Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 27 January 1981 vol 416 cc697-728

House again in Committee on Clause 4.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart)

In calling Amendment No. 43, I should remind your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 43: Page 5, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the Opposition Front Bench Members are not in their place, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we prolonged our discussion. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness here now, and I beg to move Amendment No. 43, speaking at the same time to Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46, 52 and 53. If it is the wish and desire of the Committee to consider those amendments together, providing there is no objection, I shall now proceed.

I know that there are a number of objections to the inclusion of the defence in Clause 4(2)(a) as at present drafted. These seem to be of three kinds: that the defence is unnecessary because the new licensing provisions are available; that the defence is too readily available without the farmer or other person being obliged to try alternatives; and, thirdly, that it does not comply with the new directive. The Government certainly intend that the normal means of dealing with predictable damage should be by licensing, but consider that a defence similar to that in the Protection of Birds Act, Section 4(2)(a), is necessary to ensure that in a genuine emergency a farmer is able to defend his crops without the fear of committing an offence, provided he can satisfy the court that his action was necessary.

Your Lordships may like to know that so far as we can ascertain this defence has been little used, and, with the more comprehensive licensing provisions, we expect its use to practically disappear. It should, however, still be available. We do not consider that there is any need to limit the defence in the way suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Donaldson, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley: we feel that that is undesirable because it puts so many hurdles in the way of an individual who seeks to rely on the defences which we think—

Lord Melchett

I apologise for arriving just after the noble Lord had said which amendments he was going to take together, but as there are an awful lot on this particular point I wonder whether it would not be simpler to take the amendment which is down in the names of myself, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, after we have dealt with the substantive point with which the noble Lord is dealing—that is, the re-drafting of this particular defence or let-out, or however one wants to describe it—because it seems to us that our amendment will apply whichever of the various options is selected. It seems to me to be simpler to take this separately. I know we want to get on as quickly as we can, but it seems to me that it would be a lot simpler if we took Amendment No. 46 as a separate point.

Lord Sandys

Naturally, I am in the hands of the Committee on this matter. Would it be your Lordships' wish that we should proceed with considering Amendment No. 43 at this time? Am I understanding it correctly?

Lord Melchett

I think the noble Lord has moved Amendment No. 43, so he cannot avoid that. I should have thought that Nos. 52 and 53 were relevant, and the removal of the definition of "livestock", which I think is Amendment No. 370. They, I should have thought, would come into this part. Then, whether we decide on paragraph (a) as it is currently in the Bill or on Amendment No. 52 or Amendment No. 53—and I imagine those are three different alternatives—whichever one of those we choose we can then look at Amendment No. 46, which will be a qualification on one or other of them.

Lord Sandys

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. If it is your Lordships' wish to proceed along those lines, from this side of the Committee I think it would be acceptable. Inevitably it is a form of package which means a somewhat untidy discussion. If the Committee accepts that, then perhaps I may be allowed to proceed along those lines.

I think the reason for this amendment—and the amendment is Amendment No. 43, page 5, line 27, to leave out paragraph (a)—will be clear when considering the later amendments which have been described. I beg to move.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

When a Minister puts his name to a Back-Bench amendment I think one needs to look at it rather carefully and ask: what is he up to? This is a package of escape clauses, and I think we have to look at all aspects of it with considerable care. It may be that we should dispose of Amendment No. 43, take paragraph (a) out of the Bill, and then make our substantive debate on Amendment No. 52. There are however additions to paragraph (a) which might have to be considered as additions to Amendment No. 52. There is a question of order.

I should like to say to the Minister, in looking at what it is proposed to take out and what it is proposed to put in, that the difference seems to be—and to know this would clear my mind considerably—that, under Section 4(2)(a) of the Bill as it stands, which Amendment No. 43 proposes to take out, reference is made in lines 25 and 26 to the fact that "a person" shall not be guilty of an offence whereas, under the revised version of this clause in Amendment No. 52, the reference is to an "authorised person". This seems to me to be an important difference.

As paragraph (a) stands at the moment, one assumes that any person, whether authorised or not, might take advantage of the provisions of paragraph (a). If that were proposed, then a person who failed to apply for a licence or a person who had been refused a licence might take advantage of paragraph (a) to cover an act which could be condoned in the case of an authorised person who had taken all possible steps to get his licence and to take advantage of paragraph (a) only in an emergency. One could condone the action there of an authorised person, but certainly not that of any person who had not got authority under a licence, had not bothered to apply for one or, for one reason or another, had been refused one. Can the Minister lay stress on the difference between the existing version and the proposed version and satisfy me that by the introduction of the word "authorised" he is making quite a difference to the purpose of the clause?

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I have my name down to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. As I understand the position, my noble friend on the Front Bench is removing part of the clause and putting in its place Amendment No. 52. If that is correct, I should like to speak to that, because I have various points to raise on Amendment No. 52.

It is not very often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but I entirely take his point about "authorised". It is quite acceptable to have "person" changed into "authorised person"; and indeed, as he said, it is probably correct. However, after that I do not entirely agree with Amendment No. 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. There he has accepted the point that has been made in our amendment that he should include "livestock". But at the same time—I should be pleased if he could clear this up with me afterwards—he has taken out "any other property". Needless to say, I want both in, and I want both in for various reasons. One could still have damage to property, and you could have damage to livestock. I think they should be in for various reasons, if only for consistency. When you go further on in the Bill it will be found that "property" is in, I think I am right in saying, Clause 10, but not in Clauses 4 and 15. It seems to me to make it more simple—and, frankly, it is a slightly academic point—and much better if the words, "livestock and property", appear in Clauses 4, 10 and 15. Perhaps my noble friend can explain the position there.

I understand that in Clause 4 it is only for emergency action. This would be more important, from the point of view of livestock, when you get black-backed gulls eating lambs. Perhaps that is less important, but there still might be cases where property was damaged. I can think of doves eating stored grain, which they do in quite a large quantity. That would be damage against property and not damage against crops, because the crops would be stored. Likewise, one could get damage to one's property in an outside pig herd where they were eating the pig nuts. That might require emergency treatment. I think there is a lack of consistency here. I should like to see "property and livestock" in all three clauses.

Lord Melchett

I have managed to get some advice and I now realise that if Amendment No. 43 is passed, then Amendment No 46 will not be called, so we need to debate Amendment No. 46 with Amendment No. 43. I am therefore very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for suggesting it and I am happy to fall in with his suggestion. I shall be happy to hear what he has to say before I make my own observations.

The Duke of Atholl

I have my name down to the amendment. May I say that, in the event of the Committee accepting Amendments Nos. 43 and 52, it will not be my intention to move Amendment No. 53. I am satisfied that Amendment No. 52 covers Amendment No. 53, with the exception that possibly the word "property" should be inserted. However, I should have thought that even stored grain was still crops as such. Possibly my noble friend has taken legal advice and discovered that stored grain is not crops. It seems a strange definition.

Lord Kilbracken

As I have my name to the amendment I also should like to speak briefly. I put down an amendment to omit paragraph (a) with the intention that any provision along these lines should be omitted completely from the Bill. While I would favour its removal, I should not like to see Amendment No. 52 carried. The reason is that it seems to me that if serious damage of this sort is being caused, or indeed if the killing of wild birds is necessary to preserve public health or safety or for preventing the spread of disease, in each case that can be done by a person—whether an "ordinary person" under the existing wording or an "authorised person" in the proposed Amendment No. 52—applying for a licence. I should very much prefer that it should be necessary to apply for such a licence before taking the law into one's own hands and killing these birds, in the hope of being able subsequently to prove that it was necessary in order to preserve public health and to prevent serious damage, and so on.

Why is anything else necessary? It looks as though this right is going to belong to authorised people only if the Government's proposals are carried out, and an authorised person may already kill all the normal pest species in Schedule 2, Part II. Of course, other species can be added and I am proposing that the collar dove should be added to the pest species. What other species are there that any authorised person would want to kill without being able to wait for a licence to be granted? I would suggest only the bullfinch, which might descend in large numbers on a landowner's orchard; and although the bullfinch is a bird of which I am particularly fond, I am aware that it does a great deal of damage to orchards, and perhaps the exasperated landowner or some person authorised by him might go out and shoot bullfinches without waiting for a licence. That, surely, would be a situation he should have foreseen, and he should have applied for a licence in advance. I should like to see not only Amendment No. 43 carried but Amendment No. 52 rejected.

8.3 p.m.

Lord Sandys

I think that before saying anything more, I should start with the query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is fundamental to this discussion, and I am very glad he brought it forward. To remind the Committee, it is a question of the difference between the phrase "a person" in the Bill as drafted and the phrase "an authorised person" under Amendment No. 52. This is a technicality and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, quite correctly, brought it to your Lordships' attention. This has been done because of the EEC directive and for no other reason. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley raised a number of points in regard to the word "property". Once again the EEC directive refers to, serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water as being permissible reasons for derogation from the general rules of the directive. Property is covered, provided it is living. I hope that will satisfy my noble friend.

In regard to damage to property—and this is another quite specific point—all the classes of damage to property by birds that we have identified as needing derogation would be covered by the means of public health or safety, if not by the other sections. This is a complicated area because we are bringing in here other legislation. If that has not satisfied my noble friend, I hope that he will pursue it as we proceed. I was very glad that my noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that he considered the possibility of withdrawing Amendment No. 53, and I thank my noble friend for his advice on that matter. In regard to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I am very glad to know that he is in favour of Amendment No. 43 and would be glad if the procedure suggested at the beginning of this discussion is adhered to.

Lord Melchett

May I first of all ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, two questions about Amendment No. 52? As he said, this follows the wording, more or less and in parts, of the EEC directive, Article 9(1). In particular, the wording of paragraph (c) in the amendment is taken directly from the wording in the directive. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was satisfied with the explanation given; I do not think I should have been myself, but I leave that to him to pursue.

I have a question on livestock because, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the definition of "livestock" will be removed in due course by Amendment No. 370, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I must say I had assumed that that was consequential upon Amendments Nos. 42 and 52. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, did not mention that but, if it is carried in Amendment No. 52, he will be inserting something which has livestock mentioned in it and will be moving at a later stage of the Bill to remove the definition of "livestock". Frankly, I do not understand that, but I am happy with the end result, provided he can assure me that "livestock" has the meaning which I think, from the look of Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the others with their names to those amendments, would agree with me should cover such things as sheep, lambs, cattle and so on, and should not cover game birds, grouse and pheasants—those things excluded by the definition which has been deleted.

My second question on Amendment No. 52 is this. Having taken this wording direct from the EEC directive, the noble Lord has drawn my attention, at least, to what it says in Article 9. One of the things said in Section (3) of Article 9 is that, each year the Member State shall send a report to the Commission on the implementation of this article". I assume naturally that the Government will have to do that, but I wonder, given the rather wide way in which Amendment No. 52 is currently drawn, whether the Government are satisfied that this provision in Amendment No. 52 will be used in such limited and restricted circumstances that they will be in a position to send a full report to the Commission on the implementation of this article and the effect the derogations have had.

As I said earlier, I am afraid I have also to speak to Amendment No. 46, which is in my name, together with the names of my noble friends Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. If we do not do it now we shall not get the opportunity, which I am sure would come as just as big a disappointment to other noble Lords as it would to us. As I said earlier, it seems to me that whether it is Amendment No. 52 or the existing paragraph (a) that we end up with in this Bill, this Amendment No. 46 is thoroughly justified and is entirely in line with what the Government have said their intentions are. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, was in the House at Second Reading. If he was, he may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in introducing the Bill, said at col. 984 on 16th December 1980: It is recognised that destruction of wild life is not always the best way to prevent damage". He went on to say that: Licences will be issued in accordance with the policies which take account of the extent of the damage caused, the conservation status of the species involved and the availability of alternative methods of preventing the damage". The noble Earl, Lord Avon, will remember that he, too, made some very similar remarks in winding-up the Second Reading debate at col. 1088, also talking about licensing, which is not what we are directly on now but I wish to draw an analogy. The noble Earl said that procedures had been worked out which would ensure that licences were issued to take or kill birds only because they caused serious damage, and that the licences would take into account the conservation threat to the species and the alternative methods of dissuading birds, apart from killing them. It is those words in particular which I noted. It seemed to me that, if that is to be the policy for issuing licences, it is only fair and reasonable that it should he the policy when we come to look at this exception to the protection which birds are given.

I do not seriously believe—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will not suggest this, as he almost started to do earlier—that anyone will have any real objection to this. It seems to me to be quite normal practice for all landowners and farmers that, if something is causing damage and the thing which is causing damage is a protected species, they will take steps short of killing it to try to prevent the damage. Anything as simple as a scarecrow in a field is an example of that. It is a normal and natural course for people to take. It seems particularly appropriate to some of the more difficult problems that we face.

I should like to give your Lordships just one brief example, as a result of some research that has been done on the problem of heron predation on fish farms. This is one of the things which will almost certainly be covered by the licensing arrangements. But, nevertheless, it is a good example of the way in which research can show that, quite simply, it is possible to take deterrent measures to prevent damage which has been causing very serious problems. The RSPB have done some research which has shown, for example, that a marginal cord erected at a height of between 25 and 35 centimetres, preferably at two different heights within that bracket, around the places at a fish farm where fish are kept will reduce herons' feeding attempts by 88 per cent. It is a system which is cheap, easy to maintain and simple to erect. Other systems—for example, chains of polyethylene spheres covering an area around the edge of a pool—have reduced herons' feeding attempts by 62 per cent.

I give those as examples of the kinds of methods that I would expect Amendment No. 46 to ensure were tried; in other words, where there was some simple and reasonable method of preventing the damage, which did not involve killing a protected bird, that should have been tried first. I should hope that that amendment would be acceptable. I realise that we shall have to table it again at Report stage, if it does not go down in the Government's name, and if Amendment No. 52 is accepted. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be a reasonable amendment which might reduce the worries which my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Kilbracken had about Amendment No. 52 itself.

Lord Kilbracken

I should like just to ask my noble friend whether the other amendment which he might put down at Report stage would be attached to the new subsection which is down as Amendment No. 52 It would come later in the Bill. Is that how he sees it?

Lord Melchett

Yes, that is the case. Amendment No. 46 was designed to be attached to paragraph (a). Amendment No. 52 will, if it is passed, replace paragraph (a), and I would see the same need to attach similar words to that.

8.14 p.m.

Lord Sandys

I think it would be of assistance to the Committee if, at this stage, I were to reply to a number of important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He made a quite specific point about the definition of "livestock" and the reason for the removal of the word and the definition from the Bill. The reason is that because "livestock" has been included in the new defence clause for birds, and the definition in the Bill as drafted is contrary to the EEC directive on birds, suitable amendments have been tabled to deal with the mammals clauses later on. This seems somewhat contradictory advice, but I am assured that we are following the EEC directive here. I understand that there is a second point about the definition of "livestock". The definition now covers all animals which are substantially domesticated and under the farmer's control. Game birds, while being reared, are covered; but not after release, because they would not then count as livestock.

Lord Melchett

That is extremely helpful. Where does that definition appear in the Bill? That is my only question.

Lord Sandys

The present definition is to be removed from the Bill and a new definition will be inserted by amendment in the mammals clauses.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

May I make a point on other methods of preventing damage to crops? It is absolutely basic to the whole argument. Other methods only scare the pests, whatever they are, on to other people's ground. You really do not solve any problems by putting up bangers, scare fences, balloons and so on for agriculture as a whole. You may have a plague of wood pigeons. At the end of the day, there is only one real cure and that is to reduce the numbers. If you are successful in scaring them off, by keeping your neighbours awake with bangers and so on, all you do is divert them to some other crop.

Lord Melchett

If I may reply to that intervention, wood pigeons are a very bad example, because they are not covered here. Secondly, it has been shown by detailed research that all the shooting ever did was to reduce the number that died by starvation during the winter. That is why, many years ago, the Government removed the reduced price cartridges which were then available for shooting wood pigeons. It had absolutely no effect on the total number of breeding wood pigeons in this country.

If I may respond to the point about scaring things, in my experience of scaring Brent geese from winter wheat it is possible, if there are alternative feeding places. In other words, if there is some permanent grass somewhere within the area to keep the Brent geese off the winter wheat, you can make them feed on grass. That is what I personally have been able to do in Norfolk this winter. So it can be done, without the kind of consequences which the noble Lord suggested.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I would say, first, that the Government took away the cartridge subsidy because they were too mean to continue it, not because there was any real evidence that shooting did not reduce the numbers. Secondly, the noble Lord reveals remarkable ignorance of agriculture if he says that you can scare the geese off the winter wheat and on to grass, because grass is quite as important a crop as winter wheat. I can take him to areas where geese have eaten out the centre of the field, and the crop for sileage, around the edges where the geese did not go, was twice what it was in the centre. So that, with enormous respect, I do not think his examples are very good.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

One of the most effective ways of keeping birds off a certain product, such as corn on the cob, is to spread black cotton between bamboo sticks and across the crop. The rooks and pigeons hit the cotton, which gives them a terrible fright, and then they appear to tell their neighbours. I have found that very effective.

The Earl of Onslow

After digressions on various methods of catching, scaring and so on, either with corn on the cob or grass, surely what we are talking about is the damage which can be done—and I declare an interest here as having a fishery—by herons to fisheries, and the damage which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said can be done by geese to grass, to barley or to whatever may be involved. The damage that Canada geese can do to spring barley and winter wheat or any growing corn crop is very considerable.

Does there have to be absolute prevention by the other methods? The noble Lord said that a piece of string round a fish pond would reduce heron feeding attacks by 88 per cent. Perhaps the remaining 12 per cent. of heron feeding under certain circumstances would be quite a large financial drain on the fish farmer, remembering that his prices have remained constant for about five years. It seems to me that this amendment is pushing matters a little too far. I hope that people will attempt other methods, but we should leave the clause as it stands at the moment.

The Earl of Caithness

If I may follow the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow, the clause deals with emergency action. The flaw in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that it has to be done at very short notice. If one has advance warning that these things will happen which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, seems to think will happen, one can apply for a licence and everything will be all right. But this might be over a period of a week, in which case there is no chance of getting a licence.

May I refer to one point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandys; namely the definition of livestock being that which is substantially domesticated. Does this include red deer calves when one is breeding red deer? They are subject to attack from various pests: from hawks and other birds.

The point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is worth following up. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, am not happy with the reply of the Government. Why can we not extend an EEC directive where we have a precedent for it in this country? Under Section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947 and Section 39 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948, the Secretary of State may issue a notice in writing to require persons having the right to do so to kill and to destroy the eggs of wild birds other than those in Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act so as to prevent damage to crops, pastures, animal and human feed-stuffs, livestock, trees, hedges, banks and any work on land and, if necessary, to take court action. That is a very good precedent for including the word "property" in the amendment put forward by the Government, Amendment No. 52. In view of this and of the fact that it is emergency action that is being taken in these circumstances, I hope that the Government will think again.

Lord Kilbracken

To take up the point made by the noble Earl about the definition of livestock, it is very unsatisfactory that he has told us that there is to be an amendment in another part of the Bill which will define livestock. However, I do not see that amendment in the Marshalled List. In the meantime, we already have the rather curious definition in Clause 25, that livestock includes any game bird, wild duck, or wild geese and the eggs of any such bird. Are the eggs of a wild duck livestock? I am so glad that that definition is going. Until we know what the new definition of livestock is going to be, how can we debate Amendment No. 52?

Lord Gibson-Watt

Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley that the word "property" should be included. I simply do not accept the argument that because something is included in an EEC directive it cannot be added to. I believe that the example which he gave of corn in a granary is certainly property and cannot come under any other termination. Secondly, provided that the Government's Amendment No. 52 is accepted, with the amendment to it of the word "property", naturally my noble friends and I will withdraw Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. Thirdly, the point was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that when you get these sort of attacks it is because a bird has grown in numbers over a certain season. It may be geese or herons, to which the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite referred.

Although the thinking behind Amendment No. 46 is good, I am afraid that it will take too long. Although the RSPB evidence which the noble Lord has may come from their research, one knows from practical experience that to use strings of the sort to which he refers does not deal with herons. In that respect he is not right. I hope very much that he will not pursue the matter and that we shall be able to accept Amendment No. 52.

Lord Melchett

I have listened with great care to what noble Lords have said about my amendment. It may be that the examples which I gave took us off at a slight tangent. Everyone has assumed that the problem of herons at fish farms and of geese on winter wheat would be dealt with under the licensing provisions. I have not heard from noble Lords who are unhappy about my amendment any examples of the kind of action they would need to take quickly where they would not have tried all other reasonable methods of preventing the damage before they killed a protected bird. It would be fair to me to have a few examples to go on before I withdrew my amendment.

Viscount Thurso

If the noble Lord would like an example, let him imagine a field filled with young lambs being attacked by black backed gulls. This was the example given to us earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. If a black backed gull is killing lambs you cannot wait to get permsision to try some other means. You have to seize a gun and go out and get it.

Lord Melchett

That is a misunderstanding of the amendment. That would quite clearly be legal under the terms of the amendment; there would be no other effective means of preventing that damage. There would be no question of going to anyone for permission. It would be open to the authorised person immediately to shoot the gull in question. My amendment would not alter that position one jot, so that is not a very good example.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

The same applies to crows which have a horrible habit, when a ewe has lambed, of running beside the lamb and trying to pull out the navel.

Lord Melchett

That is not a very good example, either, because the crow is a pest species and is not so affected by this Bill. It is fair for me to ask noble Lords to give me an example which affects my amendment before they ask me to withdraw it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I can give the noble Lord an example that relates to geese. If you shoot at geese openly with shotguns and show yourself you scare them off; and you get one or two of them. But if they are shot in a field with a rifle and left there without knowing what hit them, it is a most effective method of getting the geese not to return to that field. This method has been tried by many people. You may say that the conventional method is to try to scare them off, but what I have suggested is the most effective method I know of stopping geese coming back to a particular area.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Sandys

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I answered a number of the points raised by my noble friends and by noble Lords opposite. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley referred to damage to corn in a granary. We think action in that kind of emergency would be justified on the grounds of public health.

I turn to the second principal matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett: the implementation of the EEC directive and the question of the report. There will be an annual report to the EEC. The Community will be looking to see whether our provisions are compatible with the directive. The directive is concerned with the conservation of birds and we believe that this provision is entirely consistent with the directives, as Schedule 1 birds will not be included in the defence created by our amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, raised a very interesting problem and a suggested answer in regard to damage to fish farms, and other noble Lords proposed their own solutions to this problem. At this stage I do not think that the Government are in a position to comment on their particular proposed advice, but this is undoubtedly a matter which will be the concern of the appropriate department.

I turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. We shall look at property and its possible inclusion in the next stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord is prepared to accept the assurance that we shall try to find a suitable solution so that Amendment No. 52 includes the word "property" at a later stage it would be for his convenience.

I turn now to a particular proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and I advise him that the collared dove, to which he referred earlier, is already in Schedule 2, Part II, the pest species. Next, a very important matter was raised by, I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in regard to the question of application for a licence which was refused and then acted upon. I think he raised it at an earlier stage. I turn to Amendment No. 46 where this whole issue is raised with regard to damage and I relate it to Amendment No. 52. We consider that Amendment No. 46 is unnecessary because of the wording of Amendment No. 52. The phrase which renders it unnecessary is in the fifth line of that amendment— and I quote the words, If he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of". Our legal advice is that the phrase "was necessary" is thought to allow the courts to take into account that a licence was refused. It would not automatically make him guilty because circumstances may have changed, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hough-ton, may to some extent be comforted by that legal advice in this particular regard. It is a complicated matter and it bears upon both Amendments Nos. 46 and 52.

As regards the advice given by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is always so well informed on these matters, I do not think that the Government are able to comment on his suggestions or indeed on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.

The Earl of Caithness

Would the noble Lord care to comment on the point that I raised? Although he has kindly agreed to take it away and look at it, there is a precedent for using damage to property in the examples that I gave. Secondly, may we have further elucidation as to whether the words "substantially domesticated" include red deer?

Lord Sandys

I think my noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the young of domesticated red deer and, so far as our information exists at the present time, they are to be included. If at a later stage in their lives the young were no longer domesticated and were released into the wild, they would not be included, but that is our understanding at the present moment.

With regard to the precedent raised by my noble friend, which was an interesting example, we will look at the precedent and see whether it has the effect which he suggested. I think that there is an important matter of the difference between agricultural law in Scotland and in England and I should like to take advice before committing myself further.

Lord Melchett

For myself, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about the wording in Amendment No. 52 and I should like to study what he has said and possibly take my own legal advice on his legal advice, if I can get any, before the Report stage. What he said was a substantial reassurance to me because, up to that point, I felt that I had not been given any examples of where my amendment would lead to problems. For instance, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that there are not any geese in Schedule 1. The particular thing we are talking about applies only to the birds listed in Schedule 1, so his example was not a particularly good one.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has dealt with the problems about property raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others. It would probably be not only impossible but an appalling mistake if we started to tamper with the wording. The Government have taken it exactly from the directive article and, as I understand it, it is actually against European law for us to start making substantial derogations from that unless it was done at the time: it is not possible subsequently. One way and another, the noble Lord managed to answer the questions from behind him certainly to my satisfaction, and I hope that we shall be able to leave the wording in Amendment No. 52 as it is now.

Lord Sandys

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. We are in a particular difficulty here, tied as we are to the terms of the directive. I hope I have satisfied my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, but I should be very willing to consider by correspondence any further points that noble Lords may wish to raise.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.39 p.m.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 47: Page 5, line 33, after ("his") insert ("unlawful").

The noble Lord said: If it is the wish of your Lordships' Committee I think it would be for our further progress if I could speak to Amendment No. 49 at the same time. This amendment is designed to cover anyone who accidentally injures a wild bird, for example while driving a motor car, and who subsequently takes it in, in order to tend it until it has recovered, his ultimate objective being to release the bird when it is fit to be released. The clause as drafted would preclude this possibility. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 48: Page 5, line 35, at end insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment which I hope the Government will accept and start a precedent for accepting rather more amendments from this side of the Committee, or indeed from any side of the Committee, than they have been able to do up to now. I beg to move.

Lord Sandys

I wish I were able to accede to the noble Lord's suggestion. The defences listed in Clause 4(2) are all separate. The "or" at the end of paragraph (c) indicates this. The addition of "or" at the end of paragraph (b) would not alter anything. For that reason I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Melchett

I wonder if the noble Lord can explain why there is an "or" at the end of paragraph (b) in Clause 10(2) which as far as I am aware follows the wording of Clause 4(2) exactly. If the "or" is unnecessary in one it must be unnecessary in the other, or vice versa.

The Earl of Avon

No. The "or" is there in the last but one paragraph; it is always in the penultimate paragraph.

Lord Melchett

In Clause 10 it is at the end of (a), (b) and (c) and in Clause 4 it is only at the end of (c).

Lord Kilbracken

Surely it should be at the end of the penultimate paragraph only, or at the end of every paragraph?

The Earl of Avon

I have Clause 10 in front of me and (a) has no "or", but (b) has because it is the penultimate paragraph.

Lord Melchett

If the noble Earl looks at line 35 on page 11, and line 39, he will see an "or" in both lines, and there is even an "or" in line 31.

The Earl of Avon

Yes, I see the point; we have a lot of "ors" in that area. We will look into it.

Lord Melchett

I think the noble Earl should be a little more generous and accept my amendment. If he wants to delete it at Report stage he can do so.

The Earl of Avon

Can I ask the noble Lord why he does not want an "or" at the end of paragraph (a)?

Lord Melchett

Unfortunately, it was deleted. If the noble Earl had been able to accept my Amendment No. 46 he would have got an "or".

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 49: Page 5, line 37, after ("his") insert ("unlawful").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. This proposed amendment is designed to protect any person who accidently injures a wild bird, and once again it is convenient to cite the example of someone who does so while driving a motor-car. He subsequently kills it in order to end its suffering when he sees that it has no reasonable chance of recovering. The clause as drafted would preclude this possibility. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 50: Page 5, line 40, leave out ("incidental") and insert ("unfor-seen").

The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with this amendment No. 51, and Nos. 137 and 138; they do the same thing at a later stage, as indeed do Nos. 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. My name and my noble friend's name are not on those; I am not sure whether it is my mistake, no doubt it is, but the intention was that we should make these changes at each stage where the relevant words appeared in the Bill.

There are two separate points, but I think it would be simplest to take them together. In Clause 4(2)(b) after the "or" we have suggested that instead of an act being not unlawful if it is the "incidental" result of a lawful operation, it should be not unlawful only as long as it was an "unforeseen" result of a lawful operation. This would apply not only to the injuring or killing of a protected bird but also injuring or killing a protected animal or a protected plant at later stages. It seemed to me that "incidental"—and I would welcome hearing what the Government have to say about the legal meaning of the word—gave the impression, at least to the lay person reading the Act, that it would be possible to destroy any of the species we are protecting under this future Act of Parliament simply because the activity which led to the destruction was made lawful by this clause, even if this was quite deliberate.

It did not seem to me that Parliament would be consciously enacting legislation which was designed to protect a whole series of very rare birds, plants, mammals amphibians and so on, if there was then a small subsection which allowed somebody quite deliberately to slaughter large numbers of these things. It seemed to me that as long as somebody did it without realising that they were going to do it that was a quite reasonable defence, and that is what the clause should provide. That covers Amendments Nos. 50, 137 and 196.

The second amendment is possibly a less significant one. Slightly later in paragraph (d) we are suggesting that the words "could not reasonably have been avoided" are deleted and instead there should be inserted that he took all reasonable steps to avoid such damage". The purpose of that amendment was simply to make it quite clear that, in the case of the very specially protected species—and that is what we are talking about, species of birds, plants and animals which this Bill is designed to protect—the persons carrying out this lawful operation should themselves take all reasonable steps to avoid the damage; in other words, there is a positive duty on them to take steps to avoid the damage. It seemed to me to be in line with the earlier change. I very much hope both amendments will commend themselves to the Committee.

Lord Craigton

I should like to support the amendment. It does seem to me that somebody might do something quite different which was lawful, and then say this was just a result of it. I am sure Lord Mel-chett's wording is very much better, and I hope the Government will accept this.

Viscount Thurso

I think the wording is better if "unforeseen" is substituted for "incidental" because incidental means careless, in the true sense of the word caring less, but I cannot see how somebody can take steps to prevent something happening which he cannot foresee.

Lord Sandys

I think the Committee has been very correct in looking at Amendments Nos. 50, 137 and 196 together, and Amendments Nos. 51, 138 and 197 together, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested. This amendment is a very difficult one because it would prevent the carrying out of many normal agricultural operations, such as harvesting or hedge-cutting, where it could be foreseen that, say, the nest of a wild bird would be damaged or destroyed while in use. This would nullify the whole of purpose of Clause 4(2)(d) which is designed to avoid prejudicing lawful operations. The amendment would create a distinction between the foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences of legal operations. If one of the foreseeable consequences contravened Clause 1 of the Bill, or an order to be made under Clause 3, the defence in Clause 4(2)(d) would not apply and an offence would have been committed. This is a particular problem which one can say is unforeseen in drafting the amendment and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Melchett

I am not sure that it was unforeseen in drafting the amendment. In fact, that was the intention of the amendment—if somebody cutting a hedge knew that there was a nest of a specially protected species in the hedgerow, then he should not cut it in a way that destroyed that nest. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. We are talking about a very limited number of specially protected species in the same way as, when we come later in the Bill, we are talking about a very limited number of protected animals and plants. If someone knew that in a particular bank there happened to be a number of orchids which were protected under the Act, is the noble Lord really saying to the Committee that as long as when they ploughed particularly close to the bank and destroyed all those orchids it was simply incidental to the ploughing, that was perfectly all right and none of us need worry about it? I, for one, would be extremely concerned.

Lord Sandys

I think that there is a case, and clearly, having listened to my noble friend Lord Craigton, there is a particular problem here which should be looked at in regard to the use of the word "incidental". I think that at this stage it would be very helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, were able to withdraw the amendment and perhaps we may be able to examine the definition.

The Earl of Caithness

I also see a problem, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Melchett will consider it. The problem arises as regards silage and lucern-making where birds are nesting in these grass fields or lucern fields which are harvested, as he knows, on a regular basis at an awkward time of year. Perhaps he could give consideration to that as well.

The Earl of Cranbrook

I would only like to make the point that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just mentioned, if a famer knows that there is the nest of a protected species on pasture—and again one can look at the list and see that there would would be comparatively few—then it would be remiss of him to proceed with agricultural operations. I take it that when the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to "unforeseen" he was discussing the general probability that, if one knows that there are, let us say, little ringed plovers in the area and one is planning to take an agricultural operation during the nesting season over suitable ground, there might possibly be a nest there. In that case, it could be said it was genuinely unforeseen. But I should have thought that if he meant that in general probability there would be likely to be a nest in the area proposed for an agricultural operation, then I feel there is a general sentiment that such action would be remiss.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

With respect, what size are we talking about? If there is the nest of a protected species in a 30 acre field of silage or of corn, then surely it is totally impractical for the farmer to take precautions as regards the whole of that field, which is an economic operation.

Lord Melchett

Again, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, one needs to look at Schedule 1. In my experience of growing lucern none of the birds listed there have ever come anywhere near the field to feed, nest or do anything else in it. I do not think it is all that likely. I personally was very grateful for the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, made. I am certainly not wedded to "unforseen"; indeed, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, or at least one noble Lord from behind me somewhere, who suggested that it would be difficult to take reasonable steps to avoid something which was unforeseen. It seemed to be a rather telling point which I therefore did not respond to. But I should be most grateful if we could adopt the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. For myself, I would happily withdraw the amendment. We could look at the particular wording of "incidental" and no doubt somebody could think of a much better alternative than "unforeseen" before we reach the Report stage.

Lord Kilbracken

Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I should like to point out that I do not think that he has read it quite correctly. He keeps talking about Schedule 1 birds. However, Clause 4(2)(d) is not confined only to birds in Schedule 1; it refers to any birds. It says: Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of section 1 or any order made under section 3, a person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of— … (d) any act made lawful by those provisions…". That would include the killing of any wild bird, not only birds in Schedule 1.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I should like to make one quickpoint, because I think that there is a little misunderstanding. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I seem to differ slightly on the construction of the amendments that he has put forward and I have put my name to, as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Surely the point about Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 is that they are alternatives. If Amendment No. 50 is passed, then Amendment No. 51 would surely not be moved; and if Amendment No. 50 is not passed, then Amendment No. 51 will be moved. The fact that they are discussed together has rather led us into a false trap. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 together do not work, but they are alternatives and possible ways of solving the same problem.

Viscount Thurso

We have a real problem here. I personally prefer the use of the word "unforeseen" because I do not think that people deliberately want to go and destroy birds or their nests. I think it could be foreseen that if you cut a hedge in springtime you are liable to destroy nests. It would be very surprising if you were to cut corn and destroy nests, because that is not the season. However, there is an occasion when there would be a problem, and that is if one has a field which one ploughed early in the season, preparatory to growing a crop of corn and the ringed plovers come and nest in it, which is what they will do. It would be very difficult to avoid all the ringed plover nests in that particular ploughed area. Yet, if one went ahead with ones' cultivations, would one or would one not have foreseen the destruction of birds nests? It is quite a difficult problem.

Lord Melchett

We have had a very good and thorough debate on these two sets of amendments, for which I am very grateful. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, suggested, although I had not in my mind originally necessarily seen them as alternatives, it is clear to me now that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51—either one or the other—could be moved into the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, some time ago kindly offered to look at this matter before the next stage of the Bill. On that basis I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

8.58 p.m.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 5, line 41, at end insert— ("(3) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of section 1 or any order made under section 3, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing or injuring of any wild bird, other than a bird included in Schedule 1, if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of—

1. (a) preserving public health or public or air safety;
2. (b) preventing the spread of disease; or
3. (c) preventing serious damage to livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, or fisheries.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 52. This amendment, to which we have given attention with a group of other amendments for a considerable period, restricts the defence that it was necessary to kill a protected bird in order to protect crops et cetera, to authorised persons; that is to say, to landowners and occupiers, together with persons acting with their authority, and certain other persons expressly authorised in writing. A reference to livestock has been inserted and the reference to any other form of property has been removed. Two other important purposes involving public health and safety are dealt with on the same footing. We have had a considerable discussion about this amendment in general terms and I hope, with that short explanation, that your Lordships will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds]:

9.1 p.m.

Lord Gibson-Watt moved Amendment No. 54: Page 6, line 11, leave out ("or").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. This is quite a small amendment. However, when we are considering weapons under Clause 5(1)(c), we are merely trying to suggest that, if we are talking about bows and crossbows—and there are others—we might well have included the blowpipe with which it is possible to kill a man at 60 yards. But we have, in fact, included catapults. No doubt many of your Lordships were excellent users of these weapons in the old days. I can only say that they are very accurate and very silent, and they are just as lethal as any bow. I shall not say any more to take up the time of the Committee. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

We have, of course, sympathy with the feelings behind this amendment, but the Government are nervous that by adding "catapult" to the schedule we might be downgrading the substantial weapons which we already have. We are also nervous about children and whether or not the catapult is an adult weapon which should be included here. On the whole, we should prefer to leave this out, but, if the noble Lord were to press me, I should offer to consider it further.

Lord Melchett

Perhaps I may lend my support, very briefly, to the noble Lord. It seems to me that it would be useful to consider this. I take the point that it might be possible to define exactly, or a little more precisely, what sort of catapult one was talking about. Presumably a rubber band stretched between two fingers is not the sort of thing that the noble Lord had in mind, but something rather more substantial, capable of firing metal pellets, or whatever. I would hope that that is something which the Government could consider between now and the Report stage.

Lord Craigton

I should like strongly to support this proposition. Anyone who has seen the modern catapult of today will know that it is a lethal weapon. I live on the banks of a river and I see them every day because fishermen up and down the country use these catapults for throwing live bait, and in doing that you can also kill birds. Having seen them used, I know that they are highly dangerous weapons, and I fully support this amendment.

Lord Gibson-Watt

I am grateful for the support which I have had from both sides of the Committee. I felt rather ridiculous getting up to move this amendment, but as my noble friend said that he would be prepared to look at it, the only comment I would make is that nowadays a catapult is an adult weapon and not just confined to children. In view of that, I shall be glad to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 6, line 11, at end insert— ("( ) any air weapon;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to add at page 6, line 11, the words "any air weapon". I think that the Committee is also justified in looking at the airgun in the hands of undiscerning and irresponsible young people as being a dangerous weapon to many species. Many attempts have been made in the past either to restrict or to render unlawful altogether the use of an airgun without some sort of licence. Anyone who lives in the country can see some of the havoc left behind by gangs of youths who go around with airguns, who shoot at anything that moves and who have no idea what they are doing.

In part, I think that this is a conservation matter. In the past many excuses have been given by Governments as to why nothing should be done about the airgun. For example, it has been suggested that there are already laws which deal with abuses of the use of the airgun under, say, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Birds Act 1954. But wildlife has strangely been left out of animal and bird protection measures, as though wildlife was a free-for-all and there was no need to do very much to protect species which are not under the care and custody of human beings. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will give an equally encouraging response to this.

I see the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his place. He was the chairman of the very full inquiry commissioned by the RSPCA into shooting and angling, and the noble Earl's report draws attention to a fairly new feature of the sale of airguns—the presentation of the airgun as being almost the real thing, to give the impression among young people that this is not a kid's toy but a real shooter. Advertisements have suggested that they are hunting weapons; that they are not just playthings. This is all in the wrong direction, because it means that weapons which were regarded as being of minor importance and capable of minor damage and which were left outside the scope of the licensing provisions are now apparently being thrust into the semi-adult field of activity with no licence required for them.

So I think that there is a danger here that the use of air weapons can become an increasing menace to wildlife. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment and recommend to noble Lords this very interesting report of the panel presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. Of course, if noble Lords would like to read about fishing at the same time as they can read about shooting, it is all in the yellow booklet.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Drumalbyn)

Is it for the convenience of your Lord-ships that Amendment No. 58A should be considered along with Lord Houghton's amendment?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

Yes, certainly.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

If that is agreeable.

The Earl of Caithness

Would it be for the convenience of the Committee that we look at Amendments Nos. 62A and 165A standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Stanley, and also dealing with airguns? As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, there have been numerous complaints about the misuse of airguns, and many cases have been brought to my attention which show that they have been injurious, though not necessarily of fatal damage to livestock and humans.

In short, I am keen to promote any measures which might ensure stricter regulations in respect of the use of airguns in the countryside. Where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is in that the effects of my amendments are simply to prohibit the use of air weapons against all species other than pests, and in the case of birds to allow their use only by authorised persons. Amendment No. 58A introduces the airgun on to the list of methods which are totally prohibited in respect of killing birds. Amendment No. 62A, which is consequential, gives an exemption to the prohibition, allowing authorised persons to kill Schedule 2, Part II, birds which are broadly classified as pests.

If one looks at that schedule one will see that it is most unlikely that an authorised person would take an airgun to shoot a lesser black backed gull, but he might very well need it to shoot sparrows. I think therefore it is a legitimate argument and one that should receive the support of the Committee so that that amendment is agreed. Amendment No. 165A is similar, and introduces a partial ban on the killing of mammals— which is Clause 11(2). One can also argue that this is a good conservation measure, and I hope that it will therefore receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, as well.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

I should like to support Amendment No. 56. A modern air rifle fitted with telescopic sights is extremely powerful. My noble friend behind me said that it could not kill a black-backed gull. It can. I know that this has nothing to do with hares, but a modern airgun can easily kill a hare. It can certainly kill most birds. I have found air pellets in fallow deer. It is a highly dangerous weapon, and it should be included in this Bill. I would rather like to have seen catapults included too, but certainly an airgun is far more accurate than a catapult. The only time I fired a catapult as a boy was at a sparrow in London. I got into awful trouble. It went through somebody's bathroom window and hit an old man on the head when he was in the bath. My father got blamed.

The Earl of Cranbrook

Since the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has chosen to rake up some of the murky activities from my past before I was a Member of your Lordships' House, I feel constrained to say a few words to point out, first, that the document he refers to was concerned primarly with cruelty, not conservation. Secondly, there is more than one kind of airgun. As the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has just mentioned, there are undoubtedly airguns which are capable of killing animals.

I assume that the air weapon is not included at this present juncture because it is not specified in the EEC document, but none the less I am certain, having sat through the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, which heard a great deal of evidence, that I too would welcome any move to control the indiscriminate and improper use of air weapons. Whether or not this is the right moment to begin on such control I am not certain.

9.12p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, where he finds these companies of youths wandering about the countryside armed to the teeth with air rifles? I personally have not come across it. I would not like to say that one's children could not shoot sparrows, or starlings— —

A noble Lord

Or vermin—

The Earl of Onslow

Or vermin, rats or something, with an air rifle. It seems to me a perfectly legitimate use of a sporting weapon. A good modern air rifle is reasonably accurate. Some of them are nearly as powerful as 22 rifles, and it is not necessarily more cruel to use them than it is to use a 22. Indiscriminate use, I would agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is another thing, but is this the right place for this? I think we should leave it in.

Viscount Thurso

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked for evidence of gangs of youths going about with airguns. I can give it to him. Every year I am de'ed, to use a good Scottish word, by gangs of youths who come out from Thurso, along the footpath and past my house, which is attached to the ruins of Thurso castle. In the ruins many species of birds nest, from fulmars to sparrows, and I am constantly rushing out to drive away the youths who are coming out and firing at my house in order to try to shoot some of these nesting birds, for no good reason and certainly for no conservation reason. Occasionally they wound a fulmar or two, but they do absolutely no good and cause considerable disquiet and danger to me, my family and my friends. I am constantly having to call out the police, especially in springtime, and it would help enormously in curtailing this activity if it were fully understood that the airgun is not a suitable weapon wherewith to go shooting small birds.

The Earl of Onslow

The Bill will make it illegal to shoot nesting fulmars and it will not matter whether you use an air rifle, a 12-bore, a 4-bore or a SAM VI missile. It will be illegal to shoot nesting fulmars whatever you use.

Viscount Thurso

I referred to birds from fulmars to sparrows. We have jackdaws and all kinds of birds nesting in these ruins. One need have only one sparrow there and if the man says, having hit a fulmar: "I was aiming at a sparrow", what can you do about it? I assure noble Lords that if he hits me and says he was aiming at a sparrow, he will get more than he bargained for.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

He will have got a robin.

Viscount Thurso

I should certainly like to see the air weapon banned as a weapon wherewith to shoot wild birds of any sort, and I see no practical reason for using it.

Lord Swansea

If properly used, the air rifle is a very effective weapon for controlling small pests, and with respect to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the fact that some may be fitted with telescopic sights merely adds to their effectiveness in the sense that it is an aid to killing humanely the bird you are aiming at rather than simply wounding it.

My main question for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, concerns another amendment which stands in his name to Clause 25, Amendment No. 364, which is relevant to the one we are discussing in that it says: 'air weapon' means an air rifle, air gun or air pistol not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 to be specially dangerous". I have worried over the amendment we are discussing and the one to Clause 25, to see exactly what they meant in conjunction, and, while I may be wrong, it seems to me that the one we are discussing would have the effect of permitting only those air weapons which are referred to in Section 1(3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 as being especially dangerous—in other words, the possession of which would be governed by the firearms certificate procedure—and I am wondering whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, intends by the amendment.

Baroness David

I rise simply to say that we support my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in hif amendment, for the reasons which he and a number os others have given. I understand that the RSPB has more telephone calls from concerned people because of airguns going off than for any other reason, and that is of some importance too.

The Earl of Avon

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I came in now to say that we too are sympathetic with the thoughts behind the amendment. Like my noble friend, I would draw attention to the consequential Amendment No. 364, which reads: 'air weapon' means an air rifle, air gun or air pistol not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 to be specially dangerous". The Government accept the idea behind the amendment and only this morning we got clearance from the Home Office to go ahead with it. We should like to table our own amendment on another occasion, and we shall bear in mind all that has been said this evening.

I wish to refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 58A and 62A tabled by my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Stanley of Alderley. We have concluded that provided the air weapon is powerful enough there should be no objection to its use against pest species, and that too we will cover. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and in order to save time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Amendment No. 57. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 57A, which is the first amendment on the Supplementary Marshalled List.

9.20 p.m.

Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 57: Page 6, leave out line 14.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, and if it is convenient for the Committee, I can also address myself to Amendments Nos. 164 and 366, which appear in my name—

The Earl of Onslow

May I interrupt the noble Lord and suggest that we take Amendment No. 57A at the same time, because I have a suspicion that it possibly covers the same ground?

Lord Swansea

I am grateful to my noble friend and I am quite happy to agree to that suggestion. In looking at this subsection, I think it advisable that we should know just what we are talking about when we consider the terms "automatic" and "semi-automatic" weapons. There are accepted technical definitions for those terms, and for the avoidance of any misunderstanding in debating this amendment, or some of the following amendments, we ought to be quite clear about just what they mean. So I suggest to the Committee that we go back to square one and ask ourselves what the terms really do mean.

First, the term "automatic" is defined in Section 5(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 as: any firearm which is so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty ". In other words, it is a weapon that is capable of fully automatic fire in bursts; for example, a machine gun or a sub-machine gun.

We shall now turn to the definition of "semi-automatic". We have before us a fairly convenient definition contained in Amendment No. 372 (which appears in the names of my noble friends the Duke of Atholl and Lord Massereene and Ferrard) which will serve for the prsent purpose. As drafted the amendment states: 'semi-automatic' means any firearm which uses part of the recoil energy or the gas pressure generated on firing to operate the action in a self-loading mode. In each instance a separate pressure on the trigger is required for subsequent missiles to be discharged". I might disagree with that definition in certain small details, but it will suffice for the present.

In weapons of this class reloading is effected auto matically without any physical action on the part of the firer, but only one shot can be fired for each pull of the trigger. These weapons are perhaps properly described as self-loading, which helps both to distinguish them from the automatic variety and to avoid any confusion, but unfortunately they are often colloquially and loosely described as "automatic", which causes confusion.

There is a third type—those with a magazine in which each round after firing has to be reloaded by a manual action on the part of the firer from the magazine. Under that heading we could place bolt action rifles and indeed some shotguns—there are bolt action shotguns on the market—including shotguns of the pump action or slide variety, and so on. These are properly called repeating weapons and they must not be confused with semi-automatic weapons. I believe that in subsequent amendments there may be some sign of confusion between these two categories.

Having defined these two categories, let us see where we go from there. I hope your Lordships will not think that by this amendment I am attempting to legalise the use of fully-automatic weapons. Very far from it. The purpose of this amendment, so far as it applies to automatic weapons, is simply that their inclusion is superflous in the context of this Bill because automatic weapons are already prohibited weapons under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and it is sheer supererogation in this Bill to prohibit the use of weapons the very possession of which is already prohibited under existing legislation.

To come on to semi-automatic weapons, there seems to me to be evidence here of woolly thinking such as we saw in the late, unlamented Home Office Green Paper on the control of firearms in 1973. In the first place, there is no distinction drawn between shotguns and rifles. There are quite a number of repeating shotguns and semi-automatic shotguns in use already throughout the country, both for clay target shooting and in the sporting field; but there is also a vastly greater number of.22 rifles in use, which are very useful weapons for the destruction of pests. The self-loading .22 rifle is extremely useful in that line; and I think it is a great mistake to lump rifles and shotguns together in the present Bill and to make no distinction between them.

Clause 25 of the Bill, the interpretation clause, qualifies this clause of the Bill by excluding weapons with a magazine capacity of less than two rounds. It would be possible to argue a case for restricting the magazine capacity of repeating shotguns or semiautomatic shotguns to two rounds, but I can see no point at all in applying the same yardstick to .22 rifles, because it is a most useful weapon for the control of rabbits, pigeons and various other kinds of pests. But suppose I was the owner of a repeating shotgun with a magazine capacity of, say, five cartridges, and, after the passage of this Bill, I went out after rabbits. I could legally shoot rabbits with that gun, but if a pigeon flew over my head I would be in danger of prosecution if I were to shoot at it with the same gun. It is manifestly absurd, and I think this clause needs looking at again.

I just wonder why it has been included in the Bill, and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could throw some light on that matter. Because, for a provision such as this to be included, the Government ought to be able to adduce some evidence to show that such weapons are dangerous from the environmental point of view, are a menace from the conservation point of view, or are otherwise undesirable. As far as I know there is no evidence of that kind at all; and it is pure supposition that the use of such weapons— and quite a number are in use already—is a danger to the conservation of wildlife. It is also puzzling as to why semi-automatic weapons should be prohibited when there is no mention in the Bill of other hand-operated repeating weapons, the only difference between the two classes being in the method of reloading. I think that there is evidence of a certain amount of confusion in the drafting of this Bill and I shall be glad to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench can say to elucidate these provisions. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to speak to my own and Lord Peel's amendment at the same time as Amendment No. 57, as it seems suitable to do so. This is special pleading, in that I own a rather nice semi-automatic .22 which I find extraordinarily useful for what my son calls "zapping" rabbits. Also this applies to pigeons. Semi-automatics are extremely useful vermin-control weapons. I hope that the Government will take on board what my noble friend said.

It is just possible that the reason why we do not like semi-automatic shotguns is that we think that there is something ever so slightly common involved in them. We do not like the thought of rather gaudily dressed Texans standing in a grouse butt and, instead of having a pair of Purdeys at £18,000 a pair and firing four rounds, being prepared to use a Browning semi-automatic, which fires five rounds and which is both lighter to use and infinitely more inaccurate. It is slightly common, if the Committee will excuse me being rather snobbish, and I think that there may be some element of that which has crept in with the use of semi-automatic shotguns. I certainly disapprove of them, but I do not see why we should ban them by law for shooting pigeons. That is going too far. I hope that my noble friend Lord Avon will be able to go into the whole question of this banned weaponry.

The Duke of Atholl

Perhaps I may speak briefly on Amendment No. 372, which redefines "semi-automatic". As my noble friend Lord Swansea explained, automatic guns are already illegal, so there seems no point in having any definition for them in this Bill. The definition in Clause 25 for semi-automatic weapons is totally inadequate. After discussions with the Department of the Environment, we have come up with the definition which I have down as Amendment No. 372. If my noble friend's amendment to leave out line 14 on page 6 is not accepted, it is my intention to support him in his amendment to leave out the present definition of automatic and semi-automatic weapons and to move my definition of "semi-automatic" in the appropriate place, when we reach Clause 25.

The Earl of Avon

We are required to ban the use of automatic and semi-automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition (that is three in total with one in the breach) because of our obligations under the European Com munity directive. I was not aware that, as my noble friend has informed me, Section 5 of the Firearms Act covered automatic weapons. I shall check whether it is necessary to include them in this Bill. The weapons we were talking about are semi-automatic, and my noble friend Lord Onslow's .22 can be used under licence against birds, and we intend to allow their use against most pest species. That will include rabbits of course. Their use could also be authorised, as appropriate, on licences issued in respect of other species.

I hope that this clarifies the reason why we have this clause in our Bill, and to that extent it will help my noble friend Lord Swansea. I hope also that what I have said will enable him to withdraw his amendment. I have taken into account his very good discourse on shotguns and rifles and we will look into the amendment on semi-automatic weapons which was raised by my noble friend the Duke of Atholl.

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, and in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said about the European position, I wonder whether I may remind your Lordships that in a hard winter in this country one will sometimes find a flock of several hundred pigeons go to a field of brussels sprouts and strip it in 48 hours. I should have thought there was full justification for using automatic weapons, partly to scare the birds away but also to reduce their numbers.

Lord Swansea

I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his remarks. I am not quite sure what our position is under the EEC regulations, but I rather get the impression in some cases that it is a case of being under a selective obligation: in other words, if we like the sound of certain EEC legislation we accede to it and if we do not like it we do not feel obliged to accede to it. This smells to me very much like such a case.

So far as automatic firearms are concerned, I have no rooted objection to that particular phrase staying in the Bill if the Government wish to do that as part of a "belt and braces" operation, in addition to the provisions of the Firearms Act. But I think we shall have to keep this question of semi-automatic weapons in mind and return to it at a later stage of the Bill. Quite frankly, I see no reason why one should have to apply for a licence in order to use a little .22 self-loading rifle for pest control. It seems totally unnecessary and another piece of empire-building on the part of our masters.

My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned the question of vast flocks of pigeons coming to feed on crops, as they do at certain times of the year, particularly in the winter. That is a classic example, if ever one were needed, of the need to bring the maximum fire-power to bear to control these pests. For that reason alone, I should like at the next stage of the Bill to press my point about the use of repeating and semi-automatic shotguns with no restriction on magazine capacity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, might I ask my noble friend Lord Avon to go into a little more detail about how one would get a licence if one wanted to shoot pigeons with a .22 rifle?

The Earl of Avon

There are two points here. I obviously did not make myself clear. It would be the semi-automatics which would have to be licensed. It would be a general licence and not a specific one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 57A not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 58: Page 6, line 22, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraphs (a) and (b)").

The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to rectify the omission from Clause 5(1)(c) of the reference to Clause 5(1)(b): the gas or smoke proscribed under Clause 5(1)(c) should clearly not be gas or smoke covered by the foregoing paragraphs. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 58A not moved.]

9.40 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 59:

Page 6, line 33, at end insert— ("( ) The owner or occupier of any land upon which an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above is committed by his agent or in the course of his employment by any person employed by him, as well as his agent or employee, shall be guilty of the offence and be liable to a special penalty unless he shows that he took reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of such an offence.").

The noble Lord said: The Bill makes provision for owners of land and local authorities and other specified bodies to authorise certain actions by other persons. "Authorised persons" are defined in Clause 25. It is clear from the records of investigating bodies, among others, that from time to time persons so authorised commit offences, particularly as regards the attempted control of so-called pest species. Evidence collected by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and published in Silent Death, shows that offences in this category are regular and widespread in so far as they affect protected species, although precautions are seldom possible.

At present, a person cannot be successfully prosecuted unless one can prove that the particular individual was physically responsible for the illegal act. This is further complicated by the fact that many offences against our rare birds happen far away from the public gaze, as on large estates, and thus only a small proportion are detected. It seems to me to be necessary to discourage situations where authorisers fail to delegate proper authority, or may even encourage, condone or otherwise permit illegal acts by employees or others.

My amendment will have the effect of making an authorising person or body guilty of the same offence, unless it can be shown that all reasonable precautions were taken by them and due diligence exercised to prevent the offence. The most common and widespread illegal practices, which are carried out by persons on their employers' estates, are those of laying poison or setting poletraps to kill birds—both of which are indiscriminate methods of killing—and the shooting of birds of prey. Many of these would not happen if the owner issued clear instructions to his employee or agent, regarding the possible consequences should illegal practices be carried out.

We all know that this happens and a great many of us have seen it happen. In a rather different field, but I think the analogy is close enough to allow me to repeat it to your Lordships, I remember a landowner saying to me some time ago: "Of course I know that my keepers kill foxes. I certainly take no steps to stop them doing it. I need to have enough pheasants for shooting. But, of course, they must see that there are enough foxes when the hounds come along". That is the kind of nod and wink situation that goes on.

It goes on in the field that we are talking about, too. I used to know grouse moors where it was quite clear that protected birds were being killed, because they were thought by the keepers—and probably rightly—to be preying on the grouse. The owners or tenants of the grouse moors knew perfectly well what was going on, but they did not want to know officially. As long as they were not told, that was all right.

This happens time and time again, and noble Lords in all parts of the Committee know that this is true. It is extremely important, if we are to pass laws, that they should be seen to be effective, and they can be effective only if we make the owner or the occupier as responsible as his or her employee for the damage which is done, or for the animals or birds, as in this case, which are killed.

It is no argument against my amendment to ask: How can a landlord or an occupier be expected to give full and detailed instructions? We all know that in dealing with keepers, or anyone else who is in the kind of position where the killing of these birds may happen, it is very easy, and it certainly should be the job of the landlord or the occupier, to make quite certain that his employees have knowledge of exactly what are his wishes. It should also be made clear that his wishes are that they should obey the law; not that they should disobey the law with his connivance. This would plug a very real gap in the administration of the law as it has happened in England for a very long time, and I think it is very necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness David

We support the amendment. We have put down a similar amendment, Amendment No. 208, to a later clause. We think that our amendment is a little stronger than this one. Our only criticism of the amendment is that it is a little weak. It says: …unless he shows that he took reasonable precautions to prevent the commission of such an offence". The owner or occupier could say that he had written a letter. We believe that the amendment could be strengthened. There are a number of legal precedents for producing something like that. There are, for example, the Health and Safety at Work Act and the traffic Acts. We feel that this is something which should be done and that there is a very good reason for doing it.

The Earl of Onslow

Could we have a definition of what the law is at present? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the nod and the wink does go on. I have seen it. Are not the nod and the wink illegal as the law stands at the moment? In those circumstances, would not the landlord, the landowner, or the employer be capable of being prosecuted? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that it is a disgrace that people do nod and wink at the shooting of protected species. Those of us who enjoy our venery should by nature be conservationists. The two things go absolutely hand in hand. If there are rare and precious birds which have to be protected, then they must be protected and we have got to play our part in protecting them. We must not give nods and winks to gamekeepers to shoot kestrels or peregrine falcons. I should like to know what the law is at the moment before we introduce a new law.

The Earl of Avon

In the view of the Government it is objectionable to presume the guilt of someone who may be guiltless and to reverse the burden of proof in the manner proposed. It is difficult to see what reasonable precautions an employer could take to cover himself in all cases. An owner or occupier should be liable to conviction only if it can be shown that he instigated, encouraged or connived at the offence. The position should in practice be adequately covered, as my noble friend Lord Onslow asked, by Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which provides that a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of the like offence".

Lord Melchett

Could the noble Earl give us some advice about this, as none of us have that Act in front of us? I understood him to say that this applies in the case of anybody who aids, abets or encourages; in other words, this applies to anybody taking active steps in the commission of the offence. For a landowner simply to say to his keeper, "Get on with it and don't tell me what you're doing", would not, so far as I know, bring the landowner within the compass of that provision and certainly has not led to any prosecutions since the Magistrates' Courts Act was passed in 1952.

The Earl of Avon

It would depend whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, thinks "counsels" is tipping a wink or whether tipping a wink is less than counselling.

Lord Melchett

I was hoping that the noble Earl would tell me the answer to that question.

The Earl of Avon

I do not think I know of anybody who tips a wink, but if one knew of anybody who was counselling, one could rightly take action. With that proviso, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will not press his amendment.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

What we can all agree can go out from this Committee is that any employer who allows his gamekeeper to take the blame for something he is conniving at is a fellow whom we would deplore and would condemn at all times. If he enters into collusion with his gamekeeper, it is very difficult to catch both of them at it. There are some practical difficulties about it, but in this Committee all of us I think agree that anybody who does it deserves our contempt.

The Earl of Onslow

If I may, I should like to go back and I apologise for detaining the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, produced a perfectly good example of "Yes, you go ahead, I don't know". I should have thought that was encouraging in the words that I understood my noble friend Lord Avon to say were in the Magistrates' Courts Act which he quoted. I think that should be prosecutable and if it is prosecu table then the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not necessary.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

The contempt of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is something which we would all shudder under—and I think I have had occasion to shudder under it in the past. The contempt of the whole of your Lordships' Committee is also something to shudder at, but to adapt an old phrase it "butters no parsnips". It really would not make much difference to what actually happens in the countryside.

Various noble Lords have been discussing what is actually meant by "tipping the wink". To take the example of the foxes, which I happen to know best, even though it is not exactly relevant to this issue, the country squire who was telling me about this particular thing informed me that he did not have to say anything to his gamekeeper which could be brought home in any way in a court of law. He said, "Your job is to see that I have the maximum number of pheasants to shoot but if I ever have my covers drawn blank you are in trouble". That is not the kind of thing which I think in a court of law comes under any of the phrases which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, quoted from the other Act.

I will certainly withdraw this amendment at the moment but I am far from satisfied. I should like to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about his alternative amendment and either now or at another stage it is something on which we shall want to come back.

Lord Melchett

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, if I may say so to the noble Earl, I thought that coming towards the end of our proceedings this evening the answer he gave was an extraordinarily unsatisfactory one. It seems to me to be quite appalling when we all know and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, everybody in your Lordships' House who lives in the countryside, on all sides of the Committee, knows perfectly well that this goes on in a large number of areas, and the bodies which are concerned with investigating and detecting these offences know, for example, that on some particular estates—thankfully a minority but nevertheless on some—there have been repeated instances of pole trapping and poisoning of very rare birds over a long period of time, and it has not been possible under the Magistrates' Courts Act or any existing legislation to prosecute those who are actually responsible, namely, the landowner, the employer. There are many other Acts of Parliament which place absolute liability, with no possibility of a defence of any sort, on the employers for the actions of their servants and my noble friend mentioned a couple of those. To my mind, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, ought to be suggesting here, but he is not.

The noble Lord is giving the landowner, the occupier, an all too reasonable defence: that so long as he takes steps to ensure that the offence is not committed, he will not be guilty of any offence. That seems to me to be bending over backwards to be reasonable in the face of a flagrant abuse which has been going on for many years, and I really think that the noble Earl could have been a little more forthcoming.

It seems to me to be unfortunate that, in a House where there are many people (and I include myself in this) who are responsible for owning or managing large areas of land, we should be saying that the only people who are going to be prosecuted, who are able to be prosecuted for offences under this Act are the people who are employed by many of your Lordships rather than those who actually own the land and, as I have said, who in the most flagrant cases are those who are actually responsible.

Viscount Mountgarret

If I may interject here and spring somewhat to the defence of the landowner, it presupposes that owners of coverts and shoots and employers of keepers are there the whole time to see what is going on and that is really most unfair. Although one accepts that from time to time people do take action that is not approved of and is probably illegal, it really is most unfair to expect the employer to be held entirely responsible the whole time. He has propably got many other things to do, if only to come to your Lordships' House to discuss this Bill.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

It is not assumed that he is there the whole time. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is complaining about. My amendment says merely that he has had to give explicit instructions at one time. If he had done that and can prove he had done it he is in the clear so far as my amendment is concerned. That is why Lord Melchett says in a rather pitying way that mine is a very reasonable amendment. I think it is a very reasonable amendment and possibly the one to be preferred when we come back to it. But I do not think this is the time to test the feeling of the Committee on this. Indeed, it is something about which we ought to think further. It seems to me something where an amendment is definitely needed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.56 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 60: Page 6, line 37, leave out ("or by omitting any such method").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, to leave out the words "or by omitting any such method". This is probably a small point, but subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State may by order, either generally or in relation to any species of wild birds specified in the order, amend subsection (1) by adding to the list of methods of killing which are outlawed or by omitting a method which is already outlawed under subsection (1). It seems to me that it is probably undesirable to give the Secretary of State power to be reactionary. I do not mind him having a little power to be reformist, but to enable the Secretary of State to, as it were, reinstate a method of killing outlawed in subsection (1) is giving him rather too much power. I should be very comforted if I could be assured that the order that the Secretary of State would make would be laid before Parliament. Perhaps I can be reassured on that. In what form would the order be made? Would it be by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedure? I assume that that might be it. If that is so, I should be quite happy about it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

It is extremely unlikely that any prohibition methods would be removed. However, the words are needed in case some future prohibition is more comprehensive than an existing one. That is the point behind it. It is most unlikely that a Government would want to do away with any of the prohibitions listed. However, the words the amendment seeks to delete are necessary in case it is wished to replace an existing prohibition by a wider one including that prohibition. Without the power to remove an existing prohibition the redundant wording would of necessity need to remain. I am fairly certain that this would be by negative resolution, but I should like to check that. I hope the noble Lord will feel content, with that, to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

I am content with that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.