not would lead to the badgers being given a very bad image in the eyes particularly of the farming community in the rest of the country, and an image which was completely unjustified. Badgers were not a threat to cattle outside the limited areas in the South-West where the gassing is being carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture. Yet undoubtedly they are now seen as a threat to livestock farming in many areas where that suspicion is simply not justified.
I should like to pay tribute to the consultative panel, which was set up as a result of representations in this House at the time, for the efforts that they have made to disabuse people of this mistaken impression, and also to the Ministry of Agriculture whose notes and press releases I, and no doubt other farmers, regularly receive which have made the case that badgers are not a threat and a danger. Nevertheless, I am afraid that this has not got through to the extent it should have done and I think that the Minister in another place recognised that when he said that the protection under the Badgers Act simply was not working as it should do.
In recent years two special protection areas have been set up. The case which was made for the first one of those in West Yorkshire is, I think, useful to quote very briefly because it underlines the lack of effectiveness of control of these problems in the Badgers Act as it stands. The Mammal Society Badger Recorder—whose comments on the situation in West Yorkshire were what led to the area of special protection being declared—in discussing the reasons for the decline in badgers, concluded:
"It is almost impossible to stop this persecution"—

1125
that is the persecution of badgers—
"under the present law and the badgers in this county cannot survive if this rate of killing continues".
In a paper last year to the Nature Conservancy Council, Mrs. Ratcliffe commented:
"During the years of observation in the Wirral since the passing of the Badgers Act, I have taken a special notice of destruction by authorised persons and I consider this to be the reason for at least 25 per cent. of badger setts destroyed".
That is evidence which, I think I am right in saying, is in the process of leading to a second special protection area being drawn up.
To take it as briefly as I can, my amendments have the intention at least—if they have been drafted anything like reasonably—of first of all bringing certain provisions of the Baders Act, which I do not intend to go into at great length, up to date. For example, in Clause 1 (2)(a) of the Badgers Act the phrase "recently killed badger" is to be found. We discovered with the experience of the Protection of Birds Act, that the phrase "recently killed" is such an enormous loophole and so impossible to define in law that it is unworkable. The Wildlife and Countryside Bill corrects that for birds, and I hope that we shall be able to do the same for badgers. The same applies to the amendments to Clause 1(2)(b) which states "freshly skinned badger". The substantive amendments to the Badgers Act in this amendment would remove the provision for special protection areas, but would leave badgers protected throughout the country unless somebody had a licence to kill them. That really is the purpose of the amendment.
It seems to me that where a badger is causing damage—if that happens; and in my experience it very rarely, if ever, happens, apart from the problems in the South-West—it would be quite reasonable for the landowner, the farmer or whoever it was, to get a licence to deal with the particular problem. In all other cases the badger would be protected and it would be illegal to kill one. It seems to me that, unless we go for something as simple and straightforward as that, the accelerating destruction of badgers throughout the country, where it is not justified by any disease control procedures, will continue to accelerate. I hope therefore, that my attempt at meeting the problems which the Minister himself recognised in another place, will meet with the Committee's and the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He has explained that this amendment seeks to strengthen the Badgers Act rather than get this species mixed up with the rather complicated criteria and conditions of Schedule 5. However, I think that we must treat the badger on its own merits, as it were. The badger has been very badly treated for many, many years and the 1973 Act offered some hope that a good deal of the prejudice and legendary nonsense about the badger would be dispelled and that it would be given a new status among the mammals of Britain. Unfortunately, we no sooner had the Badgers Act on the statute book than this dreadful trouble arose over the suspected infection of cattle by badgers with bovine tuberculosis. To a subsequent Bill that was going through your Lordships' House in 1974 we had to add the provisions
1126
to enable the Department of Agriculture not only to control but to undertake destruction of badgers in the infected areas. I remember what a struggle we had at the time to get the Government to accept the advisory committee so that the decision about the destruction of badgers in allegedly infected areas should not be left entirely to the discretion of officials of that department.
This problem, which has recently been investigated by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has undoubtedly again put back the badger, because many people now regard the badger as being associated with some kind of infection of other animals. In a certain area of the country the badger is being destroyed in large numbers. It is very difficult to get the idea of protection established and held if the badger is being destroyed in large numbers in one part of the country and is supposed to be protected in another.
At the time I found it necessary to circularise farmers in my part of Surrey, to tell them that what was happening over the gassing of badgers in the South-West of England did not apply in their area, that the badgers in their area were not infected and that therefore they must not destroy them. I thought it necessary to do that because of the general feeling that badgers were probably a danger to cattle in areas other than those designated as danger areas.
As to the effectiveness of what is going on, I make no comment. As my noble friend said, we are not dealing with that now. But we cannot help but deal with the consequences—in one respect at any rate-—of what is going on; that is, the prejudice to the position of the badger. If we leave matters as they are, there is a danger that the numbers of badgers may diminish quite rapidly. West Yorkshire has been very badly hit and has been made a special protection area. The situation is very sad in that part of the country.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will try to safeguard the badger from the unfavourable consequences of its present position and its unfortunate relationship with the belief that badgers are infecting cattle with bovine tuberculosis. I think that that is owed to this animal. I know it very well. I have badgers within yards of my home and I know a great deal about them; I am probably on better terms with badgers than many noble Lords who also have them on their land. You have to spend a great deal of time on badgers to get on terms with them. It is like dealing with the Tory Party: they hold themselves at a distance. However, they can he encouraged; they can be brought on. They are very nice animals to know when you are in a position to know them.
I have said enough. I hope that this amendment will be favourably received. I hope that the noble Earl will throw off this mood of depression which must have descended upon him from having to resist so many amendments for so long, only promising consideration, never being forthcoming and never offering the hand of friendship across the Table. It is now time—it is nine o'clock—to revive our spirits and to feel that we have accomplished something worthwhile in being here today.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I have just as much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as I have with Tommy Brock, but I very much question whether

1127
tonight we should be debating the Badgers Act within this Bill. If we debate the Badgers Act, a great many other Acts are referred to in the Bill which we could also debate. Perhaps it would be as well if my noble friend on the Front Bench ruled on this.
Lord Craigton: I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, except the dirty cracks about the Tory Party. The incidence of tuberculosis and the Zuckerman Report have caused some considerable confusion. Advantage is being taken of it. I heartily support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
The Earl of Onslow: Funnily enough, should we not be arguing for the repeal of the Badgers Act completely? If not, why do we not have a Great Crested Newt Act, a Sandbowl Snail Act or a Dolphin, Bottlenosed Act? Surely in this Bill we are providing protection and conservation—perhaps conservation only—of species. Should one particular species be singled out for special protection? I would suggest to your Lordships that otters are much rarer than badgers. Of course one wants to protect badgers. Of course one does not want them indiscriminately killed or slaughtered. Of course badger-digging with tongs was a very unattractive performance. I agree with all of that. But surely is it not better to regard all animals as coming under this one Act, properly under their own schedules, rather than mucking about with one particular animal in this particular way?
Lord Melchett: I should like to respond to that and, to some extent, to the suggestion that it is not right in a Bill, which is already re-enacting and amending almost every piece of wildlife legislation that we have in this country, that we should not do the same for one more Act. If I may say so, it seems to be a strange suggestion. On the reason for retaining the Badgers Act, as I say, I have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said: it would be much simpler if we simply repealed it and had animal conservation issues covered by this Bill. The problem with that is twofold.
First, to some extent the Badgers Act was an animal welfare Act, and, for example, it includes the banning of the use of badger tongs, which the noble Earl mentioned. It would be necessary to include those particular provisions, presumably in Clause 11, were we to abolish the Badgers Act. The second argument is, to some extent, the Government's argument. As I understand it, they have said that they are quite prepared to see the birds part of this Bill as a conservation and protection measure. In fact, they cannot avoid that because they are re-enacting the Protection of Birds Acts, which are a mixture of conservation and protection. That is why all birds are protected except those of the pest species, which are excluded.
We argued on an earlier amendment for the same approach to be adopted for mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The Government have said rather mildly that they will look at some of the points we raised, but I think that it would be unrealistic to hold out any great hope that they will accept that amendment in toto. As I understand it, they are resisting it mainly on the basis that the part of the Bill dealing with mammals
1128
should be a conservation measure only. If that is the Government's line, the only way in which we can provide additional protection for badgers of the sort that we, on this side of the Committee, think is needed is by amending the Badgers Act.
Therefore, we have been driven to these amendments by the Government's attitude. I make no great complaint about that. I do not think that that is unreasonable, but, by the same token, I hope that noble Lords will not think that it is unreasonable for us to have adopted this particular tactic of amending the Badgers Act.
9.1 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I think that it was my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt who asked me to rule on whether or not this was permitted. Far be it from me to rule on what your Lordships are permitted to do, but if your Lordships put down an amendment about the Badgers Act, then your Lordships are entitled to do so and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was quite right to move it. I shall do my best to respond to it. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his effort at constructiveness in this amendment. Indeed, I was grateful to him for saying that he did not want to draw on the controversy which surrounded the gassing of badgers. This is important.
I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Houghton was going to test me a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in supporting the action which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken, because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that badgers are being destroyed in large numbers. I would only say on that subject that where badgers are gassed in the South-West of England it is only where it is shown without, I would say, doubt that there is a connection between the tuberculosis in badgers and outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle. That is the reason for it.
The fact that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says that this gassing of badgers gives the impression to other people that badgers are therefore bad things, may be an unfortunate result of an unfortunate state of affairs in the South-West of England. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he felt that I must be very depressed, and why could I not take the hand of friendship and accept the amendment. I am not at all depressed by the debates. I may be a little confused by them. When I accepted an amendment earlier on about red squirrels, that acceptance of the amendment caused more of a fuss than the non-acceptance of many others.
I would go along with both noble Lords in the fact that they are conscious, as we are, of the public concern that has been expressed recently about the badger and its status. The Nature Conservancy Council advise that its status as a British mammal is not endangered, and there is no scientific case therefore for adding the badger to Schedule 5; and, of course, that is not the effect of Lord Melchett's amendment. The effect generally is to afford greater protection to the badger to the extent that authorised people would not be able to take or kill a badger on their own land without first taking the precaution of obtaining a licence.
There is already a provision in the Badgers Act to restrict freedom of action on the part of the owner-occupier of land to take or to kill badgers on his land, if his land forms part of an area of special protection designated by the Secretary of State. One such area

1129
has been designated, and that is in West Yorkshire. Another is under consideration in the Wirral, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to it. The designation of an area of special protection provides a defence to an authorised person who kills or takes the badger, to the extent that he has to show to a court before whom he is brought that the action taken was necessary for the purposes of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property, or for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
The amendment goes further by requiring the prior issue of a licence before such action is taken. This may be regarded as an unjustifiable intrusion upon an authorised person's freedom to do what he wants on his own land, but of course there are occasions when such freedom ought to be curtailed in the national interest, and I have some sympathy with the intention of this amendment. The Nature Conservancy Council has advised that they consider the general protection afforded to badgers is not satisfactory. They have highlighted as the main weakness of the Badgers Act 1973 the unregulated activities of authorised persons who are in general exempt from the provisions of the Act.
I am not necessarily entirely happy with the way in which the increased protection for the badger is sought. For example, we would not wish to increase the penalty for an offence against Section 5, which is the offence of failing to provide one's name and address to an authorised person, to £500. Neither do we necessarily believe that the licensing provisions should become the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will be required to act upon the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I say that, but I wish to emphasise that in no way are we implacably opposed to the amendment. Far from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of State for the Environment, when he spoke in another place before Christmas, confessed to an affection for the badger, and thought that it was a sad fact that the Badgers Act 1973 had not provided the protection which many in both Houses had sought.
We would like to consider further what might be done outside the control areas in the South-West of England which are undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, where regrettably action has had to be taken against the badger to prevent bovine tuberculosis. I should like to consider what steps may be taken to increase yet further the protection of the badger. On the basis of this understanding, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might withdraw his amendment because at the moment in its present form it is not wholly acceptable.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask him a question? I support him very much on this proposal, but I wish he had gone on to talk about paragraph (h) of the proposed new clause. In this, persons may be licensed to take badgers
"for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property…"
If we are concerned with the public image of the badger—and I personally love badgers and believe they do
1130
not do any harm at all, except that they are unfortunately infected with T.B.—surely it is not doing any good to talk about badgers doing serious damage?
Lord Melchett: I take my noble friend's point. That paragraph was put in in an effort to make the amendment as acceptable as possible. I was trying not to be unreasonable, and it seemed to me that the fact that somebody would have to go and ask for a licence would be sufficient protection for the badger. In other words, they would have to show that there was serious damage occurring to one of these things. It seemed to me that without that sort of paragraph there would be—I do not know about justifiable—some opposition to the changes I was suggesting if the badger had total protection, and there was no provision for killing a badger that was causing some damage. I agree with my noble friend: in my experience they do not cause any damage of this sort, and that was the conclusion of the working party which looked at this matter and which had on it the representations of the NFU, the CLA, the British Field Sports Society, and so on. There is a fair degree of unanimity on this, but it does not seem to me that that paragraph does any harm.
I was delighted with what the noble Earl had to say, and I am grateful for it. I accept that what I have in my amendment is not right in a number of respects. It slightly pre-empts discussions we are going to have on the Bill, particularly about penalties and about who would be issuing licences, and so on. Clearly, in its present form it would not be acceptable, but I was very grateful to the noble Earl for what he said and was encouraged by it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise if earlier I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, at the wrong moment. These amendments appear to be separate, but as my noble friend has given an assurance to consider the matters that have been raised, I hope he will consider the provision in paragraph (h) because if a badger damages property by, for example, getting into a battery henhouse, one wants to take immediate action and the process of obtaining a licence could be too slow. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that when he considers the other aspects that have been raised.
Lord Melchett: The purpose of withdrawing the amendment and allowing the Government to consider it was because that sort of provision clearly needs to be brought into line with Clauses 4 and 10. That was why I had no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage. I should have thought we needed the same sort of provision in all these clauses, and while we may not agree on what that provision should be, once it is settled it should be common throughout the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks.
Lord Melchett: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 186:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970.
.The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is amended as follows—

(a) in section 4(1)(b) leave out ("or boat");

(b) in section 4(1) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

"(c) seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act any thing which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be forfeited under section 6."
(c) after subsection (2) of section 4 insert the following subsection—
"(3) Except in an emergency, a constable shall consult with the Nature Conservancy Council before disposing of a live seal under subsection (2) and shall take that Council's advice where possible";

(d) in section 5(1) leave out ("£50") and insert ("£500");

(e) in section 5(2) leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000");

(f) in section 10(1), leave out paragraph (b).

(g) in section 10(1)(c), leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—

"(i) the prevention of damage to fisheries, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that all reasonable means of preventing such damage by methods that are not likely to injure or kill any seal have been thoroughly tried and have failed to prevent such damage;"
(h) in section 11(4) insert—

(i) "the owner and" after "not less than 28 days notice, to";

(ii) "the owner or" after "the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representation that might be made by the ";

(iii) "the owner or" after "the expiration of the notice ";

(i) in section 11(6) insert "the owner or" after "if required by";

(j) in section 15 at end insert ""vehicle" includes aircraft, hovercraft and boat "").

The noble Lord said: Although this is quite a long amendment, I hope I can deal with it briefly; I do not intend to go into all its details, but if any noble Lord is concerned about a particular provision, I shall be happy to explain the thought behind it. This arises as the result of an incident which was brought to my attention by somebody living in Scotland who contacted the World Wildlife Fund. The incident seems to emphasise the extent to which older pieces of legislation which were designed to protect particular species have become very much out of date and thoroughly unused, and, as I explain the incident, the Committee will see what I mean.
In October 1979 a licence was issued under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 which authorised the taking of 12 live grey seal pups for a zoo in West Germany, and they were to be taken from an island in Scotland. No conditions about the transportation of the animals were specified in the licence and the licence incorrectly specified unmoulted pups, although the pups taken were in fact moulted, being about five weeks old. Two pups died after being kept in the back of a small van overnight and, after discussion with the Government's veterinary adviser, two further pups had to be released immediately into the sea. The remaining eight pups were then taken to a zoo in Germany.
The Government admitted in a number of Written Answers which they were kind enough to provide for me about this incident that the original arrangements made by the licensees were less than adequate. The
1132
point of my raising this matter is, first of all, that the licence which was issued was the first, in fact the only, one to be issued in the last five years in Scotland, England or Wales. It demonstrates to me that we passed that legislation some time ago and that old Acts fall into disuse, so it is a good idea to cast an eye over them to see if certain parts of them can, without too much controversy, be brought up to date.
The second point, which will commend itself to noble Lords opposite even if the rest of the amendment does not, is the fact that originally the Government said that the owner of the island had given permission for that to happen. Indeed, they said that in one or two letters they wrote to members of the public who complained about the incident. The owner of the island then contacted me saying that he had not given any such permission. The occupiers, who had the right to farm the island but who, I gather, did not live there—I think they simply grazed some animals there—had been contacted by the relevant department in Scotland and had given permission, but the owner had not.
Part of my amendment would ensure that the Government do what they were good enough to say in a Written Answer they would do in the future—namely, ensure that the owner, as well as the occupier, is always told about the issuing of a licence of this sort. That is the purpose of the amendment to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, in particular Section 11(4) and (6) of that Act. The other major change (apart from some legal details) which the amendment would make to the Conservation of Seals Act would be to ensure that licences were not issued for zoological purposes, which was the reason why the 12 pups were put in the back of a small Renault van to be taken to West Germany. It seems inappropriate for this country to be issuing licences when so much time and effort had to be involved, with the matter having to be pursued in several Parliamentary Questions over a period of months before we got the facts right.
There is a provision in the Conservation of Seals Act for seals to be taken for educational purposes and in my view it is quite sufficient for any bona fide zoo which has a genuine educational content to be allowed to take seal pups, if that is necessary, for educational purposes. I doubt if it would be necessary because, as noble Lords know, every year a number of seal pups are washed ashore stranded by storms. Where I live in Norfolk that happens on the coast regularly and there is always a great deal of difficulty in finding somebody to look after them. I would not have thought that any reputable zoo in this country would have any difficulty in getting a seal pup through that source if they really wanted one, added to which there is an establishment in Norfolk which has successfully bred a seal in captivity. I hope that with that reasonably brief introduction this amendment will also commend itself to the Government, and I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley: I wonder whether it would be possible for me to take Amendment No. 188A, which stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. I think it would probably be convenient to the Committee to discuss seals and to deal with them before we dodge about among deer, foxes, Scottish primroses and so forth. But I must be in the

1133
hands of the Committee if it is felt I should await my turn.
Earl Ferrers: I think that possibly it might be helpful if we were to deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, first. I am bound to say that I am doubtful whether any good conservation purpose is to be served by amending the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. The Act represents what we believe is a reasonable balance between the protection and the control provisions for the conservation of common and grey seals in British waters. We think it is fair to claim that on the whole the Act has been successful in conserving large populations of both species, and neither is in risk of decline. It may be appropriate on a later occasion to look at the Act as a whole. Therefore, I would not be in favour of these fairly substantial amendments which the noble Lord seeks to make.
I know the noble Lord has highlighted the problems of owners who have not been notified about entry on to their land. We do not disagree with the idea that owners as well as occupiers of land should be given prior notice of the intended entry. Indeed, the administrative arrangements of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland now provide for prior notice of the intended entry to be given both to the owner and to the occupier of the land, without having it written into the Bill. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not seek to push this amendment further.
The Earl of Onslow: Does this not further underline what I was trying to suggest to your Lordships on the last amendment? Here we have two specific species, the seal and the badger, which are protected. They are common animals, as has been said by my noble friend, protected by special Acts of Parliament. Is it not much more sensible to bring the whole of the protection and conservation (call it what you will) under the aegis of one Act of Parliament? I hope that this particular Bill, when it becomes an Act, especially after the time we have spent on it, will be a monument to good legislation on countryside conservation and all these things. Is it not infinitely better to get the two things under tile aegis of one Act? These Acts are bound to clash at some stage. That is the point I wanted to make on the first amendment, and it is now, it seems, underlined even more by the second amendment.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, having won his case (and I would have been in full support of him) on the badger, is not going to press his luck too far. It is one thing when he talks about a licence to take some seals to a zoo, and the control of that sort of thing, but this is a very controversial subject—the culling of seals, in particular, as he knows, and the impact on salmon fisheries and the rivers—and I should not like to see that whole subject reopened in this Bill. A very careful balance has been kept already, and I think that paragraph (i) on page 10 just might give a different implication. I therefore hope that he will feel it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Melchett: I must say that I did not feel nearly as strongly about this particular amendment as I did about the previous one, and I am myself inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has
1134
suggested to me. I think it is important that the Government should take on board, not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales, the need to tell owners as well as occupiers of land if they are going to issue licences for what are bound to be controversial purposes, even if no pups are stuffed in the back of a small van and die during the night. I hope it will not be just in Scotland, but also in England and Wales, that that point is taken on board, because the unfortunate owner is liable, as this one was, to be heavily criticised in the local press for allowing this to happen when he did not know until after it had been done, which seems to me a bit unfair.
Having said that, I must say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, has said, that there were not nearly so many substantive points in this amendment. I hope that one day we shall have the chance to bring this Act up to date, but I am inclined to think that this Bill is not the place to do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 187:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of snaring foxes
.—(1) Any person who intentionally sets a snare to trap a fox shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection 15(2) below shall apply to this section.").
The noble Lord said: The debate on the snare which took place earlier seemed to be mostly about the fox. In the present state of prejudice on the Benches opposite against the fox, I will give noble Lords an opportunity to get over it and return to this matter on a later occasion, so I will not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Amendment No. 188. In calling this amendment I should draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. Paragraphs IF and 1G at tile top of page 13 should appear immediately after paragraph 1E about one-third of the way down page 12.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 188:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Deer Act 1963
. The Deer Act 1963 is amended as follows:—
(a) in section 3 the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1):—
"(1A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any deer on any land, of any smooth-bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore which is loaded—

(a) with a cartridge containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 grains (22·68 grammes); or

(b) with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA),

if—

(i) he is an authorised person; and

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land; and

(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

1135

(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage.

(1B) In subsection (1A) above "authorised person" means—

(a) the occupier of the land on which the action is taken;

(b) any member of the occupier's household normally resident on the occupier's land, acting with the written authority of the occupier;

(c) any person in the ordinary service of the occupier on the occupier's land, acting with the written authority of the occupier; or

(d) any person having the right to take or kill deer on the land on which the action is taken, or any person acting with the written authority of a person having that right.

(1C) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use as a slaughtering instrument, for the purpose of killing any deer, of any smooth-bore gun which—

(a) is not of less gauge than 12 bore; and

(b) has a barrel less than 24 inches (609·6 millimetres) in length; and

(c) is loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA or any larger size).

(1D) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(c)(i) above by reason of the use of any smooth-bore gun for the purpose of killing any deer if he shows that the deer had been so seriously disabled otherwise than by his act or was in such a condition that to kill it was an act of mercy.
(1E) The Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly may by order, either generally or in relation to any area or any species and description of deer specified in the order, repeal subsection (1A) above or amend it by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in it, or by adding any further conditions which must he satisfied.
(1F) Before making any order under subsection (1E) above the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly shall consult such bodies as appear to them to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order.
(1G) Any order under subsection (1E) above shall be made by statutory instrument, but, notwithstanding anything in section 12(1) below, no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".
(b) in section 10 the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (3):—
"(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 of this Act by reason of—

(a) the taking or killing of any deer by means of shooting; or

(b) the injuring of any deer by means of shooting in an attempt to take or kill it,

on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if—

(i) he is an authorised person; and

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland; and

(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage;

and in this subsection "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 3(1A) of this Act.";
(c) in Schedule 2 the words "of less gauge than 12 bore" and "other than a cartridge purporting to be loaded with shot none of which is less in diameter than ·269 inches" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I make two preliminary points. In case the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is worried, may I say that if he looks at the Long Title to the Bill that makes it clear that the Bill is concerned,
"to prohibit certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals",
so that the amendment which I move is in the spirit and, indeed, in the letter of the Long Title. The second preliminary point is that I hope that, in view of my having been able last night, admittedly rather late, to table the amendments which have now become 1F and 1G to which reference has just been made, I hope it will now be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, not to move his amendment because I have covered it in paragraphs 1F and 1G.
This is a bit of unfinished business. The Committee will remember my introducing a Deer Bill no less than three times between 1970 and 1980. The principles that I underline in the amendment that I now move were embodied in these Deer Bills and were accepted by your Lordships. Indeed, the actual wording of the amendment is virtually the same as in the corresponding provisions of my Bill when it left your Lordships' House two years ago. This is nothing new. It has all been here several times before and it has been a very long job trying to get it through.
In the last Session, Mr. John Farr, who took over and introduced the Deer Bill in another place, realised that, because of the large number of Private Members' Bills, the only chance of the Bill completing all its stages lay in abandoning some of the provisions so that it could go through "on the nod" at four o'clock —as it must in the House of Commons; and as it finally did. It is now law as a shortened measure. It is the abandoned provisions, the shelved provisions, that I am now seeking to retrieve and enact. Both extend to England and Wales only, so we are not now dealing with Scottish legislation. Both, clearly at this stage, had Government approval when they went through this House on the last occasion in the original extended version of my Bill. The first provision is to restrict the use of shotguns on deer and the second is to tighten up provisions on the killing of deer during the close season. These two questions have been fully debated in this House.
I would say now that my amendment has a dual aim—on the one hand, humanitarian and, on the other, as an additional weapon to ban deer poaching, which has reached unacceptable proportions throughout the countryside wherever there are deer. I want to stress that if a person has a genuine need to use a shotgun and if the use is justified and, similarly, if it is genuinely necessary and justified to kill deer during the close season, my amendment would not prohibit either of those things. Many of us deplore the killing of deer with shotguns—or, should I say, attempting so to kill deer. Noble Lords who have joined me in the previous debate have personal experience of shooting deer with shotguns on deer drives, for example, and will know that many deer are wounded and several shots are often needed to finish off the animals. Often, the deer escape to die of their wounds. This is especially

1137
true when deer are moving at a gallop, which is often the case.
This is not good enough. It does nothing for our reputation that Britain should be almost the last country in Europe where shotguns using lettered or numbered shot are still allowed for killing deer. Deer are large animals. They are extremely difficult to kill with a shotgun outright and cleanly except at very close range—maximum of 30 yards and it is extremely difficult to get within 30 yards of a deer. The number of deer roaming about with shot in their bodies is proof of the ineffectiveness and cruelty of shotguns.
Furthermore, the use of shotguns is invariably unselective. In others words, it is seldom possible to select the animals—even the sex—that should be shot. The second consideration is that while very few poachers have rifles, they often manage to get hold of shotguns—probably illegally. Everyone is agreed that all possible steps must be taken to curb the widespread activities of deer poachers, who are callous in the extreme and have no respect for the law, for other people's property, for farm animals or indeed for people, whom they often threaten and assault.
Likewise, poachers are no respecters of close seasons. The second part of my amendment therefore is aimed at deer poachers as well as the trigger-happy and unscrupulous who kill deer regardless of close seasons which, as many of the Committee know, are designed on humanitarian grounds and for reasons of good deer management. Almost every country in Europe has laid down close seasons for deer. It is right that exemptions should be strict, as they are in my amendment, and subject to specified conditions.
Members of the Committee who were present when we debated my Bill will remember that the provisions in the Bill had the support of virtually every relevant organisation. Here I should like to say how grateful I am to the National Farmers' Union for their valued co-operation in enabling us to reach agreement on the precise terms incorporated in my amendment.
I come therefore finally and briefly to the precise terms of a very long amendment. It takes the form of amendment to the Deer Act, the parent Act, of 1963. If noble Lords will look at paragraph (c) on page 12 of the Marshalled List—and I apologise that this amendment is so complicated—it will be seen that it deletes that part of the schedule to the 1963 Act dealing with shotguns. Having done this, my amendment in paragraph (a) on pages 10 and 11 redefines the types of shot that are to be permitted, the rifle slug and the AAA size of shot which, though smaller than that in the 1963 Act, is less cruel because of the greater number of shot. Tests have shown these two types to be the least unacceptable in a shotgun. The amendment then goes on to define the circumstances in which these two types of shot may be used: where an occupier (or person properly authorised) needs to protect his property, particularly growing crops, from deer causing damage. All the words, I emphasise again, have been gone over at least three times in your Lordships' House to get them exactly right.
Subsection (1C) on page 11 of the Marshalled List makes a special exemption for the use of the shortened shotgun as a slaughtering instrument. Subsection (1D) provides for mercy killing. Subsections (1E), (1F)
1138
and (1G) allow Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture being specifically included—to vary the types of weapon and shot by area or by species as proves desirable, so long as there is prior consultation with interests like the farming community, and so long as the procedure is by affirmative order in both Houses. This leaves us finally with paragraph (b) on page 12. This brings up-to-date, by using terms agreed to by the House in my original Deer Bill, the permitted exemptions from the prohibition in the 1963 Act on shooting out of season.
I apologise if I have taken rather long, but this is a lengthy and very complicated amendment. However, I hope that I have taken your Lordships' Committee through it to the point where the incomprehensible looks reasonably comprehensible. I hope that the Committee will sympathise with my objectives in trying to remedy a deficiency in the 1963 Act, to make it more humane, and to complete what I say has been unfinished business so far as your Lordships' House is concerned in getting these provisions finally on to the statute book. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must now call Amendment No. 188ZA as an amendment to Amendment No. 188.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton had given notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 188, Amendment No. 188ZA:
At end of subsection (1E) insert—
("Provided that no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was tabled by my noble friends and myself before the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, set down his own amendment. Now that he has done so, our amendment is quite redundant, and I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 188 ZA not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 188ZA is not moved. Therefore Amendment No. 188 stands as proposed.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that this was a long and complicated amendment, which indeed it is, and he asked for the sympathy of the Committee, which I think he will receive. I must say that I admire his ingenuity and persistence in trying for, I think, the fourth time to get on to the statute book a Bill in which he has been involved, but which for one reason or another he has not been able to get on to the statute book. There was a Deer Act in the last Session. It went through Parliament, was considered by your Lordships, and as a result of that only half of the Bill or thereabouts got on to the statute book. It had in that respect a regrettable history. I had a certain sympathy with my noble friend Lord Caithness when earlier he asked whether this was the correct Bill in which to make major alterations to other legislation, and indeed to the Deer Act.
The Government do not consider it appropriate to extend the scope of this Bill in order to reconsider the Deer Acts which have been so recently debated and indeed passed in both this House and another

1139
place. Deer are now controlled by the Deer Acts of 1963 and 1980, and I think it would be inappropriate and confusing to control them yet further by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as the Bill will become. That is the reason why I should find it difficult to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Northfield: The noble Earl spoke about control, but this has nothing to do with control in that sense. It is to do with the methods of killing, which the Long Title specifically includes in the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, needs some support here. I would agree exactly with what he has just said. If we can get on to the statute book a method which would bring about some form of control over the use of inappropriate weapons in relation to deer, and, if we can do it in the easiest possible form, so much the better. If it is possible to do that through this Bill, so be it—rather than go through a long rigmarole to which your Lordships' House has previously agreed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is a great disappointment for those of us on this side of the Committee. I think that the provisions proposed by my noble friend are agreed by everybody; I do not think that there is a single dissident. They fell by the wayside because of the kind of quirks which go on in another place, and which we in this House who were not there can never understand. The matter has been through this House, and I must ask the noble Earl at least to take away this proposal and think about it, which he has done in regard to every other clause in the entire Bill. Since this is one of the best of them, I think that at least he should do what I suggest.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: One just cannot win in this Chamber, or in Parliament. Bills come through and are passed. Then, after a short time, it seems that there is a need for some amendment. It may be five or 10 years before another Bill comes through or there is another opportunity or the Government are prepared to have another look at it. For those years we usually endure in silence—not necessarily in silence, but we endure—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In effective speech.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In effective speech, as the noble Lord says. Then, when by chance it so happens that a Bill comes, within whose Long Title this amendment which, it is agreed by all, can absolutely rightly fall without in any way infringing the constitutional proprieties, we are told that it is not suitable. I do not think that is a good enough answer. This is an inspired use of this Bill for doing something we all want to see done. I hope that the noble Lord will take it away to look at it and then bring it back again and say "Yes".
Lord Tyron: I too should like to support this amendment. I am a veteran of the innumerable Deer Bills which have gone through your Lordships' Chamber and have only in very small part seen the light of day.
1140
I really think the noble Lord needs a little more encouragement than we have seen so far. This is a very brave attempt to achieve something in a slightly unorthodox way. I have from time to time encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Northfield; I have been critical of some of his earlier Deer Bills, but I want to say that everything in this amendment I wholly approve of.
Viscount Hanworth: From this side of the Cross-Benches I too should like to support the amendment. I really do not think it is good enough to have this excuse once more that it could be better put somewhere else, if that means 10 years' hence.
Lord Dulverton: May I add to those words from various sides of the Committee and urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to deal sympathetically with this amendment? We have been sympathetic to the badger amendment and, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, did on a previous occasion get the approval of this Chamber to the measures he is now proposing.
Lord Gisborough: I hope that the Government will look at this again. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has introduced this amendment. I have one very strong criticism about all his Deer Bills, which is that they are not nearly tough enough!
Lord Craigton: I support this amendment, which I think has been accepted by your Lordships: it is down on the Marshalled List. It is in conformity with the Long Title, and a similar type of amendment with regard to the Badgers Bill has been accepted. I have great respect for the Front Bench but I really cannot see how they can say that this is not in order or that it should not be at least considered.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, must need the support of all of us. He has tried so hard to get this and I for one have supported him when I can. I hope the Government will look again at this matter.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Just in case it makes it easier for my noble friend on the Front Bench, may I point out to him that under Article 8 of the Berne Convention, to which this country is a contracting party, all Appendix III animals are to be protected from indiscriminate means of killing and all deer are included in the appropriate schedule?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend gets up, I think that he needs a little bit of support! I have always been against the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on his Bill, although I fully accept that what he is moving now is in the spirit of what we agreed when it left this House. What slightly worries me—and I am sure it worries the noble Lord too—is that I only saw the final amendment to this at midday today. I think it is correct, but I honestly cannot say that it is. I think that he is, as usual—and good luck to him!—pushing his luck here. I think the Government are right to take it away and look at it and to make sure that it is right. Perhaps I should say that I hope the Government will take it away and

1141
that they will not accept it; but if they do take it away, I hope they will consult all the parties that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, would want to be consulted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I hope that the noble Earl will notice that the only supporter he had still thinks he is wrong.
Earl Ferrers: I have been trying to get to my feet during the last few minutes, just to say that I was so grateful when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that he would do anything to make life easier for me, and then proceeded, so far as I could see, to put a knife into my back. When the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said "You can't win on this Bill", he never said a truer word, as I was castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, a little earlier, because he said that I always took things away and would not make up my mind.
We have now come to this amendment and I gave the Government's view that this was an inappropriate Bill into which to put it, because the Deer Acts were implemented in 1963 and 1980. I knew that the Government considered that it was inappropriate, so I told the noble Lord so. I did not expect for one moment that he would find that acceptable. I also did not expect for one moment to find that there would be such a lot of opposition to that modest suggestion of mine, which seemed totally reasonable.
But, in view of the fact that your Lordships on all sides consider that this is an entirely reasonable amendment to put into this Bill, even though I may not agree with it, then of course, in the delightful phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I will take the thing away and will certainly look at it again. But I am bound to tell your Lordships what I told the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in the first instance, that the Government considered that this was not appropriate. However, your Lordships seem to consider that it is appropriate, so I will take it away and think about it.
Lord Northfield: I am grateful that the chorus of supporters made the Minister kindly agree to take this away and look at it. But I would make two points to him. First, I hope that there will not be any doubt about the drafting. I am not talking about the technical detail; I am simply talking about the major proposals in the amendment. They have been agreed by your Lordships on several previous occasions. So there is no question here that I am introducing anything new. We have been over this many times, and I hope that that is agreed by him. So in agreeing to look at it, I hope the noble Earl is not saying that he will look right from the beginning again at the whole principle here. We have been over it several times and I hope that the whole House is tired of it. The second point is—
Lord Avebury: Would the noble Lord agree that the noble Earl's consideration should be confined to an examination of these proposals to see whether they are, in effect, the same as the ones that the noble Lord has presented in his Bills on three previous occasions? The question of whether or not this is appropriate here has already been determined by your Lordships this afternoon, provided that the noble Lord is advised that
1142
it fits within the Long Title.
Lord Northfield: I am grateful for that support. My second point is that I beg the noble Earl to reflect on one other problem, which is that if we do not make this final amendment of the Deer Act here, the chances of doing it for another five years are almost nil, for very specific reasons. The whole country is waiting for a Bill to amend the legislation regarding deer in Scotland. You really cannot deal with England and Wales within that one. The whole question involved in Scottish law will take some time to bring up to date. Furthermore, your Lordships' house—and I am surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has not intervened—is also waiting for another Bill to deal with deer farming. So the chances of this third lot being dealt with within the next five years, with those two already waiting in the queue, is nil, unless we put it into this Bill. Therefore, I hope that in looking at it, the noble Earl will have those points in mind, in addition to the ones that I have made.
Lord Melchett: The noble Earl did not have the advantage which we on this side have, of seeing the serried ranks of nodding heads behind him while my noble friend was speaking. My feeling is that it might be better to put this into the Bill and allow the Government to amend it, if they want to. That seems to be in accord with the general feeling of the Committee and it would allow the Government to look at the drafting when we get to the Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, says that I have not had the advantage of sitting on his side, but if there be any advantage in seeing nodding heads on my side he is welcome to that advantage. I say to him that it is slightly disingenuous and unfair, when a Minister conies to the Committee to state in all sincerity what the Government feel, and, becoming aware of the pressure of feeling in the Committee, says "All right, I will take this away and look at it" to say "Let's push it into the Bill now". I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which is not constrained or constricted. Of course I will consider this in its entirety, and I should have thought that, with that undertaking, it would have been reasonable for the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Northfield: I am in the hands of the Committee. On the whole, I think it would be wise to withdraw the amendment. If the Government come up with very poor reasons for refusing it at Report, I hope that those noble Lords who have been very kind to me over the years in supporting it will all turn up again. Next time we shall vote it through, whatever the Government say. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 188A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970
.—After subparagraph (iii) of section 10(1)(c) (power to grant licences) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 there

1143
shall be inserted the following subparagraph—
"(iv) the protection of the flora or fauna of a nature reserve within the meaning of Part III of the 1949 Act or an area of special scientific interest of which notification has been given to any local planning authority under section 23 of the 1949 Act or which is designated by order under section 26 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,".").
The noble Viscount said: I wish to risk the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and very briefly to return to the question of seals. I do so because it is in the interests of the conservation of the animals and birds which we have been talking about for so many hours. It is also very urgent that this matter should be considered. I should explain that this amendment was put down at short notice. Only a few days ago did the National Trust, who inspired this amendment, realise the possibility of such an amendment. There will be no question of pushing it tonight, but I should be very grateful if the matter could he considered by the Government. I should add that the Nature Conservancy Council are entirely behind such an amendment. I believe that the late Lord Cranbrook who introduced the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 into your Lordships' House would not have opposed it. Indeed, he might have supported it.
Section 10 of this Act concerns the reasons for which a Secretary of State may in certain circumstances give a licence to kill seals. The first of these is where damage to fisheries has been proved; secondly, where a reduction in the surplus population of seals is required; and thirdly where the use of such a population surplus as a resource is possible. All that is required to be added to improve this Act in a very brief and small way is a fourth reason: the protection of the habitat of a nature reserve occupied by seals. This is to be done in the interests of the other inhabitants of that nature reserve.
I speak mainly about the Fame Islands off the North-East coast of England, which I have known intimately all my life and which have on them a very large population of grey seals. The statistics are that in 1930 there was a population on these islands of some 400 seals. In 1980, it is estimated that this population reached 8,000 seals. That population is still increasing and may be spreading to islands in the Firth of Forth further north. These islands consist of a group of about 30 islands, nearly all of which are quite suitable for seals to breed on. They are mostly composed of solid rock and are perfectly acceptable. The seals do no harm there and are welcome in some respects, but on some of the islands there is a fragile cap of soil and vegetation which has been threatened in the past few years by this increase in the seal population.
There have been fairly successful attempts to drive most of these seals away to the islands where no harm is done. On about two of the islands it is considered by those responsible for the management of the islands which belong to the National Trust that some of the seals should or may have to be killed in order to protect the habitat of the birds which use this soil to nest in. It is for that reason that this amendment is sought.
I understand that the Secretary of State has said that under the Act as it stands at present he cannot give a licence for such a cull unless such an amendment is introduced. Therefore it seems to those responsible
1144
to be an urgent and necessary amendment, which I hope will in due course be accepted and which would not in any way have any effect on the number of seals. That is not the point which we are trying to make. This is not an anti-seal amendment. I believe that those responsible believe it to be important to have it before next autumn's breeding season.
The birds which are threatened by the erosion of the soil cap—which, should it happen, is something which can never be replaced—are at least three major and important species and they form part of that very important bird sanctuary: the eider duck, the puffin and the roseate tern. The latter is one which we have just put into Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is an extremely rare breeding bird in Britain. They need soil and vegetation to breed on. IF the soil goes, they may disappear. Therefore the amendment is, strictly speaking, in the interests of the conservation of nature reserves and I hope very much that it will be possible to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson: I want to support the amendment, for the very simple reason that the National Trust, of which I have the honour to be chairman, holds, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, these islands. They are sites of special scientific interest, Grade 1, and it is our duty to preserve the ecological balance on these islands. The reason why I am particularly anxious to support this amendment is that, if we were to accept the view and if the Government were to press the view that this was not an appropriate Bill in which to incorporate a minor change to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and we had to wait several years—five or more—for that change to be made, there might well not be a soil cap left for the National Trust to preserve and we should find ourselves inalienably preserving some barren rock in the North Sea, which seems to be a pointless exercise. I hope your Lordships will give consideration to that point.
We have done a great deal for the seal population of the Farne Islands which, as the noble Viscount has said, has increased some 20 times during our stewardship, and all we want is for the Secretary of State to be given the power to issue a licence to cull for the welfare of the flora and fauna and the ecological balance of the islands in addition to the welfare of the seals themselves.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would make it clear that a licence would be granted to enable action to be taken against seals where they were causing damage to the flora and fauna of areas which were recognised as being of particular importance because of their nature conservation value. This may not be the case at present and although I accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and by my noble friend, we wish to look at this matter along with other changes to the Seals Act on a later occasion. I am not in the slightest out of sympathy with the view which has been put forward, but dare I express the hope that this amendment will not be pursued too far because I do not think it would be a good thing to amend the Conservation of Seals Act piecemeal? There will be an occasion when we can do it rather than attempting to do it in this Bill.
Viscount Ridley: I wonder whether my noble friend can indicate when there might be an occasion to amend the Conservation of Seals Act because, as I have said before, I do think it is somewhat urgent and it affects the basic provisions of that Act.
Earl Ferrers: The answer is "some time". I would not wish to be more precise than that.
The Earl of Cranbrook: At the risk of boring the Committee, I should like to reiterate a point which has been made from the Front Bench. It is a sentiment which I heartily support—that this Bill is about conservation; that is to say, about the appropriate management of our wildlife resources in this country. The National Trust has exercised its trust in an admirable fashion in managing the wildlife resource of an extremely small and fragile part of our national environmental heritage, the Farne Islands, which I hope many of your Lordships have visited, because it is an experience of extreme delight.
The point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and perhaps it needs emphasising to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the problems of the Fame Islands cannot wait for ever until the legislative processes take their due course. Seals are wearing away the soil on these islands and the soil itself supports not only an interesting island flora but it is also the nesting site of the protected birds which are nesting on these islands. These islands are of great interest. Island habitats themselves are always scientifically important in any country, providing they are adequately preserved. I understand that what is being asked for here is the appropriate authority to carry out correct environmental management and this must be the central aim of the legislation we are talking about.
Lord Avebury: I was not going to enter into a discussion on the merits of the amendment because, although I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I am not an expert on the Fame Islands or on their conservation as a habitat of birds, which he claims is being jeopardised. However, I did want to say one word about the general principles on which the Minister's reply was based, which seemed to me to be similar to those which applied in his answer to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I wonder whether it is altogether appropriate, if I may venture to say so to the noble Earl, to rest the ministerial case on the inappropriateness of a particular amendment and the remark that one should not amend other legislation in a piecemeal way by amendments in this Bill. Should not the Minister, in replying definitively to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, or the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, address himself to the merits of the amendment itself and not to the question of whether or not they should appear in this Bill?
Would it not be enough for him to satisfy himself—as I asked the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, during his speech a few minutes ago—that whatever was proposed did fall properly within the Long Title of this Bill, and then, providing that was so, to look at the amendment on the merits of the speeches made by noble Lords and see whether the amendment made a positive contribution to the position of deer or seals or what
1146
ever the case may be. If one looks at this amendment in the light of that principle, one asks, "Does it form a useful addition to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970?", not, "Is it a good idea for us to amend the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 on a piecemeal basis?" To use that argument seems to me to destroy any possibility that we have of amending other legislation by reference. It is, after all, a very well-established practice in the legislation of this country to refer back to previous Acts and to put in amendments by means of additional clauses or alterations to clauses already found there. If the Minister is to be empowered simply to reject any amendment which seeks to do this without addressing himself to the contents of the amendment, I do not think we are going to get very far. I hope the noble Earl will agree, on the same basis as he did with Lord Northfield's amendment, to take this amendment away, consider it and come back on Report stage with a more carefully thought out argument.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I hope my noble friend will stick to his original position. If questions under the Conservation of Seals Act are to be raised, I should have to raise the question of the number of seals encouraged by the National Trust. My noble friend Lord Ridley gave the statistics just now—from a comparatively small number to 8,000. They are causing great problems to the net fishers in the Tweed and the Forth, and to the rod fishers. I do not want that controversy to be imported into this Bill, but it will be if amendments like this are accepted. I have every sympathy for the flora and fauna the National Trust want to protect, but that is not the only question that concerns the Fame Islands. We should have much more controversy if my noble friend gave way to the request of the noble Lord.
Lord Craigton: This discussion this evening is part of the whole conservation movement throughout the world. You conserve a creature, and then you upset the balance of nature and so you get too many of them in many cases. We have done that in Parliament. We have conserved the seal. Now all we are seeking to do is to put right the imbalance by doing something the other way. I think that is entirely logical. I support the amendment.
Lord Melchett: I was assuming, as the Government wanted to take this amendment separately from my own amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act, that there was going to be a different attitude to it, and I was disappointed to hear what the noble Earl had to say. I withdrew my amendments because they were (a) not urgent, as the noble Viscount has made clear this amendment is, and (b) did not seem to me to raise sufficiently important enough points for me not to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Home. But although I thought his advice very valuable when he directed it at me, and I accepted it, I would urge the noble Viscount on this occasion not to accept it, and would support him in the amendment he has moved.
Earl Ferrers: I should just like to say that of course when any noble Lord puts down an amendment it is important to consider the merits of the amendment

1147
properly. But that is not the Government's only job. The Government have to try to ensure that such legislation as is produced is produced in as reasonable, as understandable and as convenient a fashion as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that one should address one's answer to the merits of the amendment as a whole. I have a great deal of sympathy with the merits of the admendment and I think that there could well be occasions when the amendment should be accepted. What I said to my noble friend who moved the amendment is wholly consistent with what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; namely, that I have no doubt that the day will come when we shall have to amend the Conservation of Seals Act because there are a number of points—and he produced some earlier on—which require amendment and alteration. I believe that that is the correct way to do it and not to amend it now, and then later on.
1148
Of course, in any conservation Bill such as this, one is conserving at the one moment seals and at the next moment flora and fauna, and there will, periodically, be a clash. I would only say to your Lordships that of course I accept and understand the meaning and the requirements behind the amendment. But I would ask your Lordships to consider that it is not appropriate, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said, to amend the Conservation of Seals Act in this way and at this moment, because it may well prove more controversial than expected.
Viscount Ridley: As I said earlier, this amendment has not been before your Lordships for very long—for only two or three days. There is no question whatever of my pressing it. However, I feel that it is possibly so important that it may be necessary to put it down again at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Mammals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods]:
10.3 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 51, line 22, at end insert—

("Seal, Common

Phoca vitulina

Seal, Grey

Halichoerus grypus").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 189 which adds to Schedule 6 the common seal and the grey seal. What is involved here is what the Government are doing to comply with the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats because both these species appear under Appendix III of that convention. The convention requires the contracting parties to prohibit or control the indiscriminate methods of capture and killing.
I understand that in the information paper produced by the Department of the Environment dated 28th August 1980, they had proposed, in conformity with the convention, to include both these species of seal in what is now Schedule 6 to the Bill. However, they changed their minds about that. Whether the noble Earl will argue again that it is better to deal with everything under the Conservation of Seals Act I do not know, but meanwhile, at any rate, these two species of seal will not be protected from various methods of killing which are in the convention and which are governing Schedule 6.
So at the moment the exclusion of these two species from Schedule 6 means that they are not receiving the protection which the convention said they should receive and which contracting parties are obliged to give. Therefore, they are exposed to methods of killing at present which Schedule 6 would stop, and if they are not included in Schedule 6 they will continue to be exposed to those methods until some other step is taken. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government want to comply with their international obligations, especially when they are in Europe.
Viscount Thurso: Is there not a misprint here because on page 51, line 22, the amendment would put seals in between saxifrage and sow-thistle?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is rather quicker off the mark than I am, but I shall certainly see whether there is a misprint. Perhaps I might reply to the noble Lord's amendment as a whole. The Government accept the need to continue to give statutory protection to the two British species of seal, the common seal and the grey seal, to which this amendment relates. But as the noble Lord knows, we have—we referred to it earlier this evening—the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, which, as I said, I thought it would be inappropriate to alter piecemeal. But in the Government's view this Act meets our obligations under the Berne Convention.
This does not mean, of course, that we would regard the Act as perfect or that the Government would countenance indiscriminate or cruel methods of killing seals. The fact is that the methods which are listed in Clause 11 are mainly of no relevance to seals or they are effectively prohibited by the 1970 Act. For ex
1150
ample, the Act prohibits the use of poison or shooting with other than a prescribed rifle; a method not expressly prohibited in the Act would be applicable only during a close season when the killing or taking of seals is prohibited, except under the licensing powers of the Secretary of State under the Act.
I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friends with responsibilities under the Act do not issue licences which would allow indiscriminate or cruel methods of killing. As I said earlier, I think that there may be an occasion later when the Conservation of Seals Act as a whole may be amended or reconstructed, but at the moment I think that it provides the protection which is required.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I am moderately satisfied with his reply. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 190:
Page 50, leave out line 37.
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove the red squirrel from Schedule 6. When I tabled Amendment No. 144 and this amendment I was under the mistaken impression that there was no need to include the red squirrel in Schedule 6 because it would be fully protected by its inclusion in Schedule 5. As a result of what the noble Earl said when I moved Amendment No. 144, I now realise that it should remain on Schedule 6 so that it may no longer be killed or taken by the methods specified in the Bill. Therefore, I do not wish to move this amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 193 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Protection of Wild Plants]:
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 194A:
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("wild").
The noble Baroness said: We turn now to plants. Clause 12 deals with the protection of wild plants. I should like to move Amendment No. 194A and to speak to Amendment No. 195 at the same time. The purpose of these amendments is to facilitate enforcement of this part of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill allows the sale of protected plants provided that those offered for sale have been cultivated and are not wild plants as defined in Clause 25. This is desirable both in order to avoid any interruption in a long-established and respectable trade conducted by specialist nurserymen and because if, say, the Cheddar pink is obtainable from nurseries, there is less temptation to take it from the wild. Yet, as drafted, the Bill offers a dishonest nurseryman easy defence, for it will be almost impossible to prove that a plant offered for sale is taken from the wild unless the offender is actually caught in the act of uprooting it. The amendment would in effect restrict the right of sale to those able to establish that the plants offered are cultivated ones and not wild plants. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I must resist these amendments. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the same offence to cultivated plants, which is one of the effects of these amendments. There are a number of reasons for this use, one of which is that cultivation increases the stock of plants available and does not diminish it. This is a form of conservation which we would not wish to jeopardise.
As to the proposed subsection (4), it appears to be designed to make it a defence in offences under Clause 12(1) to show that a plant was cultivated and not found wild. This is already the effect of referring in subsection (1) to a wild plant when one takes into account the definition of the expression "wild plant" in Clause 25 of the Bill. Indeed, subsection (1) goes further in so far as by virtue of the definition of "wild plant" you do not commit an offence if your action only relates to a cultivated plant, and thus you do not need the defence in such circumstances. In view of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I do not feel at all inclined to withdraw it because I am not convinced by what the noble Lord has said, but I should like to have time to study it and consider whether I am satisfied with the answer or whether I shall bring this back at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195 to 197 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Plants which are protected]:
10.13 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 51, line 19, at end insert—

("Primrose, Scottish

Primula scotica").

The noble Duke said: This amendment is simple and I hope completely non-controversial. I hope that noble Lords on the Front Bench will be able to accept it. The Scottish primrose, primula scotica, is an extremely rare plant on the mainland of Scotland, although I must admit that it is quite common on Orkney, but so far as I know not on any of the other islands off Scotland. This amendment is supported by the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, whose emblem this plant is, and, I believe, the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland.
It would not cause any difficulties to any other plants if this amendment were accepted. So far as I am aware, it does not smother any other plants, or act in a nasty way towards any other plants or towards any animals, insects, crustaceans or anything else. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to accept this amendment, as it is important to protect what is one of the few uniquely Scottish plants. I beg to move.
Baroness David: May I issue a word of caution about accepting this amendment? This delightful plant is endemic to Scotland and is therefore included in the list of the International Union for the Conserva
1152
tion of Nature and Natural Resources. However, contradicting what the noble Duke said, it is fairly widespread and locally abundant along the north coast. It is very attractive and is coveted by gardeners, and the only reason why the botanical interests have not proposed the inclusion of primula scotica in Schedule 7 is that they are anxious that the list should not appear unmanageably long or merely arbitrary but should be confined to those plants which, on careful scrutiny, are seen to be really in danger; and because of its abundance, the Scottish primrose cannot be placed in that category. If there were room for an exception, it would of course have a strong claim for being on the RCUM list, but the botanists are anxious not to prejudice Schedule 7 by putting on it something which is not at this moment endangered.
Lord Inglewood: Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, we should at this time put in Schedule 7 all those plants which we feel are in danger. The suggestion that by putting more, rather than fewer, on the list we are weakening the whole position is, I believe, false. I support my noble friend. It is not often that someone who lives near the southern side of the border has the opportunity wholeheartedly of supporting some Scottish interest, but on this occasion I do. We should be careful to ensure that when the Bill leaves us the list is complete and does not have items left off it just because, by putting them on, it would be longer than some optimum in certain people's heads.
Baroness David: I was not suggesting that it would be longer than some people want but that what should be on it should be particularly endangered plants.
The Duke of Atholl: In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady David, I believe that recently its numbers in the north of the mainland of Scotland have decreased considerably due to a large extent to people taking it, as she rightly said, to put in their gardens; at least I presume that is why they take it. It is therefore important to get it into Schedule 7. She is of course right to say that in Orkney it is a fairly common plant, but Orkney is quite inaccessible and, as it disappears from the north of Scotland, we may find that it starts diminishing in Orkney too. I should be happier, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, if it could be put in Schedule 7 now, while locally in Orkney it is still reasonably common, rather than waiting for it to become rare in Orkney as well as on the mainland of Scotland.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment. We are advised by the Nature Conservancy Council in these matters and they advise that the Scottish primrose is not in danger, nor is it likely to become in danger of extinction. As my noble friend said, it is found widely on the northern coast of Scotland and in much of the Orkney Isles, and, although its distribution is relatively restricted, where it occurs it is abundant. There is therefore no need to afford it special protection. Further, I understand that, if this particular species were added to the list, there are probably several others which would come in the same category. Although, therefore, we

1153
shall take account of what my noble friend said, I must ask the Committee to resist the amendment.
The Duke of Atholl: I feel bound to withdraw the amendment because my noble friend said he would take account of what I had said. I believe that if he now refers the matter to the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland he will find that they are not averse to putting the Scottish primrose in Schedule 7, and I put it no higher than that. I shall probably return to this subject on Report, because I think the Minister will find, when he has taken the most recent soundings, that there has been a considerable decrease in the numbers of this plant in the north of Scotland, in Sutherland and Caithness, and that it may need protection so far as the mainland of Scotland is concerned, although, as I said, I agree that it is still fairly common in Orkney. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 51, line 30, at end insert—

("Alison, Small

Alyssum, Alyssoides

Broomrape, Bedstraw

Orobanche, Caryophyllacea

Broomrape, Oxtongue

Orobanche, Loricata

Broomrape, Thistle

Orobanche, Reticulata

Club-rush, Triangular

Scirpus, Triquetrus

Cow-wheat, Field

Melampyrum, Arvense

Cudweed, Jersey

Gnaphalium, Luteoalbum

Galingale, Brown

Cyperus, Fuscus

Hares'-ear, Sickle-leaved

Bupleurum, Falcatum

Hares'-ear, Small

Bupleurum, Baldense

Knotgrass, Sea

Polygonum, Maritimum

Lettuce, Least

Lactuca, Saligna

Leek, Round-headed

Allium, Sphaerocephalon

Marsh-mallow, Rough

Althaea, Hirsuta

Pear, Plymouth

Pyrus, Cordata

Pink, Childing

Petrorhagia, Nanteuilii

Sandwort, Norwegian

Arcnaria, Norvegica

Solomon's-seal, Whorled

Polygonatum, Verticillatum

Spurge, Purple

Euphorbia, Peplis

Violet, Fen

Viola, Persicifolia

Water-plantain, Ribbon leaved

Alisma, Gramineum

Wood-sedge, Starved

Carex, Depauperata

Wormwood, Field

Artemisia, Campestris

Yellow-rattle, Greater

Rhinanthus, Serotinus ").

The noble Lord said: I am now back on old, familiar ground. I had the great pleasure of piloting through your Lordships' House the Wild Plants Bill 10 years ago, which eventually, under the care of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, saw light as the Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, and which contained much of that original Bill. That Act enabled the special protection of a wild plant if it had become so rare that its status as a British plant was endangered by any action designated as an offence under the Act.
The Wildlife and Countryside Bill extends special protection, not only to endangered plants but to vulnerable ones as well. Clause 20 allows the Secretary of State, on representation by the Nature Conservancy Council, to add a plant which in his opinion is in danger of extinction in Great Britain. This is the definition of "endangered" used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. It also allows the Secretary of State to add a plant which is likely to
1154
become so endangered, and that is the definition of "vulnerable" used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This latter phrase—the plant which is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken—is to be welcomed, as the 1975 Act was limited to allowing only those species which are threatened primarily by collecting to be added to the schedule.
It is interesting to see how far we have moved on in public opinion: then, we thought it not diplomatic to add vulnerable plants to the lists in case it should endanger the whole Act, but now the Government have, I am delighted to say, accepted the principle. However, habitat loss may be the main reason and collecting only a secondary one. Collecting becomes a contributory factor as species decline, become rare and, as I was saying about an animal earlier on, people want to grab it before it disappears. A plant in this situation can now be added to the schedule. The list of the species in the 1975 Act was compiled from the best information available at the time, but before the publication of the British Red Data book on vascular plants. A new edition of this important bible of plant status is in preparation, and the up-to-date information used for this new edition, although not yet published, has been available in compiling this list.
The plants added to the schedule by the Government—those are the plants which will be found already in Schedule 7 and included in the printed Bill—are of mixed status. Some of them are vulnerable, some of them are endangered, and there are several of both. But it is a strange list because while it accepts vulnerable species to the schedule, it does not accept all the endangered species which are identified in the Red Data book; and at the stage where the Government have accepted the fact that it is necessary to protect species before they are on the verge of extinction, vulnerable, it would seem unreasonable not at least to include all the plants recognised as endangered. Probably further work is needed before other vulnerable plants are added. That may be necessary, but it is something which can be done afterwards. Surely, however, at this stage all endangered plants should he added.
The amendment which stands in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, brings about this rationalisation. It includes all the remaining endangered plants now included in the Red Data book except for arable weeds and obvious aliens. The list of the species in the amendment has been discussed with the Botanical Society of the British Isles and the National Conservancy Council, as well as the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. I understand that the NCC are happy to support their addition. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Schedule 7 is based on advice from the Nature Conservancy Council given to the Secretary of State and required by Section 12 of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. The NCC provided this advice in July. Since then they have had further information about the distribution or scarcity of the plants which are the subject of this amendment. It is their view that these plants are equally deserving of protection. I am happy to accept the Nature Conservancy Council's advice.

1155
Unfortunately, so far as the amendment is concerned, the items are listed in alphabetical order beginning with "A", and the amendment would insert them after the "Ws" in Schedule 7, as drafted. I am afraid that the items listed in the amendment will have to be properly integrated with the items in the existing schedule if the reader is not to be misled. Accordingly, I undertake to put down a suitable Government amendment at a later stage. I trust that in the light of this undertaking the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: As my name, too, is put to this amendment, may I say how grateful I am that it has been accepted. I quite understand that it will have to be put in the right order. May I ask that the three commas in the Latin names be removed and that the spelling of "artermisia" be corrected?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: No doubt that will be attended to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am grateful to the Government for accepting this amendment and very happy to leave to them the business of working out in what alphabetical order this list should appear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: May I at this stage, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, reiterate something that I said when we came back after the dinner adjournment? I think that the House at that moment—whether we were unduly punctual or not—was not very full. I did make a special plea that, as we had arranged to stop at a definite time rather than at a definite place in the Bill, we could proceed with some speed. I know that since then there have been some matters over which people feel very strongly and which have been debated very fully; but I wonder whether I could repeat that we have approximately two hours more available tonight and I should be most grateful if we could do as much as possible in that time.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On this side, we have hardly opened our mouths since dinner.
Lord Denham: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that I was not casting stones in any direction.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Introduction of new species etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
10.28 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 13, line 31, at end insert ("imports with the intention of releasing or allowing to escape, or").
The noble Lord said: In this clause we come to the restrictions on introducing new species. This particular part of the clause deals with the introduction of wild animals which in the wild state are not ordinarily
1156
resident in or regular visitors to Great Britain. The purpose of my amendment is to try to make this part of the clause at least look as if it might work. At the moment it seems to me that the clause as drafted in the Bill strikes at the problem well after the damage has been done and much too late in the day. I realise that the problem with having the sort of restriction on imports that I have drafted is that at the time of import it is difficult to know what the person's intention is; but the fact is that a great deal of the legislation we have for protecting wildlife in this country is very difficult to enforce. Even some of the things which one might think would be relatively easy to enforce (like the restrictions on poison which we discussed earlier this evening) are difficult in practice to enforce. One of the things we looked at—and we will be coming to an amendment on this later—when this House passed the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, was the importance that these types of legal provisions have in the sense of being declaratory or educational. That is why that Act has a provision which is repeated in the Bill about giving information to young people about what the provisions of the Act contain. It is in that spirit that I should like the Government to consider this amendment. When this problem of the introduction of the new species was originally considered by the Nature Conservancy Council, my understanding was that they would have liked to see some prohibition on import. Once the species which are going to cause havoc to our native fauna have got into the country it is a bit late to start saying, "Careful that does not get out", or, "If you let it out we are going to fine you £50 or take you to the magistrates' court".
Where one wants to have some control on things which are going to be a pest, a menace or highly destructive to agriculture, forestry or native flora or fauna is at the point when they enter the country. The difficulty with that, as I understand it, and the reason why it is not in the Bill at the moment—and the noble Lord will no doubt enlighten me on this—is because people think that it will be difficult to enforce. I accept that. But nevertheless it seems to me important that we should make clear in this Bill—and the Act when it becomes law—that what we want is for people not to import into this country species of animals which will be highly destructive to our native flora or fauna or to agriculture, forestry or other commercial interests. It is really that part of the problem to which my amendment is directed. I hope that, notwithstanding the difficulties of enforcement, something of this sort can be included in the Bill.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has more or less answered his point for me. The great difficulty is the fact that if somebody imports something, unless they actually make a confession that they are importing it for a particular reason, you simply do not know why they are importing it. In our view, the amendment would add nothing to the existing provisions of Clause 13 because the intention to release or allow an escape could not be proved without a confession, which is unlikely to be forthcoming, or unless a release or an escape has actually taken place, in which case the provisions of Clause 13 as currently drafted would apply.
Lord Avebury: Do we not manage to enforce prohibitions on the import of dogs and cats, and are not people sometimes prosecuted for bringing them in unlawfully?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: That is quite true, yes.
Lord Melchett: If I might help the noble Lord a little, I tried to answer the point because I know the argument against the amendment. I do not think the case is quite so bad as the noble Lord is making out. There has recently been a campaign launched to reintroduce the beaver into this country. It seems to me not likely, knowing some of those who have been interested in this, but in theory it is possible that somebody might take it into their heads that this was a very good idea and they would get hold of some beavers and say, "I am going to bring them into the country and release them". They would not make any secret of it. At the moment under the Bill we would not be able to do anything about that until after the beavers had been imported.
It would seem good sense and reasonable to make it an offence actually to import under those conditions. Also it seems to me quite possible, even if somebody did not confess, that the situation might become apparent after somebody had imported something and was keeping it in a zoo or in a private collection quite legitimately. Some documentary evidence might come to light which showed that the motive for the import was not to keep it in their private collection but ultimately to release it, to the great damage of agriculture, forestry or some other interest. In those circumstances, this kind of prohibition would be useful.
I know the arguments against it, but it seems to me that there is quite a lot to be said in its favour. I wonder whether, in the light of what has been said, it would be possible for the noble Lord to take this away and have another look at it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to complete what I was going to say before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, intervened. In so far as the intention of the amendment is to set up a system of import control and make it an offence to import certain animals, it should be pointed out that that system would be very costly to set up and run. We do not see a need to control importation as such. Many of the animals concerned would be perfectly acceptable so long as they remained in captivity. However, I have absolute sympathy for what the noble Lord is trying to get at. I see the point. I think there are difficulties, but we are certainly prepared to consider this matter, though without any commitment of any sort.
Lord Melchett: I accept that. I do not think that the argument about cost is a good one, if I may say so, because as I understand it all live animals that are imported into this country would in any event be subject to such stringent checks. I think, for instance, of birds which would be so checked, because of the danger of importing various diseases involving domestic poultry and so on. It would be necessary to check the kind of animals we are talking about—non-native animals—because of the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. We shall be coming on to that and the
1158
question of the need for better enforcement as well as the hope that there will be restricted ports of entry for such creatures. But it does not seem to me that any additional checks, more bureaucracy, or extra manpower would be needed at ports of entry in relation to live animals. Non-native species coming into this country ought anyhow to be very carefully scrutinised and checked. The noble Lord has said that he will look at this matter without commitment. I would not ask for anything more at this stage, and in the light of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 13, line 38, after ("person") insert ("imports,").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 204 and 206, and at the same time I wish to comment on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, No. 205, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, No. 207. As drafted the Bill seems to us to go too far in attempting to introduce consistency between the regulations for plants and those for animals. The natural and accidental escape of a plant seed over a garden hedge is of a wholly different category from the deliberate release of a mink or coypu; and in general an introduced plant is likely to do infinitely less damage than an introduced animal. For those reasons, and because enforcement is virtually impossible, we join with our noble friend Lord Kilbracken in supporting the deletion of this provision; that is, lines 40 and 41 on page 13.
Because, however, there may later be occasions when it would be desirable specifically to prohibit the introduction of certain plants, we are anxious to retain the reference to Schedule 8. At present that schedule contains no flowering plants, but only a seaweed, the notorious "japweed", Sargassum. It may well be that some flowering plants, for example, the giant hogweed, will be found to be as great a pest as the seaweed. They can then be added to the schedule, which will automatically prohibit their introduction, and, if our amendment to line 38 is accepted, their importation. For that reason we would not go along with the amendment of our noble friend Lord Kilbracken relating to subsection (1)(b).
With regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, we are worried about the question of the provision being enforceable. We think that his amendment would make enforcement more difficult because in a way it strengthens the clause. We think that his amendment would make the matter even more difficult and therefore more unrealistic. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Dealing with Amendment No. 204, I would say that we consider that there are not adequate reasons to justify import controls in relation to plants. They would involve considerable expense, and, because of the difficulty of detecting the seeds and cuttings, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce effectively. There would have to be extremely strong reasons to support the introduction of such controls, and we are not at the moment convinced of the need. I may say that Kew Gardens

1159
agrees with us, so I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness David: I wonder whether the noble Lord would go on and answer the other amendments so that I could reply to them all together.
Lord Craigton: I have not moved my amendment yet.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The controls over the introduction of plants into the wild which are contained in the Bill should apply to all non-native varieties as well as to certain plants which have become established. The Government consider that the introduction of any new species into the wild needs to be justified. British wildlife has not suffered much to date as the result of floral introductions but our good fortune cannot be guaranteed in the future without controls, and Clause 13(2)(a) is intended to prevent problems occurring as a result of introductions. The proposed amendment would remove the blanket coverage of the introduction of new plants. It would not be practicable to extend Schedule 8 so as to list all those species whose introduction ought to be controlled. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Lord thinks it is going to be difficult to control the import of cuttings or seeds, how does he propose to enforce this provision—when persons might be scattering these seeds or planting these cuttings anywhere throughout the country? Is he going to have an army of inspectors operating throughout the National Trust lands and all public open spaces, to make sure that people are not planting seeds brought in from Sardinia or Corsica?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: There would be absolutely no way of doing that.
Baroness David: Therefore it seems to me that this is a very difficult clause to operate. I quite appreciate the difficulty about catching the imports as they come in. The whole problem about this part of the clause is how to define precisely enough the terms of this subsection to allow it to be enforced. How do you define a plant of a kind which does not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state? The snowdrop has been with us for at least 300 years, but most botanists would say that it was an introduced and not a native plant. The same is true of many of our trees, such as the sycamore and the horse chesnut. Even if these were allowed honorary British citizenship, one still has to decide how many times an alien plant has to be found and in what habitats before it can be said to be ordinarily growing here.
Then what of the phrase "in the wild" which is used in subsection (2)? As I said on Second Reading, a large proportion of this country has at one time or other and to some extent been cultivated. When is it wild and when is it not wild? At what point do motorway verges, which are rapidly becoming one of our most valuable wildlife habitats, graduate into being "wild"? At what point can reclaimed tips and dumps be said to revert to the wild? The com
1160
plications are endless. Motorway cuttings are first sprayed in a mass production operation with seed mixtures containing many plants which are not native to Britain. When they are sown they are not wild and all is in order. But what is the situation when these plants seed themselves beyond the boundary of the motorway? Is the highway authority guilty of an offence in allowing them to do so?
The tree lupin, which is not native to Britain, has proved invaluable in the reclamation of china clay tips, but it is a prolific seeder and rapidly colonises the ground beyond the tips. Is its use to be banned because of this? Will those of your Lordships who continue to allow the common rhododendron to escape out of your policies be liable to prosecution? And what of those who plant gaultheria for their pheasants in what is at least semi-natural woodland? We are urged to replace our vanished elms with Japanese elms—a tree of whose performance, under our conditions, next to nothing is yet known. Will that be legal or illegal? In the face of all these queries the Government, if they are to insist on banning introduced plants, really must make the position clearer.
Lord Kilbracken: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend a question. I should like to concentrate first on Amendment No. 203, which has to be considered, among other things, together with Amendment No. 206, to leave out lines 40 and 41. If that is done, it seems to me that we are left with a rather curious subsection (2), which would read:
"Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person imports, plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which—
(b) is included in Part II of Schedule 8, he shall be guilty of an offence",
and in Part II of Schedule 8 we have only the Japanese seaweed.
Baroness David: If I may answer, I think I said that this was a precaution. We have only one plant in it at the moment, but there might suddenly develop other plants. I think I mentioned the giant hogweed, which could become a pest and could be added to Schedule 8. So it is a valuable precaution to have Schedule 8 there in case.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I quite see the difficulty. It is very difficult to give a definition of what is "wild" and of which plants are "in the wild". On the other hand, it is something which has been used in a number of other Bills and is really understood by everybody. It is just jolly difficult to put it into words. I think the noble Baroness knows what "in the wild" means as well as I do. We have had legal advice on this, because the noble Baroness very kindly told us that she would raise this point. Perhaps I may just read out what it says:
"The legal advice is that the concept is one which everyone understands but which is difficult, if not impossible, to define satisfactorily, and that it should be left to the court to decide".
Baroness David: I think that is very weak law. If we are making a law like that, it is very weak indeed.
Lord Avebury: If the noble Baroness was going to pursue this at Report stage, what would be a more

1161
convenient way of arranging it would be not to have the single plant, to which the section would then be applicable, contained in Part II of Schedule 8, but to give the Secretary of State an order-making power so that he could add any plant which might become a threat in the future, without the necessity of amending legislation.
Baroness David: I think he has that power.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: There is such a power in the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to look at this again. I feel that we are in rather a hurried state tonight, and I should not like to withdraw the amendment without saying that I shall reserve the right to come back on Report, if I think that proper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("causes to grow in the wild any plant") and insert ("by his unreasonable inaction permits or causes the growth in the wild of any plant").
The noble Lord said: The way I should like to see this clause worded is:
"…if any person plants or otherwise by his unreasonable inaction permits or causes the growth in the wild of any plant".
Because of the way the clause is drafted, if Japanese seaweed appears in my little patch of water I need do nothing at all about it, except that I must not plant it. I believe that it should be an offence to stand idly by and watch it grow. That is all my amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. We have the classic and terrible case of the so-called Siberian wallflower which, I believe, was brought to a London suburban garden just over 100 years ago and has spread throughout Great Britain. It is now the most appalling pest and weed, which spreads so easily. The person who brought it in would not, I think, have been liable under this clause as it now stands, and it should be strengthened.
Lord Kilbracken: It is a very difficult part of the Bill to understand. In the next amendment we come to the question of lines 40 and 41. I simply do not understand why there should be a ban on the growing in the wild of all plants—there may be exceptions—which do not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state. I am sure that we shall have examples of this when the next amendment is moved, but what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is saying is that not by our unreasonable inaction must we permit or cause the growth in the wild of any plant. We may not plant it. Presumably the seed can be sown, which is an action rather than inaction, but we must not permit it by our unreasonable inaction. I do not understand what the noble Lord is getting at.
Lord Craigton: The phrase, as worded, is "if any person plants or otherwise causes to grow in the wild."
1162
I have used exactly the same words: "causes the growth in the wild". I can see no difference. It is the allowing of it, by his unreasonable inaction, to go on growing.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am not sure that the noble Lord is doing exactly what he means to do by the amendment. If he removes the words "causes to grow in the wild any plant" and replaces them by his amendment, anybody can take action without trouble, but they are in difficulty with inaction. I think that is what the noble Lord opposite was saying. We have sympathy with the idea, but it is a very difficult one to enforce. Anybody who sees Japanese seaweed somewhere should get their gumboots on and deal with it as quickly as possible. But I do not think you can force anyone to do so. It is for that reason that we do not agree with the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Craigton: Can I not persuade the noble Lord to have a look at it? I agree that my drafting may be faulty. It is a very tricky point, but am Ito stand idly by and watch this happen? Can I not be rapped over the knuckles?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I think it is a marvellous example, but I do not think anybody can force you to do so. And many people would not know what Japanese seaweed was if they saw it.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: Can I help my noble friend by suggesting a possible transposition in the drafting so that it reads: "a person who causes, or by his unreasonable inaction permits"? Would that solve the problem?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We will look at it again, but "unreasonable inaction" is a pretty vague expression. The amendment would need a good deal of tidying up.
Lord Renton: The operative word is "permits". If that could be introduced into the clause it would strengthen it.
Lord Craigton: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 206:
Page 13, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Baroness said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 206. I do not move it, but make the proviso that I might come back to it at Report.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 14, line 2, leave out ("or (2)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, to leave out "or (2)" in line 14, would not wholly have been consequential upon Amendment No. 206. Subsection (37) says that
"it shall be a defence to a charge of committing an offence under subsection (1) or (2) to prove that the accused took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence".
The offence that we have is to grow in the wild certain types of plant. My point is simply that I do not see how it is possible unintentionally to cause a plant to grow. One can unintentionally release an animal but I suggest one cannot unintentionally cause a plant to grow. There are no reasonable steps to take or there is no due diligence that one ought to show to avoid the growing of a plant, and therefore that subsection should only relate to subsection (1) and not to subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I do not think I can help the noble Lord in this particular matter. It may, on the face of it, seem strange for anyone who has deliberately planted a non-native plant in the wild, or otherwise caused it to grow there, to claim that he had exercised all due diligence. However, it is possible to imagine circumstances in which someone causes a non-native plant to grow in the wild in the reasonable belief that it is an unexceptional native plant—for example, as the consequence of being wrongly advised by an expert, or because he has ordered seeds or plants and has been supplied in error with a proscribed variety. We do not think it equitable that, in such circumstances, a person should be guilty of an offence.
Lord Kilbracken: I think that is rather a curious explanation, but I should like to think about it and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.57 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 14, line 12, at end insert (", except that a person shall not be entitled to this defence if the other person was at the material time his servant.").
The noble Baroness said: The principle of responsibility for illegal action taken by others was discussed when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley (who I see has now gone), moved Amendment No. 59 last week. I said then that we have a slightly stronger amendment dealing with this later in the Bill, but I think I should now say that the two situations—the one he dealt with and the one I am now dealing with—are not quite the same. We consider that an employer should be entirely responsible for what his employee does on his land, whether it be a market garden or a zoo, and that he should make it perfectly clear what the law is and that he expects it to be observed. We are not saying that the landowner or market gardener would try to put the blame on his servant; what we want to do is to establish firmly on the landowner the responsibility for what goes on on his land. As I said last week, other Acts of Parliament like the Health and Safety at Work Act put the responsibility firmly on the employer, and what we want to have is a better chance of the law being observed and being enforceable. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We do not accept this amendment. It is clearly designed to prevent an
1164
employer relying on the "due diligence" defence in Clause 13(3) in a case where an offence is committed by his servant. It ought not to follow that because a servant has committed an offence his employer is automatically at fault. I am not satisfied in the present case that it would be right to prevent an employer relying on the "due diligence" defence in cases where he has not personally committed an offence. I think it is against British justice, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: For once I should like to agree with the Minister, and in doing so make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that my noble friend Lord Beaumont has not left but is merely outside the Chamber for a moment consulting on some of his later amendments. If he were here I think he would probably want to say that the employer should not be held responsible in an unlimited way, such as the noble Baroness is proposing, for the acts of his servant.
One can envisage all sorts of ways in which an employee might do things for which it would be totally unreasonable to hold the employer responsible. For example, if an employee, without telling his employer, plants some of the plants covered by the schedule, or plants which do not normally grow in the wild, he might on his own initiative take steps to see that such plants bloomed on the employer's land for reasons of his own which had nothing to do with the terms and conditions of his employment. Or certainly he might have done that without any instructions from the employer; the employer might even have given direct instructions that he should abide by the terms of this clause, although it is difficult to imagine that all landowners as soon as this Bill reaches the statute book will immediately issue a notice to their employees saying they are to abide by the terms of this clause and not bring in wild plants of any kind. I think it would be unreasonable to expect landowners to do that. But if the act of the servant is one done without the knowledge of the employer and not in accordance with his instructions, I do think that in all fairness it should be a defence for him to prove that he has not given instructions and the employee has acted without his knowledge.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Employers have a very bad time these days, what with the Protection of Employment Act and various other Acts. You may give your employees instructions but you cannot ensure that they are carried out. I think it would be very unfair on employers to have this amendment carried.
Lord Melchett: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said and it did not seem to me that what he was proposing was what the Bill is proposing. I find it very difficult to see how subsections (3) and (4) fit together, but, as I understand it, under subsection (3) you have to show that you took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. But then, under subsection (4), so long as the offence is committed by somebody else you do not have to show due diligence or take all reasonable steps; that provides a

1165
complete defence. That was not what Lord Avebury was suggesting. It does seem to me that there should be some duty on an employer to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure not only that he does not commit the offence but also that his employee does not. That does not seem to me unreasonable. It may not be exactly what our amendment would achieve, but nevertheless it seems to me to be a reasonable point.
After all, if we are talking about somebody who has brought an animal into this country which is liable to do maybe millions of pounds-worth of damage, and might be an enormous threat to agriculture, forestry or other interests, and he keeps the animal in premises where he employs somebody to look after it, it does seem reasonable for that employer to have some fairly high standards of care and responsibility placed on him, and he should not simply be able to say, "Well, I had somebody looking after it; it is nothing to do with me; that is a complete defence. Goodbye". He was responsible for bringing the animal or plant into the country. I do not think it is good enough for him to be able to say, "My servant was responsible for it getting out and doing all this damage, and that is me out of it, lads!" It may be that our amendment does not meet that point, but I do not think the Bill is anything like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested it was.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think it is an awful pity that we have no lawyer here. There must be hundreds of cases making this clear in English law; it must have happened again and again.
The Earl of Onslow: I have a strong suspicion that, if somebody employs someone to look after an animal and the animal escapes and causes considerable damage, he is liable in civil law for damage done by his servant.
Baroness David: Clearly, we are not all satisfied with subsections (3) and (4). I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to look at those two subsections again in the light of our amendment, and perhaps we could come back to the matter later? If so, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid that I am not prepared to do that. I do not agree with the amendment at all. I think that the idea of pinning on the employer something which has been done by his employee—unless it can be proved that there was some collusion between the two—is not a correct procedure, and I would not accept the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I think that I have read subsections (3) and (4) fairly carefully, although I am not a lawyer but only a humble engineer. The beginning of subsection (4) reads:
"Where the defence provided by subsection (3) involves an allegation"
and so on. So we are postulating the case where a charge is brought against an employer or landowner for having committed an offence under subsections (1) or (2), and the employer then says: "I did not plant this object", or, "I did not bring this animal into this country and allow it to take its domicile on my land. I have found that it was, in fact, an employee
1166
of mine who did this." Then the subsection goes on to say that if the employer says that to the court he must, within a period of seven days, have given information to the prosecutor which will assist him in identifying the employee or servant in question.
So, the employer is not relieved of the obligation of taking all reasonable steps and exercising due diligence, as has already been provided in subsection (3)—he is, in fact, using that as the defence—but there is laid upon him an additional obligation of providing this information to the prosecutor as well as having to establish before the court that he has exercised proper care and due diligence.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that we ought to spend too long on this matter. I find the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of the Bill entirely acceptable. I wonder whether to shorten the matter we could simply ask the Government, when Hansard is printed, to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, has said, and to write us a brief letter confirming that that is the correct interpretation, or, if not, telling us how their interpretation differs, and then we can come back to the matter if we need to do so?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am very happy to do that.
Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
11.7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to raise two small points. First, I note that the penalty under Clause 19 for contravening this part of the Bill could be a two-year prison sentence. I wonder whether that is in fact appropriate, and whether my noble friend will look at the matter and perhaps let me know the Government's reason for such a penalty. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will do so at the Report stage.
The other point, which perhaps has been covered and I have failed to grasp, is whether my noble friend can tell me whether there is anything in the Bill that could control, and indeed stop for that matter, anyone introducing indigenous species, particularly pests, into an area of the country in which they are non-existent. I can give two examples. The first example is putting rabbits into, say, the north of Scotland where they have almost died out; and the other example—and this happened twice about 10 or 15 years ago—is introducing foxes into Anglesey and, indeed, greylag geese. Maybe there is not an answer to that last question, but perhaps there is an answer to my first question.
Lord Middleton: In supporting what my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has just said as regards penalties, I must admit that from time to time I become consumed with fury and exasperation at the sight of young sycamores and beeches stripped of their bark and killed by grey squirrels. When I make plans to replant these areas of hard woods that I thought I had got nicely established after 10 and very often 20

1167
years, there are times when I feel that the appropriate penalty for the introducer of grey squirrels from America—his name escapes me for the moment, but if he was the grandfather of one of my noble friends I apologise—would have been hanging, followed by drawing and then quartering!
This is the kind of danger that arises from a pest species and the kind of damage envisaged in Clause 13. But however exasperating, however damaging it may be, and however much one would like to prevent this type of introduction of an alien species and all the consequences that can ensue, is this the kind of offence where imprisonment is appropriate? Our prisons are seriously overcrowded and they have been for years. Magistrates and judges are being urged to use alternatives to prison when there is no need to lock up the offender for the protection of the public. I think that I am right in saying that an offence under Clause 13 would be a new offence carrying imprisonment and I, too, wonder whether heavy fining in bad cases would not be a sufficient deterrent. Perhaps the Government might think about that.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to prolong this debate, but bearing in mind the injunction of the noble Lord the Chief Whip to us, we have a number of amendments on Clause 19 which deal with the level of penalties, so would it not be simpler to deal with this matter then?
Lord Middleton: I have made the point; I do not intend to raise it again on Clause 19.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I shall be happy to write to my noble friend, and therefore perhaps we could move on.
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Animals and plants to which Section 13 applies which are established in the wild]:
11.12 p.m.
The Duke of Atholl The Duke of Atholl moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 51, leave out lines 40 and 41.
The noble Duke said: We now move on to the schedule which goes with Clause 13 and lists those animals which, although they exist in this country, cannot be released into the wild. Animals are taken in the broadest sense of the word in that most of the species listed are, in fact, birds, but that does not matter.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 210 and speak to Amendments Nos. 211, 213, 215, 218, 220, 221, 222 and 224, which are all amendments to this schedule. I do not propose to move those amendments down in my name—and I think that one is in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook—unless any noble Lord indicates now that he wishes to speak about a particular species. However, I have tabled the amendments to try to clarify the rationale behind the choice of animals included in Schedule 8.
Some of the animals, such as the American mink, the black rat and the grey squirrel, are clearly pests and, therefore, I think that we would all deplore the intro
1168
duction of any further species of these animals into the wild. But other species, such as the budgerigar—and here I come particularly to Amendment No. 210—appear to be totally harmless; indeed, there are homing budgerigars which —, personally, regard as a rather attractive feature of many gardens. These budgerigars fly more or less at will around the gardens. I imagine that if we continue to have homing budgerigars, once the Bill becomes law we shall be breaking the law because I can see no way in which exceptions to this clause, Clause 13, can come under the licensing provisions of Clause 15. Therefore, I would very much hope that the budgerigar in particular would be taken out of this schedule.
I also think that this schedule is unsuitable for the capercaillie. Capercaillies are very difficult to rear in captivity. I have tried. I tried to rear some for the Game Fair when it was last in Scotland and totally failed. I wish very good luck to people who can rear them in captivity. Having reared them in captivity, you obviously want to release them into the wild to try to increase the number of capercaillie in the wild. I agree that the Forestry Commission does not like capercaillie, and I suspect that that is the reason why capercaillie are in this schedule.
But, personally, I think that a little damage to woods is well worth while when you see a bird as magnificent as the cock capercaillie in flight. I would ask my noble friends to give the rationale behind this schedule and whether they would, in particular, consider removing the budgerigar from it. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: When moving that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill, it seemed that Schedule 8 included creatures, such as the coypu, of which we certainly should not wish further releases into the wild. Your Lordships have clearly realised that, as well as containing such undesirables as the coypu, mink and grey squirrel, Schedule 8 also included others which many of us regard as having enriched our natural fauna—the capercaillie, ruddy duck and Lady Amherst's pheasant, for example. What possible harm can follow the release of further specimens of these species? Let us take the ruddy duck. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from Sir Peter Scott:
"Having been carelessly responsible myself for allowing the North American ruddy duck to escape and build up to what seems to be a small but viable population in England, I am in no position to pass judgement on others. To be sure the ruddy duck is decorative and apparently harmless but no one can know the insidious effect it may have on the ecological web ".
In framing Clause 13 and Schedule 8 our basic principle has been that no introduction of an exotic species, or reintroduction of a formerly native species into the wild, should take place without proper consideration of the ecological implications, and that there should be provision for monitoring any introduction which may be effected. Clause 13(1)(a) deals with species of animals not presently found in Britain, and Clause 13(1)(b) and Schedule 8 deal with already introduced and reintroduced species whose further spread the Government wish to control and monitor.
We are not aware of any benefits of introducing budgerigars into the wild which would justify a breach of this fundamental principle and the exemption of budgerigars from the controls proposed. Budgerigars

1169
have shown themselves to be capable of nesting and forming colonies in the wild. We recognise that past introductions of budgerigars into the wild have not resulted in serious disruptions of existing ecosystems and that large numbers have escaped without maintaining long-term viable populations; and this in itself brings another dimension into our thinking. Should we not have some regard to the effect on the introduced species? Both grounds—the effect on the ecology and the effect on the species—justify controls and both would be taken into account in considering applications for licences to release.
The case of the capercaillie is rather different from that of the budgerigar. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, will know, the capercaillie is unique in being the only successful reintroduction to Britain by man of a species in the British fauna. I appreciate that some noble Lords may have difficulty in understanding why the Government should wish to include the capercaillie in Schedule 8. The reason is that we arc concerned about the effects of introducing capercaillie into areas outside their present range because of the damage they can cause to the trees on whose buds and young shoots they feed. We take the view that further introductions of these birds should be carried out only under licence in suitable areas. I find it difficult to speak to the noble Duke, who has so much greater knowledge than I on these points, but that is the Government's view, which I hope the noble Duke will accept.
The Duke of Atholl: May I ask my noble friend one question? Under what clause of the Bill does the licensing system come? It does not seem to come under Clause 15. Clause 15(1) says that Sections 1 to 8 do not apply; 15(2) says Sections 9 to 12, and 15(3) says,
"Section 13 does not apply to anything done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority".
This presumably is the NCC.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I thought it did come under Clause 15.
The Duke of Atholl: The noble Lord is quite right. It does come under Clause 15.
Lord Melchett: The Government are talking more about the general principle than the particular species to which reference has been made, and they are right to adopt that attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, spoke of the damage grey squirrels do to young trees, and that must have been enough to remind us how important it is to be careful about the introduction of non-native species. Although the budgie and capercaillie may not appear to be enormous threats just now, it is worth remembering the story of the collared dove. Birds can change in their behaviour, distribution, breeding successes in certain climates and so on. Indeed, I understand that the starling, for example, became widespread only in the 18th century, prior to which it had an extremely limited and restricted range in this country. Then something happened, much as it did with the collared dove—which we do not understand very well, if at all—and then it became
1170
a bird with an enormously high population capable of doing damage.
Whether the budgie is likely to do that in view of the sort of winters we have in Britain, I do not know. But there have been other species which one would not expect to behave in that way, such as various parrots which have proved capable of breeding and living through very cold winters—a group of parrots have managed to do that in New York—and they can then become a considerable pest and a threat to native birds. I therefore support in general the approach the Government are adopting.
Viscount Ridley: I support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl in regard to the capercaillie, a magnificent bird which, as the Minister said, was previously a native bird which died out and was reintroduced, possibly by one of the noble Duke's ancestors. It has been very successfully reintroduced and is one of the most magnificent birds of our native fauna and many people may like to see it established in southern Scotland or northern England as the vast coniferous forests grow up. If it did become a pest it could easily be controlled, and I think it would be quite wrong to include it in the schedule.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Why is the mandarin duck included here? It has been in this country a very long time and is a very beautiful duck. Its numbers have not increased and many people have it on their lakes. It flies around and is perfectly harmless and I cannot see why it should be included.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: We will be dealing with that on the next amendment.
Lord Renton: I, too, support my noble friend the Duke of Atholl because this schedule causes great difficulty. I think it is over-zealous and schizophrenic. On the one hand, it attempts to deal with known pests like the mink, coypu and so on, and on the other, it assumes that birds and animals which are not frequently found at the moment might become so. If the thinking underlining the schedule had been in operation some hundreds of years ago we would not have had the common pheasant introduced into this country, and probably not the red-legged partridge, either. I implore the Government to think again about the schedule, which I think would be unenforceable for the most part.
The Earl of Onslow: If my noble friend Lord Ridley wants to introduce on to his property in Northumberland the capercaillie from Perthshire, is that prosecutable, or is it prosecutable only if he introduces the capercaillie from Norway?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord is absolutely free to introduce capercaillie from wherever he likes so long as he can get a licence.
The Duke of Atholl: Before withdrawing the amendment, may I ask my noble friend to tell me the position about homing budgerigars? Many people keep them. They fly around their gardens and at night come into their cages, shut up to be kept safe from the foxes

1171
which have avoided the snares which no doubt have been set in those gardens. It seems that it will be difficult to keep these very attractive birds. Those who keep them are prepared to suffer a certain amount of damage to their fruit—come to think of it, I am not sure budgies eat fruit; they may be entirely insect eaters—and I cannot see how the Government intend to overcome this problem. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the schedule is over-zealous in terms of many of the animals it includes. I should very much like the Government to reconsider it. Perhaps, if my noble friend could answer about horning budgerigars, I will then withdraw the amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I ask a question about this? I must say that I find it desperately confusing. The rubric says, "Introduction of new species etc.". We are then faced with subsection (1) of the clause —and one is bound to look back to it—which says:
"… if any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal …".
We are not talking about the capercaillie, which is in the wild and which I do not suppose could live otherwise than in the wild. I really do not know what we are talking about. If I understand this correctly, everybody would have to go around and shoot all the capercaillie in the country, because otherwise the law could not possibly be complied with. I wonder whether my noble friend, either now or at the next stage, would be prepared to tell your Lordships exactly what restrictions are required here, bearing in mind that the capercaillie is there and that it breeds in the wild. What is this about? I think there are many noble Lords who would be very sorry to see the capercaillie unduly restricted, and to keep it out of the wild seems to be a wholly undue restriction.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before my noble friend responds to that, perhaps I may say that I agree absolutely with what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said about the capercaillie, but I would be equally horrified if some noble Lord who had a grey squirrel farm were for some extraordinary reasons to go around distributing them further afield than they are already, although they are actually in the wild. So I do not think that the fact that something is in the wild already should stop us discouraging people from letting out more. I think the capercaillie is a case on its own.
Earl Waldergrave: May I add one other thing? Surely the words "allows to escape" are dangerous in regard to creating an offence. If you have your budgerigars in the house and you allow them to escape, who will ever prove that?
Lord Drumalbyn: We are at the moment, are we not, talking about two separate items? I think we shall get into trouble if we talk about the whole clause together.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The budgerigar is not a wild bird, anyhow.
The Duke of Atholl: I am still not happy about the budgerigar, I must admit. I should like to give your
1172
Lordships a little further history about the capercaillie. It died out as a native species in this country in the middle of the 18th century. It was reintroduced by the then Lord Breadalbane at Taymouth Castle in 1828, and it has flourished to a greater or lesser degree, in that it has never needed another reintroduction, since 1828, I think. As far as I know, in that amount of time it may have done a little bit of damage but I feel that if it had had any really nasty tendencies they would have come out by now. After all, it has been here for over a century and a half.
I feel that to put birds such as capercaillie and budgerigars in this schedule is taking a very large hammer to crack a very small nut. I will withdraw this amendment at the moment, but I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Cullen and the Government will look at the whole of this schedule before the next stage of this Bill, because it seems to me at the moment that, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is a bit over-zealous.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
11.29 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 51, leave out line 49.
The noble Earl said: I may say that in moving this amendment I have read and taken good note of the report of the Working Group on Introductions, which was published not long ago. I also note that under Article 11(2)(b) of the Berne Convention, which, after all, is the foundation document of a great deal of what we are doing here, the contracting parties are enjoined—I quote because the infinitive is split:
"to strictly control the introduction of non-native species",
and that is in essence what we are talking about. I am also introducing (and I couple them with No. 212) the following amendments: Nos. 214, 216, 217, 222 and 223, No. 222 being shared with the noble Duke who spoke just now.
I am also introducing these amendments to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that there are in this country quite a number of people who practise the hobby of keeping reptiles and amphibians, and to some extent this clause impinges severely on what has hitherto been a perfectly legal and, as I will assert in a minute or two, still is a perfectly harmless occupation. We must realise that there are people who will be affected by this Bill. All the animals mentioned in my amendments are frogs or reptiles; all of them are native to North-West Europe. Two of them are, arguably, already native to this country. One of these is the common wall lizard which occurs naturally in the Channel Islands, and the other is the so-called edible frog. which I think is a self-reproducing hybrid which derives from two species which, again, were arguably native in this country in the past.
As with the birds which have been mentioned by noble Lords who have just spoken, there is considerable experience of keeping these animals in the free-living state in this country. Several of them have become established as self-perpetuating populations. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have spread or are likely to spread, or that they impinge in any way on

1173
the ecology of our existing impoverished native amphibian and reptile fauna. I may say here parenthetically that it is clear that the channel barrier, which presumably came into operation as the ice receded, has prevented the spontaneous introduction into the British Isles of a number of species which exist in the adjoining parts of continental Europe.
These are not, like the budgerigar, animals which are strangers to our shores from very distant parts; they are not exotic; they are European species. They have not, as far as can be judged, caused any harm to our existing flora and fauna, related or unrelated. Only the marsh frog has had a reasonable degree of success. This has colonised the Romney and Winchelsea marshes and has spread elsewhere in Kent and Sussex in similar habitats. In these habitats, it is filling a niche which is not currently occupied by our indubitably native frog rana temporaria. I am not able to inform your Lordships accurately of the number of people who engage in this hobby of keeping these animals. These people do not keep their amphibians and reptiles in small cages as do the aviculturalists about whom I spoke earlier. They enjoy liberating these animals into their gardens. So far, those that have escaped to the wild have shown no deleterious effect whatsoever on our native fauna.
That is the substance of the amendments that I wish to move. If my noble friend who is to reply is able to give satisfactory answers to the questions that I will now pose, I feel that it is possibly not necessary to require the deletion of these species although I think that many people would regard it as advantageous. First of all, the people who are now keeping these animals in their gardens are concerned to know what is precisely meant by the words:
"to release or allow to escape into the wild ".
Is a man's private property the wild? Is a garden the wild? Where does the wild begin if a garden is not the wild? These are the sort of problems which are faced by the people who keep these animals in the wild.
Secondly, if it is decided that a garden is the wild, in that case I would seek assurances from the Government that if, in the light of their treaty obligations under the Berne convention, and in the light of the sound decision made by the committee on introductions, it is felt it must be necessary to include these inoffensive frogs and reptiles on this schedule, then I ask for assurances that the people (who may number 100 or possibly 1,000) will be given without difficulty and gratis the licences to continue to engage in the hobby which they have so far pursued legitimately. Just as the aviculturists engage in useful and productive biological research, so too have behavioural and other studies been carried out productively by people keeping these small reptiles and amphibians in the wild.
If I may join my amendment with a plea already uttered and which has already been answered favourably by the Front Bench, could these animals be listed by their Latin names first, so we know what we are talking about, and could they be listed in some sort of systematic order so that we do not get this extraordinary hotch-potch which has necessitated the odd linkage of amendments? I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to take my
1174
noble friend Lord Cranbrook's amendments together, and also the amendments proposed by my noble friends the Duke of Atholl, Lady Elliot and Lord Massereene and Ferrard, because these amphibians have all been included in Schedule 8 for the same reason. These species are not known to be damaging to native flora and fauna in the circumstances in which they currently exist in Britain, but have been included as a precautionary measure. At this stage the possible consequences of large scale introductions are unknown and unpredictable, and the Government consider that further introductions should be monitored and permitted only under licence. However, we learn so much from hearing my noble friend on these subjects that I feel that Nye should look at all that he has said, which is always extremely educational, before resisting the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Some of these introductions were quite a long time ago. Do the Government set a time limit for an introduction before they can decide it is going to become a pest?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I think that the Government are advised by the NCC on these matters.
The Earl of Cranbrook: Do I take it that my noble friend was not going to resist the amendment or that, if he is not given time to consider it, he will resist it?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: What I meant to say was that I should like to look at it again.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I would remind him that there are a lot of people waiting for the answer, as well as myself. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 213 to 224 not moved.]
11.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Swinton: May I ask the Minister one question? I find myself totally and absolutely confused by the debate on this matter and perhaps the Minister will write to me about it. I refer to the answer that he gave when my noble friend asked about moving capercaillies. I receive demands from friends—some of whom are Members of this House—and their relations for some of my Canada geese to be put on their lakes. If this proposal goes through, will I be breaking the law if I meet these demands? It would not be any skin off my nose, since I do not charge, and it would save all the trouble of catching and driving them over in the back of my car. So I should personally be delighted if it were the case; it would be a very handy answer to give. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I shall write to the noble Earl.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Endangered species (import and export)]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Chelwood: When we were debating the 1976 Act it was suggested on both sides of the House, very strongly, that unless there were some restriction on the ports of entry through which rare species of animals or plants could come into this country, or for that matter go out (be exported), the problem facing the Customs official would he an impossible one, and that as a result rare animals and rare plants that are not supposed to be imported, or parts of them, after they are dead, would find their way into this country. That indeed is what is happening. There was very strong pressure on the Government at the time, but it was resisted and the Bill was not suitably amended.
I know that this is a bit of a fast one for my noble friend, and all I am asking is that he should take this point on board and be good enough to let me know the Government's thinking about it. It is a fact that unless there is some restriction on ports of entry—I am talking about ports around our coast, and the airports—great problems arise and to some extent the law is an ass. At the time that we debated this question it was only at Heathrow that there were proper facilities for looking after live animals, including birds, coming into this country.
We have all read harrowing stories about the number of birds that arrive dead, or die after arrival before they can be disposed of. Obviously it would be much easier for all concerned, because of the lack of expertise nation-wide, if a small number of experts could be concentrated at a small number of ports of entry, be they airfields or sea ports. That would not be a very difficult thing to do. It would be an enormous step forward and it would mean that the law would be much more efficiently enforced and much cruelty would be avoided. I would ask my noble friend to be good enough to look at this question and be kind enough to write to me.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I have had some advice on this particular point. Although it seems on the face of it that the best thing is to say that only certain ports and certain airports can be used, the difficulty is that there is a danger of people clandestinely bringing species in in other ways. It may be better when a licence is granted to a person to make it a condition that he uses a particular port or airport, and to specify that otherwise he will be going against the conditions of the licence. I understand that in America, where the ports and airports are definitely agreed, there has been considerable trouble. However I am sure that there is more to it than that, and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the noble Lord will not need to write to his noble friend, because, as I understand it, Amendment No. 242, in the names of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, actually deals with this point. I am sure that those noble Lords have listened very carefully to what the Minister had t o say, and they will have their arguments prepared
1176
when we come to that amendment.
Clause 14 agreed to.
11.44 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton moved Amendment No. 225:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Marine Reserves
.—(1) Where, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, a relevant Countryside Commission, and any other body seeming to him to be appropriate, it appears to the Secretary of State desirable in the interests of conservation of the marine environment and its resources (including research), or for education, recreational or aesthetic purposes connected with the marine environment, may make, for any specified area, an order under this Part including all or any part of the following provisions:—

(a) Restrictions under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, as if sections 5, 15 and 20 of that Act were incorporated into this Part, with the substitution for references to the Ministers or any of them of references to the Secretary of State, and for sea fish of references to any organisms which normally inhabit the sea.

(b) Restrict any person entirely, or on conditions, from

(i) entering that area or any part of it at all or any times;

(ii) intentionally killing, injuring, disturbing or taking any wild animal, or intentionally picking, uprooting or destroying any wild plant;

(iii) damaging or destroying any structure or place which any wild animal uses for shelter or protection;

(iv) digging, drilling or dredging, or otherwise disturbing the sea bed;

(v) removing any natural object or matter from the sea bed.

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall specify an area within the seaward limits of United Kingdom territorial waters, or such larger area as may be desirable in order to fulfil any Convention.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the powers under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 may be exercised in the interest of nature conservation in general, including the prevention of disturbance of other than sea fish by sea fishing operations.
(4) The areas listed in Schedule 9A shall be deemed to be the subject of an order covering all species for which there is power to make an order and made by the Secretary of State under this section and subject to the restrictions in the provisions mentioned in column 2 of that Schedule.
(5) Where an order is made under this section, or section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,

(a) the authority making the order shall notify any authority which can permit discharges (either specifically or generally) under the Rivers Prevention of Pollution Acts 1951 and 1961, the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, which may affect the area specified in the order or any part of it, and that authority shall thereupon treat the need for conservation of the organisms set out in the order and the achievement of the restrictions set out in the order as the first and paramount consideration in dealing with matters which may or do affect that area; and

(b) in the case of a water authority, all applications for consent under section 34 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be deemed to be subject to a direction under section 35 of that Act.

(6) At the end of section 56 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be added a new subsection:—
"(7) For the purpose of enabling effect to be given to any Convention for the protection of wildlife or the marine environment, the Secretary of State may by order extend the definition in subsection (1) of "controlled waters" to include such area as the Convention may permit or require"; and in section 104(1) and (2) after "53" shall be inserted "56(7)"."
(7) In section 12(1) of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 at the end of the definition of "United Kingdom Waters" shall be added the words "or controlled waters within the meaning of section 56(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974".").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 292,560, and 271A. Before I start explaining the amendment, I must make an apology; there are three little mistakes in this new clause. In line 6 of the first subsection, the word "education" should read "educational". In the fourth line of subsection (1)(a) the word "for" before the word "references" should read "of". The first word in subsection (1)(b) should read "restricted", not "restrict". I apologise for the mistakes when putting it down.
This is an important amendment. This Bill deals with the habitat of our country. We are an island and round it are coastal waters which are an essential part of our habitat. We have signed conventions which up to this moment we have not taken any legal steps to implement. This Bill seems to offer a natural vehicle for doing this. The alternative would be for the Government to introduce some form of order, later on perhaps, or a Bill of their own later this year. But at this time they seem to have done nothing except to issue a small consultative document which was published yesterday. Therefore, in spite of the injunction of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I should like very briefly to give the background to this amendment.
The variety and increase in mankind's activities and impact on our coastal seas are the cause of very great concern. While we know that the sea is large and some impacts are localised, sites of particular value cannot at present he afforded any protection. A particular problem of marine conservation is that knowledge of the abundance of a species or of how the environment functions is very much less precise and less easy to translate into figures than it is on land. Conclusive scientific data can only be assembled well after the time when protective action should have been taken. Thus the power to take such action should not, I submit, depend on proof that the species or habitat is endangered. We need to manage our marine environment as a productive whole, which means maintaining its component parts well above danger level.
At the same time, single impacts can have a devastating and often irreversible effect on habitats and communities of long standing. A site may be of value because a rare or fragile animal or plant lives there, or perhaps it is the best example of a type of habitat or biological community, or because it is an important site for education or research studies which are of a long-term nature and require proper management. It may simply be of local importance because it is relatively undamaged and provides a nearby site for local studies or enjoyment or conservation of species locally.
The Nature Conservancy Council, in conjunction with the National Environment Research Council, have recently prepared a document entitled Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment—a very useful document which I recommend to all your Lordships, if you have not seen it—in which they set out much of the background to the marine reserve issue. In the last chapter they make several recommendations, some of which are
1178
directly related to this issue. Recommendation No. 4 is that:
"In order to establish conservation areas representative of particular habitats, relatively large areas should be designated in most cases".
Their fifth recommendation was that in the case of specialised habitats of restricted areas, consideration should be given to designation of a series of small sites in addition to the large conservation areas. Recommendation No. 8 recommended that the NCC should seek consultation with the appropriate authorities to look into the possibility of obtaining legislative measures to maintain threatened marine species.
In addition, it is important that we act to conserve the critical feeding and breeding habitats of vulnerable species such as whales, seabirds and large fish. While some or all of these groups are protected from direct danger, it will not save them from starvation or pollution of food supply. There are required therefore two different types of action which perhaps will sometimes overlap. One is the conserving of areas of seabed and overlying waters to conserve the populations of our British marine species, and specific sites and habitats for conservation, research, recreation, aesthetic and local interest purposes. The other one is the conservation of critical habitats—food or breeding areas of endangered or otherwise threatened species.
Here in the United Kingdom we have no powers, of which I am aware, to conserve our valuable coastal waters, apart from regulations that may be imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland on numbers and size of fish caught and the gear which may he used so to do. Thus, we cannot conserve the seabed and overlying waters in sites of local, scientific, conservation, recreation or aesthetic interest; conserve the food of threatened species or protected species, such as seabirds or whales; prevent pollution from destroying a unique site or a seabird population whose nesting grounds may already be protected.
In Britain, several marine nature reserves have been set up by the voluntary compliance of users with a management plan—two examples are the marine reserves of Bardsey and Lundy—which attempt to protect an area of sea and seabed and the wildlife living there from specified disturbances. Local conservationists, divers, anglers, bird watchers and commercial fishermen have joined forces to try to safeguard these particularly rich sites. But they remain unsupported by law and vulnerable to an unscrupulous operator.
Such sites need to be conserved by law as vital parts of our natural heritage. There should be provision in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, by which a site may be designated a marine reserve. The examples of which activities might need to be controlled by by-laws in such a marine nature reserve are access, whether on the surface, under water or by hovercraft; activities which would damage the seabed and its associated flora and fauna; certain fishing practices, whether for sport or commercial purposes; sport and recreation; building operations, and, of course, the removal or depositing of objects and materials.
Already in some 60 countries statutory provision has been made for marine conservation areas designated

1179
marine or underwater reserves, sanctuaries or parks. Many of these are in temperate seas and protect habitats similar to those which are around our shores. Examples are to be found in France, Spain, South Africa, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, Japan and the United States.
Having made that brief introduction—which was probably too long for this time of night—I should like to explain what this amendment would do. We have put it in Part I, because it was thought desirable to include all provisions, such as Clause 24(3), which require notices to be published. It might otherwise have been thought by your Lordships more appropriate to put it in Part II for nature conservation, although this would have required more cumbersome drafting.
Subsection (1)(a), while providing the Secretary of State with powers that extend to our fisheries limits, via the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, is limited by subsection (2) to territorial waters unless an international convention allows actions to be taken further out. That is the spirit behind the entire amendment.
The powers given to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland or Northern Ireland via the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 allow restrictions on the taking of living, or once living, things by any kind of vessel for the purposes of conserving the marine environment and its resources. The objective here is to enable fishing operations to be restricted in marine reserve areas, where they may be detrimental to the species living, feeding or breeding in those areas, whether on the seabed or in the water.
It overlaps with the Ministry of Agriculture's powers to declare purely fisheries restrictions, so as to allow the Secretaries of State for the Environment, and for Scotland and Northern Ireland to have full powers in the relevant areas. Orders by the Secretaries of State would be made under this Bill, but fishery officers are given powers of enforcement, because it would be illogical for those officers to be inspecting boats for one type of fishing and ignoring other activities which were also illegal.
The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 at present allows orders for the protection of areas from sea fishing to be made beyond territorial waters only where these implement international conventions. However, this situation is likely to change if the Fisheries Bill in its present form is accepted by Parliament. So subsection (1)(b) allows the Secretary of State to restrict such activities as are deemed necessary for the protection of any specific area, and the activities are listed.
Not all activities would need to be restricted at any particular place or time. Licences would be required to carry out a restricted activity. Subsection (1)(b)(i) could be used, among other things, to prevent the through passage of shipping. It is anticipated that this would only be exercised to restrict rights of innocent passage where international conventions permitted this. Generally speaking, ships have such a right, even in foreign territorial waters.
Subsection (2) limits the effects of subsection (1) to territorial waters unless an international convention allows them to be extended further. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the Ministry of Agriculture can use existing fishery restriction powers to stop sea fishing in the interests of other marine life. Section 10 of the
1180
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 already says that Ministers may take or concur or assist in the taking of such measures for the increase or improvement of marine resources as may be required for giving effect to any convention or agreement for the time being in force between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of any other country. This subsection is probably therefore at least partially unnecessary, but we should like the matter to be 100 per cent. clear.
Subsection (4) and the new schedule in our Amendment No. 271A provide a listing in the Bill itself, as if listed by the Department of the Environment for the purposes specified in the second column, of two existing voluntary reserves around our island. It should be noted that the areas concerned cover the beach as well as territorial waters. This is deliberate, in that the beach is obviously an extension of the sea, and we wish to set a precedent for any future reserves to cover the beach as well as the sea. It is possible that the inclusion of specific areas might lead to this being regarded as hybrid. if so, this provision would have to be withdrawn.
Subsection (5)(a) makes water authorities and other such bodies take the need for the conservation of wildlife in the listed areas to be of first and paramount importance. This is a well-known phrase in relation to the treatment of children before courts dealing with their custody or welfare. It means that it is always at the forefront of consideration and has the greatest weight placed upon it, but it is not exclusive. It is not therefore likely to lead to the revocation of licences to discharge, even where this is feasible, and might not lead to non-renewal but should certainly prevent most new grants of licences. It would be possible to have notification procedures when areas were under consideration so that licences were not granted between consideration and the making of the order, or to have a temporary order on the lines of emergency tree preservation orders. This seems to be getting rather complicated and has not been attempted.
Subsection (5)(b) requires new consent applications to water authorities for the right to discharge pollution to a marine reserve area to go to the Secretaries of State for the Environment or Scotland or Northern Ireland instead of having to be decided by the water authority.
Subsection (6) allows the Control of Pollution Act controls on shore-based pollution to extend beyond territorial waters if an international convention permits this. This is not likely to be very important in practice, but it seems reasonable to have the powers. Similarly, subsection (7) extends the control on foreign ships dumping in such areas outside territorial waters if an international convention allows it.
I make no apology for having spelled these details out at length. It is a most important matter. I have seen articles in some of the major papers of our country which deal with the problem. I think the Government have a duty not only to the country but to the two conventions which they have signed to say what they are going to do about these matters. Here we have a highly suitable vehicle. It is an all-party supported measure and I recommend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said, this is an amendment which is supported on all sides of the Committee, and indeed at Second Reading of this Bill I think it is fair to say that this was the one omission from the Bill above all others which received condemnation from all sides of the House. I noticed one or two noble Lords with their eyes on the clock when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was introducing this amendment. I would simply say to them that had the Government taken note of what was said to them at Second Reading the Government would have been moving this amendment and not us, and it would have been done a great deal more quickly.
I do not want to repeat anything that the noble Lord said in introducing this important amendment but I should like to try to demolish what I suspect might be at least part of the Government's response, and I hope that will at least save a little time. This matter has been looked at over a long period of time. I understand that an inter-departmental working party was set up by the Department of the Environment and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can confirm this when he comes to reply. I understand that the working party has been examining the legislative and administrative aspects of marine nature reserves since March 1978. Agreement in principle to the setting up of marine nature reserves was reached by the working party, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm those points which have been passed on to a number of noble Lords by the Nature Conservancy Council, which of course fully supports this amendment.
I stress the fact that this has been looked at since March 1978 because of what is to come. But before we get to that, last October I asked the Government in a Question for Written Answer whether they would confirm that they still intended to include provisions in this Bill to enable the NCC to set up marine nature reserves. On the 29th October the noble Earl, Lord Avon, confirmed to me that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was still considering the provision in the forthcoming Wildlife and Countryside Bill of powers for the Nature Conservancy Council to propose the designation of such reserves. In other words, last October, after a working party had been looking at this for about two years, the Government were considering what provisions to put in the Bill, and that seemed to be a very reasonable state of affairs.
We then come to what seems to me to be a quite extraordinary abuse of the procedures for consultation. I say that because I do not think it would be right to expect noble Lords opposite to say this of the Government's behaviour. There was very good consultation on this Bill. Consultation papers were issued on a range of subjects; on the whole, people were asked to respond within about six to eight weeks. Some of them were issued in the middle of the summer, in August, but nobody made too much of a complaint about that because the Government had behaved admirably in consulting all interests before the Bill was presented to Parliament.
We now have a consultation paper on marine nature reserves, issued yesterday, by a coincidence the day before your Lordships happen to be considering this
1182
amendment. Far from asking for responses by today, when the Committee were going to be considering it, or even within four or six weeks, the consultation paper actually asked people to respond three days after the end of the Session of Parliament, on the 2nd or 3rd August. That seems to me to be a blatant "try on" by the Government which really is not on, and in the face of all party support for this amendment I hope that this is the last we shall hear of that particular consultation paper. It is a nonsense.
This matter has been looked at since March 1978, an inter-departmental working party has agreed in principle that this is right, and it simply is not on that at this stage of the Bill the Government should start issuing consultation papers and then coming to your Lordships' House and saying: "We cannot do anything until the 3rd August, when we get all the replies in". That will not wash.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made a most convincing case for this amendment, which has our full support and the full support of almost everyone who spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Chelwood: I hope I may detain your Lordships for a few minutes on this very important amendment, perhaps one of the two or three most important amendments in the whole of this Bill. I find it extremely disappointing and also surprising that there is no provision in the Bill for the setting up of marine nature reserves. The Government have had a great deal of time to consider this. We are talking about a subject which has been of great concern to conservationists, to my knowledge, for at least 20 years, which covers seven or eight Governments. The then Nature Conservancy, as it was called, first raised the question of setting up marine nature reserves in March 1968, long before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned, in a paper called Conservation Policy in the Shallow Seas. There was increasing Government interest in this subject after that and the Natural Environment Research Council set up a working party on marine wildlife conservation under Professor R. B. Clark, a great expert, in 1971.
I understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, and I think my noble friend did, that there has been an inter-departmental working party looking into this question. It was set up nearly three years ago. I am told—and I think this is right; perhaps my noble friend can confirm it—that it reached agreement in principle last summer, but that its deliberations were pigeon-holed for some reason that I do not understand.
Now what do we have? We have consultation, and only today the consultation paper was issued and a copy of it is in the Library. I would like to read two or three sentences from it because they are extremely relevant to this discussion:
"It is illogical that conservation policy should end at the low-water mark, especially in view of the interdependence of marine and land-based ecosystems. Public interest in marine conservation is growing and there is concern that not enough is being done to protect marine wildlife resource in both the national and the international community. The United Kingdom appears to be in danger of lagging behind many other nations".
My noble friend Lord Mowbray said including some within the European Community who have already

1183
established statutorily protected marine reserves. Then,
"It could prove dangerous to wait until the damage is done before seeking the power to declare statutorily protected marine nature reserves".
There is a lot of sense in that. The replies to the consultation paper have to be in by 3rd August, and that of course puts it out of court so far as this legislation is concerned; that is very regrettable.
So what do we do about it? The amendment by the three noble Lords, one from each of the major parties, is an enterprising and ambitious attempt to relate to this Bill the needs of marine nature conservation. I welcome it and I am very glad we are having this debate on this subject at this moment. But I would understand if the Government felt that this amendment was too ambitious and too all-embracing, and perhaps even encompassing some areas which have not yet been fully considered by the inter-departmental working party or even included in the consultation paper.
So let us address ourselves to the undoubted need reflected in the Nature Conservancy Council pamphlet to which attention has been drawn called Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment. It was published as long ago as October 1979, so it has been very widely read and was certainly very widely welcomed. We need to conserve representative as well as unusual and unique communities of marine plants and animals and their habitats. Let us confine ourselves now at this moment to that need and how it can be met in this Bill, without denying the Government the need for further and full consultation, which I am entirely in favour of.
I suggest, therefore, it would be both proper and possible for the Secretary of State for the Environment, through my noble friend, to propose to the House by way of a suitable new clause at Report stage that he should have a power to declare by order, after consulting the Nature Conservancy Council, areas of sea outwards from the low-water mark to be marine nature reserves. The order would specify activities to be banned from these areas and the penalties for transgression. There would be publication in draft, consideration of objections in the usual way, so that all interests affected could make their views known. A simple enabling power of this sort could be included in the Bill without any difficulty at all, with the proviso that it did not become operative until the consultation procedure has been satisfactorily concluded.
I earnestly request the Government to accept this suggestion of an enabling clause and to put it down at Report stage. I feel that it would go a long way—in fact, as far as it is possible to go at this moment—to meet the very strongly expressed wishes of the Committee. Six noble Lords spoke up in favour of marine nature reserves on Second Reading. I think that there is no doubt at all that your Lordships' wish is that an enabling clause should be included. I think that to fail to do this would be "illogical", to use the word that I quoted from the consultation paper, and shortsighted. We should continue to be out of step with many other countries and, incidentally, defaulting on our international obligations.
If the Government do not put down an enabling clause on Report, other noble Lords will certainly do so, and I would expect such a clause to be carried against
1184
the wishes of the Government. However, there is no need whatever for that situation to arise. I believe that there is a very strong case for an enabling clause so that the Government can create marine nature reserves—even an unanswerable case.
Lord Craigton: Before the Minister replies, may I point out that I have at a later stage in the Bill, tabled a series of amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 378, to create marine reserves in a much simpler way? I simply suggest extending the land of Britain for SSI purposes by three miles out to sea, and letting the NCC get on with it. I know that that is delightfully simple. I really cannot see what is wrong with it. I shall not attempt to move that amendment now, but the noble Lord could take into consideration when he makes a decision on this amendment, which I support entirely—and I would be glad to withdraw my own amendment—that there is a sort of long-stop which might get him out of some difficulty.
Earl Peel: There must be very few subjects on which I can claim superior qualifications to your Lordships, but I am a qualified deep-sea diver, Sub-aqua Club Class 3—if that means anything to your Lordships—and I have dived considerably around the world. I should like very much to endorse this amendment and also to take the matter a stage further and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, particularly on the subject of marine nature reserves. I have dived extensively off the African coast and it is extraordinary that where what are called marine "national parks" exist the difference between those national parks and the non-park areas is most impressive indeed. I would certainly endorse everything that has been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, when he mentioned the European countries that were adhering to the EEC directives on this, failed to mention Italy. I raise this particularly because I have also dived off the Italian coast and in the Mediterranean and there, of course, the damage that has been done is absolutely criminal. I, therefore, urge your Lordships and the Government to look very closely at this and perhaps to take it a stage further and consider marine national reserves.
The Earl of Avon: First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton for bringing up this subject which is so important. To put the record straight, I should like to remind both him and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that, when we spoke on this during the Second Reading debate, I did say that there was a consultation paper coming and I asked people to be patient until it arrived. In fact both my noble friends quoted quite a lot from the consultation paper, proving that it has been read and that it is of interest. I think I can say that we have done what we said that we would do on Second Reading.
I should also like to say that it is very easy to move dates just that little bit around to make it seem as though everything took a lot longer than it did, and I think that that has been done a little as regards this matter. There was an inter-departmental working party which started in 1979 and ended, I am informed, towards the end of 1980. They had the greatest difficulty in even arriving at an agreed consultation paper, so I do not think that we have been all that slow.

1185
When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a Written Answer in October, by that stage it was, of course, getting a little late to get a provision into the Bill.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that the noble Earl ought simply to brush this question away quite as easily as that. It is not a substantive point and I do not want to press him. But here we have a paper of only two and a half sides—13 paragraphs. I do not know how fast the noble Earl types, but even I could have managed to type this in an hour and a half. Why did it take from October to 2nd February to get it typed?
The Earl of Avon: I think that the noble Lord is showing naïvety about the complication of this issue. I do not think that he is beginning to realise the complexities which are involved here. Perhaps I may give an indication. For instance, it involves the MAFF, the Scottish Department, the Department of Trade, the Department of Energy and the Department of Industry. This cannot be done overnight. I think it would have been wrong to have asked us to proceed much faster. Anyway, as noble Lords now know, the Government are currently in the process of consulting the interested organisations about legislation to provide for the statutorily protected marine reserves. We shall, of course, study the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton and also by my noble friend Lord Craigton.
The whole subject is extremely complex, as I said on Second Reading. There are a great number of legitimate interests which are involved. Here I would turn to my noble friend Lord Peel and say that I was about to say: "Even sub-aqua", thinking that nobody in this Committee would actually come up with that, but he even out-manoeuvred me there. I know that noble Lords will have looked at the consultation document. No fewer than 100 people are being sent this letter in order to ask for their reactions. It would be impracticable to ask the Government to act in advance of the completion of our present consultations. The Government do not want to prejudge the outcome of what we consider to be a very important and complex matter.
My noble friend Lord Chelwood mentioned an enabling power. I undertake to go to the Secretary of State to see whether it is possible for us to include an enabling power in this Bill. I shall keep my noble friend Lord Mowbray informed.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I thank my noble friend Lord Avon for what he has told us, especially for the assurance that he has given about coming back to us about the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Chelwood of an enabling power for an order. As my noble friend Lord Craigton has already informed us, we shall have second and third bites at this particular cherry on Committee on the fourth or fifth days, or both. Bearing that in mind, I shall in one moment withdraw the amendment for the time being.
I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. I think that for the gestation time that this consultative document has been in the womb it is a remarkably small, insignificant baby. When I first saw it, I thought that it was a DoE PR blurb
1186
about the consultative document, and I had to be convinced later that it was the actual document. To be quite honest, that is how surprised I was. Having said that, I do not want to appear ungracious. I am grateful that my noble friend has said that the Government will look at this again and, looking at the clock, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 [Amendments of the 1976 Act]:
12.18 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 52, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—
("1.—(1) After subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1976 Act (restriction on importation and exportation of certain animals and plants) there shall be inserted the following subsection—").
The noble Earl said: The schedule with which we are now concerned is involved with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. This enacted into our United Kingdom legislation the so-called Washington Convention. In the Bill as it stands, the Government are seeking to delete from the 1976 Act a valuable measure in Section 1(3), which lays a duty upon the Secretary of State to consult his scientific advisers before issuing a licence to import.
The Washington Convention requires that international trade in species listed in Appendices 1 and 2 should be permitted only on the advice of a national scientific authority, which in this country is the Scientific Authority for Animals. This restriction is highly desirable. It is unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State or, in practice, the officials of the Department of the Environment to be competent to make the scientific judgments that are necessary before a licence can be issued. In this particular part of the Bill the Government appear to be seeking to relieve the Secretary of State of his obligation to consult the scientific authority.
In moving the amendment I am aware that there are practical difficulties in operating the 1976 Act as it stands at present. These arise, I understand, to a great extent because in our 1976 Act this country aims to protect a much wider list of species than those that are strictly required by the two appendices to the Washington Convention that I mentioned. In fact, the technique to which I have referred as being British in origins, the technique of reverse listing, has been applied. As a consequence there is undoubtedly the possibility, if not the inevitability, that the workload on members of the Scientific Authority for Animals can become highly excessive.
Given the large number of applications and the nature of those applications, some of which are entered, as it were, in a precautionary manner in order to obtain general permissions rather than specific permissions, some degree of planned delegation is almost certainly necessary. But speaking from the point of view of science and of scientifically based conservation, the decision to delegate must rest with the scientific authority, which must be free itself to decide which applications it wishes to review. Some modifications of the 1976 Act may be required, but I do not think that the change which is proposed in this Bill is the right change. Conservationists fear that to remove the primary responsibility from the scientific authority

1187
would be detrimental to endangered or vulnerable species that are concerned in international trade. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: This is an important amendment and I should like strongly to support everything that the noble Earl has said. The 1976 Act had this measure which proved extremely valuable, and we have heard a lot during the course of the Committee stage about the emphasis which the Government place on the advice they receive from their scientific advisers. It seems to me to be extremely detrimental, to put it mildly, that in this particular part of Schedule 9 they should be seeking to avoid going to their scientific advisers for advice, and I hope that the Government will accept the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Owing to the time I should like to cut down what I was going to say, and ask the noble Earl whether he would withdraw his amendment on an undertaking that we will put down a Government amendment on Report which would reinstate Section 1(3) of the 1976 Act, subject only to a proviso that where a scientific authority have given general advice to the Secretary of State with regard to a defined category of applications, and have informed the Secretary of State that they do not wish to be consulted on individual applications falling within that category, the Secretary of State shall not be required so to consult them. I hope that on that understanding the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: The form of words that has been suggested seems to me to leave the decision with the scientific authority, which is precisely the request I make. Therefore, in these terms I am glad to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
12,25 a.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 53, line 3, at beginning insert ("is part of or").
The noble Lord said: I suggest it would be convenient for the Committee to consider at the same time the following amendments: Nos. 236, 237 and 238. As drafted, the prohibition in respect of the sale of animals or plants contained in the new Schedules 4 and 5 to the 1976 Act (species considered as endangered) includes whole, live or dead specimens and items derived or manufactured from them. It does not, however, cover parts of the animals or plants listed, or eggs or other immature forms of animals. These amendments are designed to rectify those omissions and would bring the new provision into line with the import and export licensing under the Act which also covers the parts, eggs and so on specified in Schedule 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 53, line 12, after ("words") insert ("(2A)").
The noble Earl said: At this stage we are concerned with that part of the 1976 Act which relates to measures concerning the commercialisation of endangered species. The amendment would insert a provision to prohibit the exhibition or display of species, an activity which clearly could be for commercial gain if involved only with competitive types of display with which prizes may be concerned. This small amendment tidies up the situation and brings it in line with the basic intentions of the subsection.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I must oppose this amendment not only because of the severe limitation imposed by the reference to subsection (8) but because it is unnecessary, as Section 139 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 already provides the commissioners with power to dispose of goods which have been condemned by the court, or deemed to have been condemned in the absence of a claim against forfeiture within a month, in such manner as the commissioners may direct. For the most part, therefore, the commissioners already have the powers which the amendment seeks to give them, and as regards endangered species, it is their practice to consult with the Department of the Environment before exercising their power. Although the commissioners have power to return, for instance, an animal to its country of origin, they do not have power to recover the expenses. With a living animal the proposal could be attractive and the Government intend to consider it with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment on Report. In view of that intention, I hope my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I think the lateness of the hour led us into the delusion that we were addressing each other. In fact, I spoke inadvertently to Amendment No. 235 and my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 229; I was sharp enough to notice that we were not talking about the same thing. But under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw No. 229, the amendment to which I should have been speaking.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 53, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
("Powers to order return to country of origin or disposal of animals, plants or items, and powers of entry
2. At the end of section 1 of the 1976 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8A)(a) Where as provided by subsection (8) above any animal, plant or item is condemned as forfeit or is deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeited under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Court or the Commissioners (as the case may be) may, where in the opinion of the Commissioners it is practicable to do so, order the same to be returned to the country from which it appears to have originated, or to be otherwise disposed of in accordance with the advice of any of the approved scientific authorities as defined in section 2 below.
(b) Where any animal, plant or item is dealt with under paragraph (a) of this subsection, the Commissioners may themselves arrange for the same to be returned to the country from which it appears to have originated, or to be otherwise disposed of as mentioned in that paragraph, and may recover any expenses thereby incurred from any person responsible for its import or any person who possessed or had control of the animal, plant or item at or within one year before the time of its seizure.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 230 and, at the same time, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 232 as well. I will be very brief. This new subsection of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 would give Customs and Excise powers either to return the forfeited specimens to the country of origin or otherwise to dispose of them as advised by the appropriate scientific authority. In addition, Customs and Excise would be able to recover any costs that they might incur on behalf of the importer.
The prime objective of disposal in such circumstances, of course, would be to ensure by whatever means possible the best chance of conservation of the species. Destruction, the normal alternative, would usually be out of the question. There would be two alternatives, really, I suppose: first of all, to send the specimen back to the country of origin, which is envisaged in Article 8 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—that seems to me to be highly improbable and usually inadvisable—or, secondly, perhaps, to place the specimen in a zoo or other centre specialising in the breeding and preservation of the species concerned.
Since it is the importer who causes this problem, it seems right to me, and I think it will to other noble Lords as well, that it should be he, the importer, and not public funds, who should bear the costs incurred by the disposal of the specimen in the best possible way. Currently, Customs and Excise, as I have said, lack the power to recover these costs. This amendment would give them this power, thereby ensuring that no costs fall on the public purse, while ensuring the best possible way to safeguard the illegally imported species concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I should simply like to support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am afraid that, quite unintentionally, I have already answered my noble friend on this point, as he will have heard. I doubt whether the Committee will want me to say again what I said just now by mistake.
Lord Chelwood: I was not listening as well as I should have been.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: The noble Lord will be glad to hear that we propose to put forward an amendment on this point. We intend to consider this proposal with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment at Report stage. I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Melchett: The only problem with that is that I am now not at all clear what the noble Lord would have said about Amendment No. 229, to which I do not think he has yet responded. I wonder whether there is just a word or two that he could say—"Yes" or "No" or "Maybe"—which would let us know what was the Government's attitude to the amendment which the noble Earl so ably did not move.
The Earl of Avon: I think it was spoken to with Amendments Nos. 226 and 227, when Lord Cranbrook moved his earlier amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: It was simply consequential, in fact, on the amendments I withdrew.
Lord Chelwood: So far as these two amendments are concerned, I greatly appreciate what my noble friend has said, and I naturally withdraw the amendment that I have moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 231.
Page 53, line 34, at end insert—
("(11) The Secretary of State shall not issue a licence under this section authorising for the purpose of trade the importation or exportation of anything of a kind to which Schedule 6 for the time being applies.").
The noble Lord said: This is to strengthen the species in Schedule 6. It would forbid trade both ways, out and in, in the species in Schedule 6. This would take some of the commercial temptations out of killing them. Schedule 6 comprises species which may not be killed in certain specified ways. Those ways are outlawed, and to kill them in those ways may be an offence. If we stop traffic in the animals in Schedule 6 between this country and any other country, and between any other country and this country, the chances of the animals in Schedule 6 being left alone are a little stronger. That is what this amendment is all about. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I am obliged to oppose this amendment, the effect of which would be to oblige the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a licence for the importation or exportation of a specimen of a species listed in Schedule 6 for the purposes of trade.
Of the species listed in Schedule 6, the otter, for example, is already listed in Appendix 1 of the Washington Convention, and international trade for commercial purposes is therefore already prohibited. Most of the others, however, are not even regarded as vulnerable and it would not therefore be proper or justified for the Secretary of State to ban their import or export. I have, on the other hand, noticed that there is one that is not the subject of licensing under the 1976 Act and so I undertake to ensure that it will become controlled when the Bill is enacted. I refer to the red squirrel. In this way, it will be possible to detect if species come into trade, and appropriate measures can be taken. Although the substance of the amendment would cause it to be resisted in any event, the manner in which it is put down is believed to be defective to achieve its purpose. In the light of the undertaking I have just given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Certainly. I am glad to add to the heavy burden already assumed by the Front Bench of matters to be further considered. I guess that the Report stage will be a very interesting time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 not moved.]
12.36 a.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert (", or displays to the public").
The noble Earl said: I have already inadvertently spoken to Amendment No. 235, the effect of which is to include Schedule 4 to the 1976 Act provisions to prohibit display. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Again, I am afraid that I must oppose the amendment, which would have the effect, as the noble Earl has said, of prohibiting exhibition to the public of a species listed on the new Schedules 4 and 5 proposed for the 1976 Act, or of a part or derivative of such a species, unless a specified licence had been issued. At one time, we seriously considered including such a provision in the Bill, but we concluded that it would not be justified. The major effect of the provision would be upon zoos and museums. The licensing of captive bred specimens, which it would make necessary, would be particularly onerous on the former. This would have little benefit and could even have the result of hindering some of the important captive breeding projects being conducted by zoos.
There would still be sufficient safeguards on the importation of specimens for display to the public. All the specimens on the new Schedules are regarded for licensing purposes as endangered. Consequently, the utmost care is taken in the consideration of licences to import them and the scientific authority will continue to be consulted on individual applications. A licence to import both live and dead specimens will therefore have been thoroughly vetted and its issue will have been critically judged in terms of conservation. There will still be the further safeguard for live specimens, for which the Secretary of State will continue to give directions under Section 6, on their movement after importation. Thus we shall be able to keep track of their whereabouts and detect any infringement of the conditions. I accordingly invite my noble friend Lord Cranbrook to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I should have thought that the legitimate activities of zoos and museums would have been covered by licensing, possibly by general licensing, and would not have created the problems that he has suggested they would. I note with interest the fact that he has informed the House that the movements of live specimens that are imported will be carefully monitored after their importation, which is an interesting and valuable point to have had made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 236, 237 and 238 en bloc:
Page 54, line 10, after ("animal") insert ("or an egg or other immature stage of an animal").
Page 54, line 15, leave out ("anything which") and insert ("any part of or anything which derives from or").
Page 54, line 19, after ("is") insert ("a part of or derives from or is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 54, line 20, after ("before") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which repairs the omission of the word "the". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think it would be with the general agreement of the Committee that we should break at this point. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.