HL Deb 10 March 1981 vol 418 cc172-234

Further considered on Report on Clause 5.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 29: Page 6, line 45, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 29, and so I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 30: Page 7, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert ("or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 7, line 26, at end insert— ("(d) the use by any authorised person of any semi-automatic shotgun, or of any semi-automatic rifle of a calibre not exceeding.22 inch rimfire, whether or not as defined in section 26, for the purpose of killing or taking any bird included in Part II of Schedule 2.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32. I come back again to the question of semi-automatic weapons with which we dealt in Committee. We need say no more about automatic weapons because they are prohibited anyway under the Firearms Act 1968. I still feel that their inclusion in the Bill is superfluous, but it does no harm.

The present amendment is confined to semi-automatic weapons and its effect would be to allow the use of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles of.22 calibre, without restriction as to magazine capacity, against birds included in Part II of Schedule 2—in other words, what we refer to as "pest species". These species cannot be said to be endangered and, in fact, they can be a serious menace to crops and to other animal and bird life. It seems to me that any reasonable and humane method of controlling them should be permitted. I cannot see why it should be thought necessary to inhibit the owner or the occupier of land by telling him what methods he may or may not use for the control of vermin on his land and for safeguarding his crops.

Unlike some other countries which have no restriction on shooting rights, no one in this country can gain access to any land other than the foreshore even for shooting pests without the consent of the owner or the occupier. The owner should be given credit for enough sense of responsibility to use his own judgment on the best method of controlling pests and I am sure that this ought to be a sufficient safeguard.

The.22 semi-automatic rifle, with which I should like to deal in particular, is a very well proved and very effective weapon for the control of pests. There must be many thousands already in use throughout the country and there is no evidence that I know of that their use constitutes a menace to any species. It is quite unreasonable to say that they should not be used against any bird if they have a magazine capacity of more than two cartridges, while as the Bill stands they may be so used against, for example, rabbits; and slide action and bolt action rifles are subject to no such restriction whatever their magazine capacity.

This provision in the Bill has caused great concern among interested bodies—interested in shooting and in conservation. The Game Conservancy, for example, has expressed itself as follows: Banning semi-automatic weapons, shotguns and.22 rifles would prove a hardship to many owners of such weapons often used for pest destruction. There is no evidence to show that their use has any adverse effect on conservation". The Government appear to consider themselves bound by the EEC directive of 2nd April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. That is very laudable in theory, but the question that I should like to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench is as follows: Does our membership of the EEC commit the United Kingdom to a slavish acceptance of all Community legislation, especially when—as in this case—that legislation is founded on false premises and takes no account of different circumstances obtaining in different member countries? The EEC directive appears to assume that we in this country indulge in those deplorable forms of wholesale and indiscriminate shooting that are commonly heard of on the Continent. As noble Lords will know, that kind of thing just does not happen in this country.

Article 8 of the EEC directive says that: member states shall prohibit all methods for the large-scale and non-selective capture or killing of birds or causing the local disappearance of a species". In the category of weapons capable of such large-scale and non-selective killing, it specifically includes semiautomatic weapons. With the greatest respect, I submit that this is absolute nonsense. It is based on a complete misconception of the nature of semi-automatic weapons and what it is possible to do with them. With semi-automatic weapons only one shot can be fired for each pull of the trigger and every shot must be aimed or you will hit nothing. So it cannot be said to be capable of large-scale or non-selective killing.

Apart from automatic weapons, the only weapon to which that description could possibly be applied is the punt gun and there is no prohibition against that in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, tried to reassure us in Committee by saying that the Secretary of State has power to grant a general licence under Section 15 to allow the use of semi-automatic weapons, irrespective of magazine capacity, against pest species. However, this does not mean that he will do so and even if he does, your Lordships will appreciate that such a licence could be revoked by a future Government just as easily as it can be made.

It is for this reason that I move this amendment in this place in the Bill; in order to embody a specific exemption for these weapons for the control of pests. The Government appear to accord to EEC legislation the sanctity normally reserved for holy writ, but a bad law is a bad law no matter whence it originates, and the Government should recognise this. This EEC directive does no credit to those responsible for drafting it and we do ourselves no credit by blind acceptance of it.

I wonder whether my noble friend can help us by giving certain assurances: first, that the Government will, in fact, give a general licence for the unrestricted use of semi-automatic weapons against pest species or, alternatively, consider making an order under Section 5(2), which would be a little more binding and would be subject to an Affirmative Resolution? Secondly, will the Government use their best endeavours to procure amendment to the EEC law so that it is in a more acceptable form?

If, as I hope, they accept in principle that the EEC directive is defective and wholly misconceived, I would submit to your Lordships that the first step towards getting that law changed is to decline to adopt it in our own legislation. Article 9 of the directive entitles any member state to derogate from the provisions of Article 8, among others, for such reasons as the prevention of serious damage to crops, and so on. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a perfectly legitimate reason for allowing the unrestricted use of semi-automatic weapons in these circumstances, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, though I appreciate the reasons behind Lord Swansea's amendment, I am not satisfied that to provide in the Bill for an exception of this nature is the best way of proceeding for three reasons. First, this Bill, like the Protection of Birds Act 1954, is likely to be in force for a considerable period of time and we do not think that to build in this inflexibility is desirable. Secondly, we do not know how the European Community directive on birds will develop over the years; and, thirdly, we also do not know, though no difficulties are anticipated, the reaction to our allowing use of these weapons against pests. While we are satisfied that a statutory exception would not be contrary to the directive as presently drafted, it might create unnecessary difficulties for us in Europe. Here I must say to my noble friend that we are a member of the European Community; we join in the debates on their directives, and we are, of course, party to this directive. With the greatest respect, I think that we should make sure that this directive works.

We believe that the way to authorise use of these weapons—subject, of course, to the statutory consultatation procedures—is by licensing under the provisions of Clause 15, which I believe I mentioned during the Committee stage. As I also said in Committee, this would be by general licence to authorise persons and very much in the sense of this amendment. We see derogation going in this way. I do not particularly want to go on about the drafting of the amendment, but in this particular case we would also have one or two points, because bearing in mind all that I have said to my noble friend, I very much hope that he will not feel that he must press his amendment.

Lord Tryon

My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord the Minister said, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in his amendment. It is a serious matter, or reasonably so, because, although I hate to give personal examples, having had a semiautomatic.22 for about the last five years, I wonder how I ever dealt with vermin before. It is a very effective weapon and as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has pointed out, it is not in any way an indiscriminatory weapon. There is also—and I hope that this will commend itself to all parts of the House—a humane element here, in that it is quite frequent that no matter how good a shot someone is, creatures are from time to time wounded. With a semi-automatic rifle it is possible to fire a second shot very quickly indeed and thereby put the creature out of its agony—it can be fired almost in under a second. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think again about this.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, with my Chief Whip sitting in front of me I promise that I shall not go on for more than half a minute. I should like it to be on the record that I think the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swansea is very sensible. But in the light of what my noble friend Lord Avon has said, perhaps we ought to leave it to the Government to do this. However, I think that it would be a mistake for the Government not to realise that this House is in total support of what my noble friend said.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for what he has said. I do not quite understand why he should be so worried about what the effect on other countries might be if we choose to derogate from the provisions of the directive, because as regards the destruction of vermin and of species which cannot be said to be endangered, we should not be afraid to go our own way. After all, as I have said, the same considerations do not apply in all member countries. We must take account of that. Of course, we are a party to EEC legislation, but that is all the more reason why we should ensure that such EEC legislation is properly framed and is founded on sound principles. If we had the courage of our convictions and showed our own attitude towards this matter, it might give a gentle nudge to the EEC to take a look at this legislation of theirs again.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to press the amendment—and as he has not withdrawn it I assume that he is—may I make it clear that I had not thought that he would have done so, and far from what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, said being the case, there is certainly not unanimous support for the amendment. We would see it as a catastrophe if the House passed an amendment which was in direct breach of the EEC directive. It clearly would not be acceptable to the Government. It would make a nonsense of the Bill, and the basis on which all the provisions have been put in the Bill.

It is unfortunate that many things are not different in the directive. There are a great many things I should have liked to see a great deal clearer. It might have simplified our debates on Clause 27 if the directive had been more explicit about what we should do to safeguard habitats, but it does not. If this is a mistake in the noble Lord's view, it is a mistake, but I really think it would be an act of serious irresponsibility if the House considered passing an amendment which would place Her Majesty's Government in direct and clear breach of the directive. I would urge noble Lords not to press the amendment if that is the effect of it, and the noble Earl has said that it would be.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, the noble Lord has put me in a slightly difficult position. Article 9 of the directive empowers a member state to derogate from any of the provisions of the directive for certain good and sufficient reasons. I would submit to your Lordships that the control of pests and the protection of crops is a legitimate reason for accepting this amendment.

8.2 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 101.

CONTENTS
Burton, L. Monson, L.
Chorley, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
de Clifford, L.
Gibson, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Glasgow, E. Radnor, E.
Janner, L. Renton, L.
Killearn, L. Swansea, L. [Teller.]
Mancroft, L. Tryon, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Yarborough, E.
Monk Bretton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alport, L. Dundee, E.
Ardwick, L. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Avon, E. Evans of Claughton, L.
Aylestone, L. Ferrers, E.
Bacon, B. Forester, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Gainford, L.
Banks, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L.
Bellwin, L. Gridley, L.
Belstead, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Birk, B. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Blease, L.
Boardman, L. Hale, L.
Bolton, L. Hampton, L.
Boyd of Merton, V. Hanworth, V.
Brockway, L. Henley, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Holderness, L.
Caithness, E. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Chelmer, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Chelwood, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Inglewood, L.
Collison, L. Jeger, B.
Craigton, L. Kaldor, L.
Cranbrook, E. Kemsley, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Kilbracken, L.
David, B. Kinloss, Ly.
Davies of Leek, L. Kirkhill, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Long, V.
Dulverton, L. Loudoun, C.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Seear, B.
Lyell, L. Selborne, E.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Skelmersdale, L.
McNair, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Maelor, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Mansfield, E. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Masham of Ilton, B. Stone, L.
Melchett, L. Strabolgi, L.
Middleton, L. Strathclyde, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Swinton, E.
Mottistone, L. Tranmire, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Trenchard, V.
Noel-Baker, L. Ullswater, V.
Peart, L. Underhill, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Reigate, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Rochdale, V. Wigoder, L.
Rochester, L. Winstanley, L.
Ross of Marnock, L. Wise, L.
Sandys, L. [Teller.] Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 32A not moved.]

8.10 p.m.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 32B: Page 7, line 31, at end insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will with permission also speak to Amendments Nos. 32C, 32D and 33A, which is the principal one; 34C, 34D and 34E, which make identical provision for Clause 6(2); 73A, 73C, 73D and 73E, which make provision in Clause 9; and 92A, 92C, 92D and 92E, which make provision in Clause 12.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, No. 34B, to add the words "invite offers" in Committee set us to look again at advertising. We concluded that it should be subject to exactly the same restrictions as on sale, and this amendment achieves that. It covers the three types of advertising, where a person is willing to buy something, that he has something for sale and that he is prepared to obtain something. I do not propose to speak at length to this series of amendments, which I hope will be acceptable to the House.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this series of amendments, which go right through the Bill and which, as he said, meet a point I raised in Committee. I had tabled again the amendments I had down in Committee, but of course I shall not need to move those now, and that will save us a lot of time. I appreciate that this series of amendments has involved a great deal of work by officials and parliamentary counsel, because this has not been an easy amendment to make, and I wish at the same time to express thanks to all the others who have done much work between Committee and now behind the scenes. We are very grateful to them for assisting to meet the points that were made and I am glad to take this opportunity of saying so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved the following amendments:

Page 7, line 34, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").

Page 7, line 36, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)") at end insert ("or (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 33: Page 7, line 36, leave out ("(including a blown egg) of a wild bird") and insert ("of a wild bird or any part of such an egg").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, moved on behalf of my noble friend Lord Milverton, who could not be here at the time, an amendment to include parts of eggs. The Government have accepted the suggestion and this amendment is the result. In speaking to Amendment No. 2, my noble friend Lord Avon said a blown egg was part of an egg and there was no need for the term to be included. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, which I moved in Committee on his behalf.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 34: Page 7, line 38, leave out ("other than a taxidermist who is") and insert ("who is not").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 34A: Page 7, line 40, after ("State") insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment already. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 34B not moved.]

Lord Sandys moved the following amendments:

Page 7, line 43, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").

Page 8, line 1, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)"). at end insert ("or (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").

The noble Lord said: These are consequential, my Lords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 35: Page 8, line 5, after ("competition") insert ("or in any premises in which a competition is being held").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Chelwood suggested that the showing of caged birds non-competitively should be prohibited. This amendment seeks to meet that point. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.19 p.m.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 36: Page 8, line 5, after ("competition") insert ("(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 37. These seek to amend Clause 6(3) which as presently drafted restricts the competitive showing of birds to captive bred ringed specimens listed in Schedule 3 Part 1. It provides for similar controls on the competitive showing of hybrids and mules. The former are the offspring of crosses between British birds and the latter offspring of crosses between a canary and a British bird. Competitive showing of all these birds will be permitted only if the parents, or in the case of a mule the non-canary parent, was of a specimen of a species listed in Schedule 3, Part 1; that is, those species assessed to have a self-sustaining captive population.

The amendment is in line with our obligations under the birds directive to have strict controls on the keeping of British birds, reduces temptation to take birds illegally from the wild, and accords with the other avicultural provisions in the Bill which are designed to place aviculture on a new footing. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 8, line 6, after ("Schedule 3") insert ("or (b) any live bird one of whose parents was such a wild bird").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 8, line 8, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in lint 9 and insert— ("(a) a bird included in Schedule 1 or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or (b) an egg of such a bird or any part of such an egg").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the amendments designed to include parts and derivatives of birds and their eggs. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 39: Page 8, line 13, after ("ringed") insert ("or marked").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 41: Page 8, line 24, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we should have spoken to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 34, and I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 45, which are consequential. During discussion of Clause 6 in Committee my noble friend Lord Renton said that it could be confusing to talk of registering a taxidermist, as it could lead to a challenge to registration on the grounds that the Secretary of State has registered a person who cannot be described as a taxidermist. The provision is intended to avoid a mass of licensing transactions by imposing conditions instead to ensure that registrants keep records which will allow checks on the legal possession of birds. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I should like to say how much we on this side of the House welcome all the amendments that have been made to Clause 6 since Amendment No. 33A, which was the last amendment on which I spoke. I hope that it goes without saying that we are extremely grateful to the Government for the action that they have taken.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 42: Page 8, line 30, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 43: Page 8, line 36, after ("birds") insert ("or other animals").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 49. The amendments make identical provision in Clause 7. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, suggested that Clauses 6(8) and 7(3) should be amended to refer to birds and other animals rather than simply birds. The Government accepted the logic of those amendments, and these amendments are the result. My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt asked in Committee about the appropriateness of those provisions to taxidermists. We have previously thought about this point and considered that as most offences which could lead to the removal or debarment from the register involved live birds, it was reasonable to extend the provision to cover all ill-treatment of them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 44: Page 8, line 36, leave out ("the ill-treatment of birds") and insert ("their ill-treatment").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 45: Page 9, line 1, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Registration etc. of certain captive wild birds]:

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 46: Page 9, line 8, after ("which") insert ("is fully grown and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 7(1) makes a person liable to a special penalty if he keeps or has in his possession or under his control any bird included in Schedule 4 which has not been registered and ringed in accordance with regulations …". This registration and ringing takes place some time after the bird has been hatched, and for the period until it is registered it cannot of course be ringed, but at present it would still be an offence to have the hatched bird in one's possession or control when it has not been registered or ringed. The purpose of my amendment is to insert the words "is fully grown and" after the word "which", so that it would not be an offence to have a bird not fully grown that had not yet been registered and ringed. This seems to me to be a necessary amendment, and I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has suggested that it should not be an offence to have in possession a young bird that has not been registered and ringed. The Government cannot accept this, since it would create a loophole for the unscrupulous and would undermine the provision. We accept that persons will have in their possession birds that have not been registered and ringed because, for example, they have only recently been hatched. Suitable provision for this situation, probably in the form of a reporting duty, will be made in regulations to ensure that it is possible to breed in captivity while complying with the law. I hope that in light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment—

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he confirm that someone who keeps birds in captivity and who has young birds that hatch will not be committing an offence during the period between hatching and registration? The sole purpose of my amendment is to ensure that that is the case.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I hope that that was more or less the tenor of my reply. That is exactly what we should be aiming to do, probably in some regulation.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49:

Page 9, line 9, after ("ringed") insert ("or marked")

Page 9, line 27, after ("birds") insert ("or other animals")

Page 9, line 27, leave out ("the ill-treatment of birds") and insert ("their ill-treatment").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 39. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 8 [Protection of captive birds]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 50: Page 10, line 14, leave out ("whether by land, air or water") and insert ("by whatever means").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Renton suggested that the words whether by land, air or water were unnecessary. However, I am advised that some form of words is necessary, hence the amendment which improves—as I hope my noble friend will agree—the current draft. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I agree, and I am grateful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 51: Page 10, leave out lines 16 to 19.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the discussion in Committee on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to restrict the period of time in which a bird can be kept in a small cage, the Government said that they would look again at the matter. We asked for the advice of the advisory committee, which recommended that it was no longer appropriate or necessary to confine for the purposes of any exhibition a bird in a small cage, but that it would be appropriate to allow a period of grace of five years, as the cost of acquiring new larger cages would not be insubstantial and many bird keepers—and I would remind the House that this clause applies to all birds, not just British species—in particular pensioners, could find it difficult to raise the necessary money. The Government accept that advice. We concluded that the best way to implement the advice was to delete the exception, which the amendment does, and to issue a licence retaining the exception for a period of five years. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 52: Page 10, line 20, after ("undergoing") insert ("examination or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 53. In Committee my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery moved an amendment which would extend the exception for birds being kept in small cages to any person, not necessarily a veterinary practitioner or surgeon, who might wish to examine or treat an injured bird. We undertook to look into the redrafting of the sentence in the Bill both to meet the point and to change the misprint of "probationer" to "practitioner". This amendment is the result of the reconsideration.

We have included the word "examination", and exchanged "practitioner" for "probationer", but I regret that we have concluded that we should not leave out the insistence that the treatment be undertaken by a veterinarian. First, I am advised that generally the only treatment which demands an enclosed cage is the mending of a broken wing, and this is a treatment which should be undertaken by a veterinarian. Secondly, we are concerned that the rephrasing of the provision as advocated by my noble friend would create loopholes. For those reasons I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 53: Page 10, line 21, leave out ("probationer") and insert ("practitioner").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Birds which are protected by special penalties]:

8.32 p.m.

Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 46, leave out line 37 and insert—

("Harrier, Marsh Circus aeruginosus
Harrier, Montagu's Circus pygargus
Harrier, Pallid Circus macrourus").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that there is probably a feeling that perhaps I am being rather extreme in this amendment, but there is a very real problem here. Hen harriers should be in the same category as the more numerous birds of prey, such as the common buzzard. My amendment therefore seeks to remove the hen harriers from Schedule 1 while leaving the other harriers on the list. My concern here is that a gamekeeper protecting his charges may render himself liable, and indeed is likely to render himself liable, to a £1,000 fine if the Government amendments to Clause 20 are carried; and, in view of the amendment which was carried earlier this evening, possibly his employer as well. This seems to me to be very unfair, that someone protecting his charges should be subject to the same penalty as someone who, say, steals an ostrich egg. It seems to me quite inequitable.

It is not as if the hen harrier is any longer a rare bird. Various figures were quoted at Committee stage, but these can be no more than inspired guesses. In 1940 the hen harrier was rare, but it has increased enormously and spread very fast indeed. In fact, there was one estate in the east of Scotland which showed that last year they had no less than 20 pair nesting on the one estate.

As I see it, the position is that a keeper could go up on to his hill the day before his big day's shooting and see all the grouse getting up and swirling away down over the boundary, and then he hears of a harrier sweeping his ground. Your Lordships can imagine what the feelings of this man would be. There is a whole day's shooting; he has all his beaters and everyone else organised; the guns have perhaps paid a lot of money to go out; and the birds are all being driven off his ground. If your Lordships put yourselves in his shoes, I wonder what your Lordships would do. I have no doubt what I would do. But you would probably render yourself liable to a £1,000 fine, because you could well be watched by someone who would then go and pick up the bird and take it to the police, and a prosecution would follow. You would then go before the magistrate or the sheriff, as the case may be, and he probably does not know the difference between a robin and a wren. He would say: "This is a bird listed in Schedule 1; it is not even just an ordinary protected bird. It must therefore be rather a unique bird, and this man is liable to one of the maximum penalties."

Only last week when I was walking with my keeper I saw one of our very few remaining grouse being attacked by a harrier. Luckily it missed, but your Lordships can imagine what my keeper was feeling like, and he took some restraining. It is said that these harriers, among the other predators, take the weakest bird. This is not the case with the harrier. It usually takes the strongest bird in the covey because that is the one which has its head up. So this is a fallacy which we get put to us.

As regards numbers, I think I must say that there are probably more harriers than partridges in most of Scotland. Certainly in the north of Scotland, in our part of the world, there are more harriers than partridges. If you are going to put harriers in the Schedule then you ought to put partridges in, too. We are told that we may be able to get a licence. I do not think this is really very relevant. It may be very difficult to get a licence for a Schedule 1 bird. The relevant section which causes concern is Clause 4(3)(c), as this clause removes any let-out which the keeper might have as a defence, as it specifically includes Schedule 1 birds. By putting this bird in Schedule 1, I think you are degrading Schedule 1, apart from causing considerable unfairness to those who are trying to look after their charges. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I must say that I was a little concerned at what seemed to me to be the implications of some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was saying. I do not know whether it in fact amounted to a nod and a wink to go back to a previous discussion, but it seemed to me to come very close to it. For example, instead of talking about the illegal killing of a specially protected bird, he talked in terms of somebody protecting their charges. What he meant was somebody committing a serious criminal offence by killing a bird listed in Schedule 1, and I think it would have been better if he had said so.

He said that a sheriff whom he or his keeper or somebody else, came up against if they did kill a hen harrier would think that this was a rather unique bird; and, indeed, if the sheriff did think that he would be right. The noble Lord threw some doubts on figures which were quoted at the Committee stage without quoting any of his own. But my information—this is based on scientific surveys rather than personal observation, I admit, but I think myself it is probably all the stronger, rather than weaker, for that—is that there are about 500 to 700 pairs nesting in the United Kingdom at the moment. A few years ago there were about 450-plus pairs in Great Bitain, so there has been a small increase; and there is a full survey planned for this year.

There is also, of course, a very important bit of research going on in relation to the ecology by the Unit of Grouse and Moorland Ecology, where they will be looking at the extent and seriousness of predations by hen harriers on grouse. At the moment, my understanding is that the diet of hen harriers mainly consists of mammals, particularly voles, and small birds, but undoubtedly they do take some game birds, including grouse. I would not deny that; but the extent of the predation and the seriousness of it I certainly do not know myself. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, cannot be certain, either, and that it would be wise to await the results of this research before either of us is too dogmatic.

My Lords, the hen harrier is on one of the EEC directives—one of only 74 species, that is. It is also on the Council of Europe Convention as one of the rarest highly-protected birds throughout Europe. It is certainly, by its breeding status alone in this country, justified special protection. It would be appalling if it were taken off Schedule 1. There is absolutely no scientific justification for its removal from Schedule 1 at all; and I hope that nothing the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said could be taken as any encouragement to anyone to break the law, because it certainly should not be.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, without supporting the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I think it should be said that the hen harrier is rapidly multiplying all over the north of Scotland. Of this there can be no doubt. I have seen as many as five hen harriers in the air at one glance at the same time; and it is impossible for me to drive to Wick without seeing a couple of pairs on the way there and back. It is getting to be very much more numerous in the far north, in Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney, than ever it was before, and this is a trend which is continuing.

I am not saying that we should take it off the list for that reason, but, likewise, I do not think we should make exaggerated claims for its rarity. I think that the work that is going on examining its effect on grousemoors is very important, and I shall watch this work with extreme interest. But I do not think we should make emotive statements one way or the other.

Lord Dulverton

My Lords, I should like to back up the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I can speak with the same sort of experience that he has had of Caithness both as to Western Inverness-shire and as to Central Inverness-shire. The hen harrier is spreading in numbers and in geographical distribution. I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not it should be kept on Schedule 1, but you cannot pretend that in Scotland today the hen harrier is a rarity. Whatever the scientific friends of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may say, or whatever investigations they are carrying out, those of us who walk the hills to any extent know from personal observation that they do in fact prey very largely on grouse.

The Earl of Glasgow

My Lords, I can speak for the south of Scotland and the Clyde coast where the hen harrier is becoming a menace. I agree with what has been said already.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on the capercaillie, I am sorry to have to oppose him on the hen harrier. It may be that this species is coming back in Scotland and is becoming more common, certainly commoner than any of the other species; but this is only because it has been protected and has been able to build up its numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred to licensing in such cases as being irrelevant. I do not know why. If hen harriers are doing damage to property of any sort, then this is the kind of case under which a licence should be applied for and granted and the threat easily removed. I would say that the amendment appears to be faulty in that it refers to the pallid harrier and includes that in the list; but that has only put in three appearances in these islands since records have been kept and it has never bred in Britain. It does not appear to be appropriate for Schedule 1. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, the whole problem of protecting birds of prey is difficult. If you get too many, they do the kind of damage which is not acceptable. This is what licences are for. If people who are rearing grouse in Scotland are suffering unduly from hen harriers then they have a good solution, which is to get a licence and shoot one or two—but not without a licence.

Baroness David

My Lords, surely things can be taken on and off the schedules. This can be done if things become a menace or are excessively rare.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, may we be given guidance on the licensing? Do we need licences for each particular species or one or several at a time or what?

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I have a great many hen harriers on my estate, but very few grouse. We have always had very few grouse. Whatever the hen harriers are eating, they are not eating grouse. If there is a famous grouse moor where the hen harriers are doing damage—and I do not think it will be great damage—then it is up to the Secretary of State to allow a few hen harriers to be shot there; but not over the whole country.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think that my noble friend has summed up the feeling of the House. The first schedule is mainly a list of birds with a small breeding population, and I am advised by the NCC that the hen harrier is such a bird. The population represents only a small fraction of its numbers in the last century. Research has shown that the reason for its decline and for its failure to regain lost ground is due almost entirely to persecution by man. This species has had a considerable amount of work carried out on it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, there is further research going on at the present time.

The Government's knowledge of the species is sufficiently good for the Government to see no reason not to accept advice from both the Advisory Committee for Scotland and for England and Wales that it should be in Schedule 1 and specially protected. The results of the research will be taken into account and I will make a point of bringing the points made in this discussion to the attention of the NCC. The licence provisions in Clause 15 would enable a licence to be issued for the killing or taking of this species where the need for this can be demonstrated. There are many kinds of licences. It would normally be one for a small area of Scotland, to one authorised person, for a set time. We shall be talking more about licences later. In the light of this, if my noble friend is assured that he will not be overrun by the hen harrier perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I was accused of not having figures, but I quoted the fact that there were no fewer than 20 pairs nesting in one estate, which is more than the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. My noble friend Lord Margadale mentioned this on Second Reading and several noble Lords this evening have mentioned the situation. These birds are expanding quickly in number. How the figures are compiled, I am not sure. Nobody has had permission to count hen harriers on my ground. Whether it has been done without permission I do not know, but no one has asked for permission.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, nobody from the RSPB would count anything on anybody's estate without their permission.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. In that case, I suspect that no count has been done on a large chunk of Scotland and, therefore, the remarks made by my noble friend on the Front Bench saying that the hen harriers had failed to regain lost ground showed that there were no statistics to prove this to be the case. This is what worries me. Then we would have our employees landed with the same penalty as someone who takes osprey eggs. In view of the assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench, one must withdraw the amendment; but it is a worrying case, and I hope he will look at it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:

Page 47, leave out line 15 and insert—

("Scaup Aythya marila")

Page 47, leave out line 17, at end insert—

("Serin Serinus serinus").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 68 and 69. These amendments do two things. In the first place, they put the scaup into the Bill, as I undertook at the Committee stage. Secondly, they put the serin—serinus serinus—in the right alphabetical order. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.49 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 56A:

Page 47, line 19, at end insert—

("Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a species which we spent some time on in Committee but we did not have an amendment on it. I raised it on Schedule 1 stand part. Having considered what was said in that debate, and having received further representations from interested people, I thought it was worth while coming back to it at this stage in the Bill. This is a question of putting something on to Schedule 1 rather than taking it off. May I say how much we welcome the addition of the scaup.

I have had representations from the Scottish Wildlife Trust that in Scotland the sparrowhawk is uncommon and quite rare in many parts of Scotland where its presence could be expected. I said in Committee that in my own experience in East Anglia, the sparrowhawk was still being persecuted illegally—because it is at the moment on Schedule 1 and the Bill would take it off—and its population in much of Southern England is very sparse. I have received further information which confirms that. In Hertfordshire, the species was seen only occasionally in the early 1960s and only nine nests were known in 1978. In Derbyshire, there was only one known nest in 1966–67 followed by a small increase up to 1976. In South-West Scotland—and this supports what Scottish Wildlife Trust say—there is a decline in the percentage of traditional territories occupied from 73 per cent. in 1971 to 55 per cent. in 1975.

This article on the sparrowhawk, Recent Trends in Sparrowhawk Numbers in Britain, concludes by saying: The Sparrowhawk has remained a protected species throughout the period covered by this paper, but traditionally it has been a target for gamekeepers. A more tolerant attitude towards raptors by some gamekeepers, and less widespread keepering, may also have contributed to the Sparrowhawk's partial recovery. There is still some illegal shooting and trapping, however, as well as usage of poisoned baits". That is borne out by a study done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the illegal use of poisons which caused the Government and the Minister of State, Mr. Monro, some concern which was expressed in a debate in the other place last year.

I accept that there has been some increase in the numbers of sparrowhawks and the position in Schedule 1 has undoubtedly helped, along with other factors mentioned in that article. It is incontrovertible that, first, there is still considerable illegal persecution of the sparrowhawk; and, secondly, that the numbers are still extremely low in a number of areas, particularly in England, where it would be expected to have a reasonable number of breeding pairs. For those two reasons, it would be wrong to remove it from Schedule 1. I hope that the House will accept this amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, there was some accusation about poisoning the birds. I believe these birds are not basically carrion eaters. Therefore, if they are doing fresh kills I am not sure how these wild accusations are made. Furthermore, though I thought it was degrading Schedule 1 to keep the hen harrier on it, this bird is rapidly regaining its numbers after the awful hammering it had through use of the Dieldrin seed-dressing which poisoned the pigeons and which went on through the sparrowhawk, and it is now rapidly recovering. To put this bird on Schedule 1 would degrade the schedule.

Baroness David

My Lords, may I back up my noble friend? Speaking for my own county of Cambridgeshire, a very skilled and active bird watcher there has seen only one sparrowhawk in the course of the past two years.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am not going to argue with the experts on figures. According to my brief, the bird population is estimated at about 20,000 and is still increasing. Maybe they are all up in one part of Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, the sparrowhawk was once listed on Schedule 2 of the Protection of Birds Act and was put on Schedule 1 following the catastrophic decline in the late 'fifties and early 'sixties due mainly to the organic chlorides. We have proposed it for removal from the specially protected list on the advice of the advisory committees. This is past history because at the Committee stage we took it up again. The whole matter was referred back to the advisory committees and the NCC following Lord Melchett's suggestion that the species should be retained on Schedule 1 because it was still persecuted in some areas and rare in others.

The committees and the NCC advised that these factors had been given full weight in their early considerations and confirm their previous advice. We must accept that advice. It clearly devalues a schedule to retain on it a species no longer assessed as needing its protection, and it is a good thing if a species can be removed from the schedule—it shows willing. Knowing the noble Lord's interest, I am sure that he is fully aware that the NCC will keep this very much in mind, and should there be any sharp decline again they will move swiftly either to put it back on the schedule or to make the necessary licence.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I should feel happier if the Government had accepted all the advice that they had been given by the advisory committees rather than just some of it when it happened to suit their views. Nevertheless, even though they are not prepared to accept all the advice, I shall do so. I do so with some reluctance. This bird will continue to be illegally killed. Of course, it will still be illegal to kill it. That point I stress most strongly. There was some reporting of our Committee stage which suggested that removal of the sparrowhawk from Schedule 1 would in some way leave it open for people to kill it. That is not the case. It remains a protected bird. I hope that everyone in your Lordships' House and all those who read the debate will make every effort to make that point clear. Removal from Schedule 1 does not mean that it is no longer protected. It certainly is.

I shall happily arrange for the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to be sent a copy of the RSPB's report on illegal poisoning. He will see details of cases with full evidence involving a number of birds of prey. I have a feeling that the advisory committees were rather looking for something to take off Schedule 1 just to prove that the system was working. The sparrow-hawk has fallen victim to that process. I am sorry about that. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.55 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 57: Page 47, leave out line 47.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 47, line 47, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I will speak also to Amendment Nos. 62, 67, 70, 76, 92, 94 and 112. These amendments are designed to meet the point that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook made during the Committee stage, that the common names of various animals and plants may be ambiguous or not widely known or accepted and that the scientific name should take precedence. Each schedule is fairly short and I think it would be convenient for most users of the Bill if the various species continue to be listed alphabetically according to their common names but the amendments remove any possibility of doubt that it is the scientific name which should prevail in the event of a dispute or proceedings. I beg to move.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, it goes without saying that this amendment has my hearty support. It is essential to be absolutely precise about the Latin spelling. For instance, Amendment No. 62A is relevant to draw to your Lordships' attention. I still disagree with the Government on the fact that this unnatural ordering of species is not convenient for biologists and is certainly not convenient for anyone in the international field who is trying to keep abreast of British legislation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Birds which may be killed or taken]:

[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 59A: Page 48, leave out line 8.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved these three amendments during Committee. There was widespread agreement on both sides that they made sense and there was no opposition. The noble Earl in replying to the discussion—and it was quite a long one—said that he would consider these questions further and get the advice of the advisory committees. If may summarise very briefly indeed what I said on that occasion to remind noble Lords, all species of shore-waders (of which there are several dozens of course) are protected throughout the year apart from five: the golden plover and the common snipe—which are commonly shot—and the three species which I wish to protect by removing them from Part I of Schedule 2. All three of these birds winter in this country in very considerable numbers.

On pure conservation grounds I admit frankly that there is not a good case for protection. But there are other sound and strong reasons I suggest none the less for removing these three species from Part I of Schedule 2. First of all, they are very easily confused with other species of shorewaders. Who could put their hand on their heart and say that in half light or even good light they are sure of the difference overhead between a curlew, a whimbrel and a bar tailed godwit? I doubt whether we could. Similarly, the redshank is all too easy to confuse with other shorewaders. That means, of course, that protected birds, some of them often rare, get shot by mistake.

Secondly, there is unnecessary disturbance of feeding and roosting sites, and protected and rare birds are disturbed when shore birds are shot unnecessarily. Thirdly avery large part indeed of the European wintering population of all three species winter in this country: as much as half the godwits, a third of the redshanks and I believe one-sixth of the curlews. It seems to me therefore it is beholden on us to set a good example in this respect.

All shorewaders are already protected in some European Community countries—notably Germany, Holland and Belgium—and they are all protected throughout the year across the North American Continent. That is an example that I hope we shall follow by accepting these amendments. I do not know what views the advisory committees expressed on these three birds. I believe it was more favourable than to the contrary; but I can tell noble Lords, as I think it will be of interest, what the view of the NCC is. Their view is that, while the population levels of these three species have not been put at risk by the present regulated shooting, none the less they would welcome the complete protection if that found acceptance with other interested parties. I hope and believe that it will, and I think that there is an unanswerable case on ethical and commonsense grounds for accepting these amendments. I very much hope that that is what I shall hear from my noble friend.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like to say—as strongly as I possibly can—that I simply cannot understand why anyone should want, let alone be permitted, to go out and shoot shorewaders. They cannot be eaten, and the only reason is simply to enjoy the slaughter of birds, and whether they are common or not has nothing to do with it. Many of the most common birds, apart from the pest species, are already protected despite their commonness, and I think that anyone who wants to go out and shoot curlew, godwit or redshank is giving in to his basest instincts. I should like to see the coot removed from the list as well. I do not think that anybody wants to eat coot and if they do any harm they should be in the pest species and not in this section. Therefore, having considered these amendments, I very much hope that the Government will agree to them. If they do not, I would invite noble Lords to press the amendments to a division.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am very happy to support my noble friend who has just spoken and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. We have these three species which are of international importance. We have 13 estuaries which are described as sites of international importance for the curlew. That means they hold 1 per cent. or more of the European wintering population, so that means 13 per cent. altogether. For the bar-tailed godwit we have about 9 per cent. of the entire European and North African winter population; and similarly with the redshank. It is almost like the catapult story. There is no case for shooting very beautiful birds which we have the privilege of wintering, except that they might be eaten, and they are not. I feel very strongly that this is absolutely clear case where they should be put straight on to the protected list.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, may I support this amendment very shortly because these birds are very beautiful and they do no damage at all. The cry of the curlew, especially over lonely moors, is absolutely beautiful and I think it is essential that they should be protected. The noble Lord, Lord, Kilbracken, said that you could not eat them, but in fact I have eaten a curlew when I was very young. Provided it has not been feeding on the shore but inland, it is not too bad. But, of course, that is no excuse for shooting it. But all birds can be eaten—even cormorants can be extremely good for making hare soup! The Red Army, in the early days following the revolution, used to employ a lot of people shooting seagulls to help to feed the Red Army; so that the noble Lord is not right in saying that you cannot eat them. You can eat any birds. However, I do heartily support this amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I do not feel very strongly on this, but I wonder whether anyone can give us some idea of the magnitude of the problem. I would have thought that the number of these birds which are shot is very small. I may be quite wrong about this, but nobody has given us any facts, and if it is only a small number why should we bother about it?

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I would not like to argue whether it is a big number or a small number: I totally support these amendments. I did not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, when he said that the coot could never be a nuisance. I do know of certain instances where they have been.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, the promise made by the Government in Committee to refer this matter back to the advisory committee in the light of arguments put forward by your Lordships has been carried out. Both the England and the Scotland sub-committees have confirmed that there is no conservation case for removing any of these birds from the quarry list. A majority of the England Committee recommended the removal of the species on ethical and sentimental grounds. They felt that public opinion on this matter had moved on since the passage of the 1954 Act and there was a general feeling that those who still hunted these species should now fall into line with the remainder and that there was a good case for protection to be given. The opposite view was equally strongly held; namely, that it was quite a legitimate sporting activity to hunt the species. The Scotland Committee took the view, notwithstanding these arguments, that the species should remain on the quarry list; but again there were dissenters.

The Government cannot support these amendments. As we have said on a number of occasions since the Report stage began, we believe that the traditional quarry species should only be removed from Schedule 2, Part I, if there is a conservation case for doing so. It is quite clear that with these species there is no such case since all are either stable or increasing in numbers. Accordingly, I ask your Lordships to reject these amendments.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, may I say first to the noble Viscount, interesting though his contribution was, that I hope the fate of these three species will not be decided on the culinary habits of the Red Army. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked how many of these birds are shot. I know he never believes my figures, but if I quote him some figures from the Shooting Times perhaps he will at least take it on trust that I am not quoting inaccurately. I do not have figures for curlew but I understand the Shooting Times suggests about 500 bar-tailed godwit are shot each season and about 200 redshank. He said that if the numbers were small he did not see what purpose was served by taking them off the list. But the point is not that the number shot is either small or large, because nobody is suggesting that these species are so rare as to need protection. What we have been suggesting is, first, that these are not, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, "traditional quarry species". That seems to me an extraordinary description for the bar-tailed godwit. It is all very well for the partridge, the grouse or the capercaillie, for that matter, but to describe the bar-tailed godwit as a traditional quarry species is really stretching the point, to put it mildly.

Nor is this a conservation argument, and I am glad to say that at least one of the advisory committees and a number of other people have recognised this. If it were a conservation argument, then all common British birds would be on the quarry list. We gave the example of the robin at the Committee stage. There are masses of robins in this country, but that does not mean to say that they are on the quarry list or that it would be right to put them there. If they were on the quarry list and only 200 were shot each year, that would not be an argument for leaving them on the list. There was, for example, some dissension about the Goldeneye, which we discussed at Committee stage, and which we are not now suggesting should be taken off the quarry list. But there was unanimous agreement that it was totally inappropriate for these three to be on the quarry list.

It does this country no good if we are one of the few where these shorewaders are shot, particularly when we have an international responsibility towards the conservation of these species. Whether one or a thousand is shot, people in Europe will look at our quarry list and say "The British shoot these shore-waders. What does it matter if we shoot songbirds, or whatever it is?". We feel these are not appropriate for the quarry species; they do not feel these are. I really think, in view of the strong support for taking these birds off the quarry list, that the noble Lord ought to press the amendment.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, may I follow briefly the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in pressing the moral issue? This country has led a movement which has enforced upon the unwilling nations of Europe, particularly Italy, the guardian of the alpine passes, an EEC directive which has prevented the Italians from shooting birds which occur in myriads in their country, but which in our country we protect; that is to say, the small migratory passerines. The United Kingdom, with its rich shores, carries the same kind of responsibility as do the Mediterranean countries with their migratory passerines. We are guardians of a large proportion of what is essentially an international bird population moving around on its migratory journeys, and, as such, we have no right to claim the leadership, or the capacity to lead, unless we ourselves can show that there is no beam in our own eye.

Lord Dulverton

My Lords, it seemed just now that some noble Lords were taking sides against the beautiful hen harrier. I should like to say how much I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in what they have just said on the subject.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, I confess that I am very disappointed with my noble friend's reply. He told us that the England and Wales Committees, though not feeling that there were any conservation grounds for removing these three birds from Part I of Schedule 2, none the less took the view that there was a sound case on other grounds. The Nature Conservancy Council, as I have told your Lordships, is of the same opinion for the same reasons; in other words, there are strong grounds—grounds of common sense, strong moral and ethical grounds—for not shooting these birds. My noble friend also told us that public opinion has moved on; I think he was quoting the England and Wales Committees. Opinion in your Lordships' House is moving on as well, and I very much hope that my noble friend might have second thoughts even now, having heard so many speeches in favour of these three amendments, before I decide to withdraw them or to divide on them, which I think we shall have to do if he does not agree with them.

9.13 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS
Alport, L. Killearn, L.
Ardwick, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Armstrong, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Avebury, L. McNair, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Mancroft, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Margadale, L.
Birk, B. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Blease, L. Melchett, L.
Boardman, L. Middleton, L.
Brockway, L. Mountgarret, V.
Caithness, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Caradon, L. Moyne, L.
Chelwood, L. [Teller.] Northfield, L.
Chorley, L. Onslow, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Peart, L.
Collison, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Craigton, L. Radnor, E.
Cranbrook, E. Renton, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Ridley, V.
Davies of Leek, L. Rochester, L.
de Clifford, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Sandford, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Seear, B.
Dulverton, L. Selborne, E.
Dundee, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Evans of Claughton, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Fortescue, E. Stone, L.
Gainford, L. Strabolgi, L.
Gibson, L. Stradbroke, E.
Gisborough, L. Swann, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Swansea, L.
Greenway, L. Thurso, V.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Tryon, L.
Gridley, L. Ullswater, V.
Hanworth, V. Underhill, L.
Henley, L. Waldegrave, E.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Howie of Troon, L. White, B.
Kaldor, L. Wigoder, L.
Kemsley, V. Winstanley, L.
Kilbracken, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Avon, E. Burton, L.
Bellwin, L. Craigmyle, L.
Belstead, L, Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. De La Warr, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Mottistone, L.
Ferrers, E. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L. O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Rochdale, V.
Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Holderness, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Strathclyde, L.
Inglewood, L. Teviot, L.
Long, V. Trenchard, V.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lyell, L. Yarborough, E.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Young, B.
Mansfield, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

9.20 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 59B: Page 48, leave out line 11.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken on this amendment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is not in his place I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 59C: Page 48, leave out line 23.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 60: Page 48, leave out line 24.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 61: Page 48, leave out line 27.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I will speak also to Amendment No. 66. This amendment seeks to remove the jack snipe from Schedule 2, Part 1 and Schedule 3, Part III. Both advisory Committees for England and Wales, and Scotland, recently advised that the species be given all round protection because surveys suggest that the species may have a low population. As trends are notoriously difficult to find on this secretive bird, the Committees took the view that caution was needed. The Government accept that there is an adequate conservation case for all round protection and that the species has too low a United Kingdom population to justify hunting it. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I welcome very much indeed this amendment and thank the Government for it.

Lord Margadale

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he thinks there is a decline in the number of jack snipe?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, did my noble friend ask whether there is a decline, or why there is a decline?

Lord Margadale

Why, my Lords.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as I think my noble friend will bear me out, this is such a secretive bird that there is a great deal of difficulty about finding out the population figures. The figures I have range from 1,000 to 10,000 in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do accept the need for protection.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 61A:

Page 48, line 33, at end insert—

("Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 61B and 61C at the same time. These three birds are considerable predators on fish. I cannot really conceive why anyone wants to protect the cormorant, which seems to be a particularly nasty bird. One thing that I have seen, and with which perhaps my noble friend would agree, is that they completely wiped out a heronry. They roosted where the herons used to roost and they killed all the trees with their guano. That shows the density of numbers of these birds in certain parts of the country. There is no evidence to show that they are dropping in numbers whereas they can kill a considerable number of fish.

With regard to the goosander and the merganzer, I think it is not realised that these are the host of a number of fish worms. I gather that part of the process of the fish worm goes through the merganzer and the goosander and therefore a great many more fish are damaged and killed by these birds than are actually eaten. I think that that should be borne in mind when we put these birds on the protected list. No doubt we shall be told by my noble friend on the Front Bench that we can get a licence to kill them, but I think that is the wrong way to go about it. They have been a considerable pest and, what is more, both the berganzer and the goosander are increasing at an enormous rate. At the end of the War there were hardly any in Scotland or in England, but they have now spread rapidly from Orkney all the way down and are now in very considerable numbers in certain parts of the country. Why we should now be having extra protection for these birds seems incomprehensible. They have survived without any protection up till now; they have not even had the protection of a season. Now for no apparent good reason we are putting them on the protected list when we know they are injurious to fish. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I was sorry to see these birds brought up at this stage. We did not have a chance to discuss them at Committee stage, and I do not know whether the advisory committees have yet looked at them. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will be able to tell us whether they have had time to look at them since the amendments went down, but if they saw them at the same time as the rest of us I doubt whether they have.

I managed during the course of the day to get some information on one or two of the points the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has raised. First, on the cormorant, it seems to me that it would cause very considerable difficulties if it were added to Schedule 2. First, there is a continental sub-species of the cormorant which is on Annexe 1 of the EEC directive. That continental sub-species does occur in the South of England. It is totally indistinguishable from our own species, so I would not know the difference. There could be very serious possibilities of mistake with the European subspecies. In any event, although the cormorant is relatively common in Britain and Ireland, about 8,000 pairs, it is one of the birds for which we have a very heavy international responsibility because our own islands contain a very high proportion of the total European population. I think we need to look at birds like this in the context of a whole region rather than simply this country, and where we hold a high proportion of the European population we should bear that in mind.

I understand that the most recent paper on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland concluded that the present data on the food of the cormorant on fresh waters are still not sufficiently complete to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn concerning the effects of the cormorant on salmonoid fish stocks. So the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, at any rate, is still not clear about the extent of the damage. Of course, cormorants do eat eels, as I understand it about 10 per cent. by weight of their diet, and sticklebacks form about one-third of their diet in terms of numbers of fish eaten. So while they may do some damage, and I am sure they do, it clearly is not known, by the experts in Scotland at least, to what extent they do damage and to what extent they do not. I suggest that in those circumstances it would be better to leave the position as it is.

Turning to the other two birds, the goosander and the merganzer, I appreciate that they may well cause more serious problems than the cormorant, but of course their numbers are somewhat lower. Again, so far as both are concerned, I understand that the latest paper of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland suggested that further studies should be made of the goosander and the merganzer so that a fuller assessment could be made of their role as predators of young salmon. As I understand it, those studies are still to be carried out, and again I would have thought that in the absence of hard information it would be better to leave things as they are. Licensing provisions in this Bill are very wide—much too wide, a number of us think, but there we are; it is clearly not going to be possible, at least in this House, to change them significantly. But it does seem very hard, when one has already got wide licensing provisions, for the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to say "This is not good enough; we must have them off the protected list as well". I would have thought that these three birds, if they do give rise to problems, are really exactly what the licensing provisions as currently drafted are designed to deal with.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this. I, too, have no great feeling or quarrel about the cormorant, and I do not think it is necessary to do anything about it. But I do think the goosander and the merganzer are something we want to watch very carefully, and I do hope the Minister will give us an assurance that licences will be granted fairly easily, if they are not going to be put on the schedule.

I was simply amazed that in the last 12 months I was asked in Angus whether I would help organise on the South Esk a Sunday shoot of merganzers and goosanders. As a good Roman Catholic I have been accustomed occasionally to shooting on Sundays in Roman Catholic countries like Spain, France and so on, but to be asked in Presbyterian Scotland to join in a shoot shows your Lordships just how strongly the feeling in Scotland is about these two particular birds. Normally I do not ever go shooting on Sunday, and I did not this time either, but I just give that as an example of how strong the feeling is against these birds in parts of Scotland where the fishery rivers are an important item in the tourist industry and also in the economy of the country.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, as regards this amendment, because there is no doubt that these species do cause considerable damage at certain times and on certain parts of salmon rivers, particularly in a spate when the cormorant is liable to come up from the sea. I have seen them sitting at vantage points taking smolts and so on when the smolts were running.

On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has pointed out, this is a real case for licensing, because in nearly all these cases the damage can be foreseen. I think that the licences should not be unreasonably withheld and I think that it should be said here that that is particularly so if they are applied for by responsible bodies such as district fishery boards. It might be that for the cormorant in particular one would have to take out a licence to deal with any cormorants that came up during a spate and when smolts were running and it would be very difficult to specify when that would happen because obviously one would not know when it was going to rain and one would have to act quickly. But provided that licensing is done within reason I am sure that it can cope with the situation.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, surely the damage done by merganzers and goosanders to smolts going downstream is nothing compared to what is done in the open sea by the seals and it is nothing compared to what can be done by monofilament drift netting? This is part of nature and we should not get too over-excited about it.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I should like to say that I think that he is wrong about this, because a line of cormorants at the estuary of a river kill off the salmon before they ever get to the sea. When the smolts are hanging about in the estuary waiting to become accustomed to salt water they are extremely vulnerable and these birds tend to gather at the estuary at that point and there may well be a strong case for control of their numbers. I do not think that we can say that monofilament drift netting or what happens at sea is necessarily worse. It may be as bad, but certainly what the cormorants and the shags can do at the estuary is as bad as monofilament netting.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this matter. It is quite true that cormorants do a great deal of damage in the salmon fisheries and can eat 30 or 40 smolts in 24 hours as easy as anything. However, as regards merganzers and goosanders, from my experience the merganzer is far more numerous than the goosander. I should think, as the noble Viscount said, that this is really a case for licensing.

Lord Tryon

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on this amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said the sea is a very big area. The feeder streams of rivers are very small and that is where these birds, when they come up the rivers, do their damage. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, disagrees with this amendment and I am afraid that I must say to him that the freshwater fisheries have a lot of trouble from these birds. He said that there was too little evidence of what damage they did or did not do. He then said that therefore it would be best to leave matters as they stand. I wish he meant what I understand by that, which is to leave them on the list where they can be shot rather than to put them on when there is better evidence.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, it seems to me that everything that has been said in this debate points absolutely directly to licensing. The reason for doing anything about cormorants is what they do to the fish. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, spoke as though there was something wrong in eating fish. There is nothing wrong in eating fish. What is wrong is to deplete a fish population. The only possible case for limiting the number of cormorants is if they do that. There is no evidence to suggest that they are or that they are not. The people who wish to have control should take the trouble to find out the facts and if what they believe is in fact true, they would have a very strong case.

Lord Moyne

My Lords, as an ignoramus on this subject, perhaps from outside I may make the logical point that it is presumably no fun to shoot any of these three species of bird—nobody would do so—unless there is a need to reduce their numbers. If there is such a need, licences have to be applied for, involving a great deal of trouble. Is it not better to leave people to do it when it is necessary?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, perhaps I could say a little about the thinking behind Schedule 2 Part II, which is the new list of pest species. Our intention is to comply with the European Community Birds Directive by strictly controlling designation under Article 9 of the directive. Part II of Schedule 2 has been reduced to those species which constitute nationwide pests and are too widespread to be covered by licence. To deal with species that have been omitted from Schedule 2 Part II as drafted, and that includes the three species which are the subject of my noble friend's amendments, and other species which can be pests at particular times of the year, or in particular circumstances or in particular areas, we would have an appropriate form of licence.

In regard to the three species with which we are now dealing, the advice from the advisory committee, the Nature Conservancy Council and the agricultural departments is that none of these species constitutes a nationwide pest. It is recognised that the birds can cause damage to fish interests, but this is a good example of damage in particular circumstances which can properly be dealt with by licence. In view of this, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, once again I have had this question of numbers thrown at me and have been accused of producing no evidence as to what damage is done. Recently, fishery boards have stocked a river and I have seen the fish that they have put in mopped up wholesale by merganzers. It must be quite disheartening to them if they are able to do nothing about it. A rapid increase in the numbers when they have had no protection seems to be the answer. The conservationists' cause looses much goodwill when they move to protect birds which are increasing and doing damage. I think that the question of being a host to the fish worms must be looked at very carefully. If it is contrary to the EEC convention, I suppose that we shall have to comply with the convention. But this constantly comes up in the Bill. It seems a great pity that this convention was signed before either House of Parliament discussed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 61B and 61C not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 48, line 48, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport)

My Lords, this amendment should read: Page 48, line 46, at end insert— the words on the Marshalled List.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Birds which may be sold]:

Lord Sandys: moved Amendment No. 62A:

Page 49, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

("Jackdaw Corvus Monedula
Jay Garrulus Glandarius").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely seeks to place the jackdaw and the jay in their correct positions in the schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.40 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62B: Page 49, leave out line 19.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62B and at the same time speak to Amendment 62C, D, E and F. These are all manuscript amendments, for which I apologise to your Lordships' House. We complimented those concerned on the printing of the Marshalled List. I suppose it was inevitable that something was going to get left off. I am almost sure that it was not my fault, but I would not dream of apportioning any blame to anybody, and I apologise to the House for the fact that this is a manuscript amendment. I hope it has not taken people too much by surprise, because it is something we discussed at Committee stage at some length, and at that stage there was a good deal of agreement on all sides of the House about the proposals.

Schedule 3 lists birds which may be kept in captivity, bred in captivity, and shown competitively without any restriction and sold without any restriction. I am suggesting that five species (to take the amendments in order), the little owl, the meadow pippit, the mistle thrush, the grey wagtail and the pied wagtail, should be removed from the Schedule. This will not prevent people keeping these birds in captivity, or breeding them in captivity, or giving them to other people. All it will prohibit is the exhibition either in competitive classes or—and I think we have already made this amendment—in non-competitive classes at a competitive show. It will prohibit the sale of these birds.

When we discussed this at Committee stage, we had four birds on, but not the pied wagtail. There was so much feeling, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that it was wrong to have the pied wagtail on this Schedule that I took the liberty of adding it to those that we had on already. It is probably fair to say that there is very little scientific evidence that a number of the other birds on Schedule 3 have genuinely self-sustaining captive populations. That is, I understand, the criterion which has been applied to this Schedule. There are a number which no doubt have, but whether, for example, the song thrush has a genuinely self-sustaining captive population, I simply do not know.

It seems to me that the list is too long and that there are some obvious species that could be taken off it. These amendments simply strike at the most obvious and takes out these five birds. I am afraid there has been a feeling among the Government's advisers that because the list of birds that could be kept in captivity legally and sold and exhibited was being substantially reduced by this Bill, that there needed to be much less strict scientific criteria applied to the birds that were being left in. In other words, what is being said is: "Well, we are taking away several species; we had better not take away too many."

I only wish that such lax criteria had been applied to some of the things I should have liked to get on the Schedules or off Schedules, but unfortunately the conservationists had to face a much stricter test. I am not suggesting that we should insist on having all the evidence which really ought to be available to show clearly that there are self-sustaining populations of every bird on Schedule 3, Part I, but I think the most obvious cases should be taken off, and that is what these amendments would do.

I would emphasise again that it does not stop people keeping the birds in captivity. It does not stop the breeding. It does not stop the giving away. It simply discourages people from taking these things from the wild by ruling out competitive classes and ruling out sale. It is those two things, the competitive classes where there are prizes and the sale of these birds, which really encourage the taking of nests and nestlings from the wild. It is against that abuse that this Schedule is drawn up in the first place. I hope that having picked a fairly limited list, which got a great deal of support in Committee, that the amendment will now be acceptable to the Government.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I support the amendment, partly for purely sentimental reasons, and I suggest that every now and then in this kind of debate one is allowed a little sentiment. The idea of keeping a pied wagtail in captivity is absolutely revolting, and the idea of trying to breed from it and keep its children permanently in captivity, though from their point of view that may not be very disagreeable, is most disagreeable from mine. As I say, this is a purely personal view, and while I suppose Government cannot be carried on on that basis, every now and then one is allowed to express one.

If evidence can be provided to show that a bird has not been stolen from the wild but has been bred in captivity, then it could be on this list, but the arrangements for checking that seem absolutely non-existent. There is very little information on the subject; one can pick up scraps of knowledge from cage bird books, magazines and so on, but each bird on this list should be examined really carefully to find out what evidence there is that it had bred reasonably well in captivity. I find it difficult to believe that perhaps another half-dozen of those on this list do. I will not go into that, because I have exposed my prejudices so completely that I do not expect anybody who has a different view to agree with me. But I am anxious to support my noble friend.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment with all my heart and conscience and particularly to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for putting my pied wagtail on this list.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I am anxious to support my noble friend Lord Melchett in this series of proposals. I detest the idea of any of these birds being kept in cages, whether they were taken from the wild or bred in captivity. What has been a revelation to me, since the Bill began its progress through your Lordships' House, is the large number of small birds which are kept in captivity and how many thousands of them are apparently taken from the wild illegally and by various means of deception are kept in cages after being taken from the wild.

It seems that two factors facilitate this practice. The first is that birds of species which are listed in Part I of Schedule 3(1), though they have to be ringed before they may be sold, may be kept in captivity, so long as they are not sold, without any control at all. The same is true of birds of the species listed in neither Part I of Schedule 3 nor in Schedule 4, which are some very common species (pest species such as wood pigeons) many rather rarer species, such as the redstart and most of the warblers, and some species too rare for inclusion in Schedule 4, not only vagrants and accidentals but birds such as the tawny pipit which occur annually.

I hope the Government will think about this matter, late though it may be in the progress of the Bill: namely, that all birds kept in captivity should be ringed if they are wild birds as defined in the Bill. In the meantime, I wish it were possible to do something to control the most regrettable practice of taking birds from the wild illegally and keeping them in captivity. While I hope the Government will think about that, in the meantime we should all support my noble friend Lord Melchett in what he is attempting here.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, as I said in Committee, Part I of Schedule 3 represents a major change to the existing provision governing aviculture. Indeed, I would say that the Schedule and Clause 6 represent, notwithstanding the 1954 and 1967 Acts, the first real attempt to make proper provision for aviculture and to place it on a sound and logical basis for the future. Your Lordships know that in future only those birds included in Schedule 3, Part I, and if captive bred and close ringed, may be sold. This represents a major reduction on the present list of saleable birds in Schedule 4 of the Bill. Additionally, only those species may be competitively exhibited for which there is no counterpart in existing legislation.

The revised list was drawn up on the advice of the advisory committee, with the assistance of the breeding records of the British Birds Council. We appreciate, as do the advisory committee, that some of its recommendations were borderline cases. The committee said, however, that it was justified to include these species because the records of the council are not complete—and it is the first to admit it—not all breeders belong to the council, and the new provisions with the short list of birds represent a radical shake-up of aviculture.

We shall of course keep the list under review and have access to much better information in a field where information is sparse, which will enable a more complete list of species to be compiled. We shall of course take species off the list if breeding records show that success is not being maintained. We accordingly hold the view at this time that Schedule 3, Part I should be left alone, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Finally, I should remind your Lordships that, as I said previously, inclusion of such borderline cases on the list protects the wild population, as no further licences will normally be granted for taking from the wild these species, except for occasional gene refreshment, when it is justified.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I really do not think that I can withdraw the amendment. Neither at the Committee stage nor today has there been a single voice in support of the inclusion of these birds in the Schedule. Had I had one person, other than the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, against me either at the Committee stage or today I might have felt some obligation not to press the amendment, since obviously this is not the most important point in the Bill. But when noble Lords on all sides of the House at two stages of a Bill support unanimously the removal of certain birds, I do not think that it is on to withdraw the proposal simply because the Government say so.

If I may say so to the noble Lord, he has produced absolutely no evidence, and at the Committee stage we left it that if the Government could produce some evidence for this listing we would accept it; but they have not done so. In the meantime, I have had some inquiries made in avriculture circles and the indications I have received are to the effect that in the case of the first four species—the little owl, the meadow pippit, the mistle thrush and the grey wagtail—there are probably less than two breeding records a year in most years. By no stretch of the imagination does that meet the Government's own criteria in their information paper of 28th August 1980, which stated that the only species included in the Schedule would be those species which are commonly bred in captivity. The term, "commonly bred in captivity", is not the same as two successful breeding records in most years. The Government's information paper added in regard to the species, … and have a self-sustaining population in captivity". Two breeding records a year do not amount to a self-sustaining population. That simply does not meet the Government's own criteria.

The pied wagtail, on whcih the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is so keen, might, I understand, breed with a little more regularity, but certainly not in such numbers as to enable it to maintain a self-sustaining population in captivity. There is unanimous support in the House for this amendment and I hope that the Government will not divide against it. I feel that the House wants to accept the amendment and I intend to press it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 62C, 62D, 62E and 62F:

Page 49, leave out line 20

Page 49, leave out line 25

Page 49, leave out line 28

Page 49, leave out line 29.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 65: Page 50, leave out line 2.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 55. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 66: Page 50, leave out line 5.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 50, line 8, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Birds which must be registered and ringed if kept in captivity]:

9.56 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 67A: Page 50, line 36, column 1, at end insert ("that is to say, Buzzards, Eagles, Harriers, Hawks and Kites (all species in each case)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage on 2nd February we said that the advisory committee had advised that many people would be unaware that the term "true hawks" included such birds as eagles, and that the Government were considering how to make the position clear. This amendment is the result, which I recommend to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 68: Page 51, leave out line 5.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 51, line 7, at end insert—

("Serin Serinus serinus").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 70:

Page 51, line 25, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Protection of certain wild animals]:

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 7: Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("Schedule 5") to end of line 39.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could also speak to Amendment No. 72 at the same time, which is the principal amendment. All that these amendments seek to do is to include parts or derivatives of animals to correspond with the provisions in Clause 9(3). Your Lordships will recall that earlier today this was one of the reasons for amending Clause 1(2). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 10, line 40, at end insert— ("(1A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person has in his possession or control any wild animal included in Schedule 5 or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal, then, unless he shows that the animal was killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part or of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, he shall be guilty of an offence.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 73: Page 10, line 43, after ("destroys") insert ("or obstructs access to").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Craigton moved his Amendment No. 114 in Committee I undertook to look further into the possibility of providing in the Bill recognition that preventing a Schedule 5 animal from entering the place it used for shelter or protection was just as harmful as actual damage would be. I did look into it, and this amendment meets that undertaking. I beg to move.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me. I can understand the reason why he did not take my second amendment, which used the words "render uninhabitable". I hope the Government will bring pressure on the firms which make this wood treatment liquid, which is now deadly poison to bats, to find some alternative within a reasonable time. I thank my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 73A: Page 11, line 6, after ("person") insert ("(a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 73A, 73C, 73D and 73E together. These amendments are similar to ones which were agreed earlier and to which my noble friend Lord Sandys spoke. I beg to move Amendment No. 73A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 73B not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 73C, 73D and 73E:

Page 11, line 9, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)")

Page 11, line 10, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)")

Page 11, line 10, at end insert— ("or (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73C, 73D and 73E en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 73F: Page 11, line 26, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("except that in relation to bats included in Schedule 5 any act under that subsection shall be an offence unless 21 days before such an act the Nature Conservancy Council have been notified of the act which it is intended to carry out").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is about bats. I am grateful to my noble friend for Amendment No. 74 which has partly met what we wanted when we moved amendments about bats. For that reason I shall not move my Amendment No. 73G. It is on Amendment No. 73F where I want to raise a point. As the Bill stands, except in a dwelling-house no one can get rid of bats without first contacting the NCC. But what is the position of the householder if the Bill is not amended? He must not kill the bats—that is what Clause 9(1)(a) says—but it is not an offence for him to disturb them. But without skilled advice he will not know how to get rid of bats from his house without killing them.

Advice is at hand. The NCC through the Institution of Terrestrial Ecology is in constant contact with 630 public health officers, with the Ministry of Agriculture Pest Control, and ADAS pass on information about bats to the ITE. This amendment ensures that the householder will get in touch with an expert and so move the colony on instead of destroying it and instead of breaking the law as well. So the machinery is there. And it is at no cost to the taxpayer.

So much for the householder. What of the bats? The facts speak for themselves: 81 colonies studied in 1978 included 119 individuals per colony. The same 81 colonies in 1979 were reduced from 119 to 79 individuals and the same 81 in 1980 had 52 individuals—a drop of 56 per cent. in three years. Again, a continuous survey of eight villages found only one colony in each area. These colonies moved around seasonally to different dwelling-houses in rotation. Finally, a study of 600 bat colonies showed that almost all were dependent on dwelling-houses for survival; with 47 per cent. living in houses less than 25 years old—they like a nice clean home to live in—and 71 per cent. in houses less than 100 years old. The unfortunate situation that we face is a rapidly declining population—over 50 per cent. in three years—of which some 70 per cent. live in domestic houses. This is a population of rare animals that it is illegal to kill, but which will be killed in countless numbers unless properly moved from where they are not wanted.

To refuse this amendment is to endanger the bats in this land and to encourage householders, however unwittingly, to break the law. This is not interference with the rights of an individual in his own house but is protecting him from breaking the law, and protecting the bats from death. A householder's rights carry obligations with them. This is one of them—to protect this rare and declining species. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I was a reluctant convert to the cause of this particular amendment to which I have now put my name. I had strong reservations, as I know my party has, on any interference with the doctrine that an Englishman's home, if not at least his castle, is at any rate his home. The fact that that right of his to have his home uninvaded and uninterrupted has been broken time and again does not derogate from that. One of the very few things that one can congratulate this Government about is that they have done something about removing some of the rights of entry to people's homes. Therefore, my immediate reaction to this particular suggestion was that we should not interfere with people's rights in their own homes.

As I listened to the case, to the problem and to the danger to the wildlife concerned, I thought how little was the amount that we were asking the householder to do: merely to inform. We were not suggesting that any kind of compulsion should be put on him or her to keep the balance; merely that information should be given and advice sought if not eventually taken. Given the proposition, I certainly was convinced and I hope noble Lords will be and will accept this amendment.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the House will be impressed as usual with the knowledge and concern for bats which my noble friend Lord Craigton has displayed again this evening. We have carefully considered the points which were so clearly brought out in Committee that large numbers of bats live in attics, and that they can if necessary be displaced from these places without undue mortality, provided that expert advice is sought. I cannot agree that we should overturn the principle that a householder should be free to remove bats from his house without let or hindrance. It is already proposed in the Bill that it should be an offence intentionally to kill or injure a bat except in closely defined circumstances.

A Government amendment is proposed to provide also that the defence in Clause 10(2)(d), that killing was an incidental result of a lawful operation, shall not be applicable to action against bats unless the Nature Conservancy Council has first been consulted. I believe that that will help bats which roost in barns or other structures. I cannot accept the implications of this amendment concerning dwelling-houses. I hope that your Lordships will consider that the alarm that such an amendment might provoke among people would not be worthwhile.

After the Committee stage, I had a letter from somebody whom I did not know. Reading about the Committee stage, he said that in a certain church where there was a plague of bats they tried everything to rid themselves of them but to no avail. However, they were at last advised to beg, borrow and steal some stuffed owls. They did this and solved their problem. It seems that the owl possesses some properties reprehensible to bats, even when the owl has been stuffed. This unlikely story was told to an ornithologist friend of the writer who said that owl droppings never contained bats. It seems that the feathers of stuffed owls contain remarkable properties.

It may be that those who wish to rid their houses of bats could get some stuffed owls; but of course they will have to be careful that they are not creating an offence under the Bill. It should, I hope, have the happy result of ridding the householder of bats and letting the bats nevertheless remain alive. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.

10.9 p.m.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, following the Committee stage, I had three letters from people I did not know before. In effect, they could not understand how the Government could be claiming to introduce a Bill which listed all the species of bats as endangered and deserving of special protection and yet they were not prepared to do something about the amendment which the noble Lords, Lord Cranbrook and Lord Craigton, and myself moved in Committee.

May I suggest to the noble Earl that when he replies to that letter he tells the person concerned that, had he consulted the NCC, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would require to be done, he would have been given, I suggest, much more straightforward and effective advice than that which was got. They would also have got it free, quickly and from the most experienced source of advice in the country, which is the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The Government's amendment on barns and other structures is very welcome and we are all very grateful for it, but the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology have written to me and other noble Lords saying that almost all species of bats are dependent on dwelling-houses for survival. That is the expert opinion of this country—all bats which are listed by the Government in the specially protected schedule are dependent on dwelling-houses for survival.

The Government's amendments so far do nothing about this except, as has been pointed out—and I do not think we made it clear enough at Committee stage—that it is an offence under the Bill to kill a bat whether in a dwelling-house or anywhere else, apart from, as the noble Earl said, extremely narrowly-defined circumstances. That certainly would not allow someone to go to their attic and kill the bats which are there; nor could they go to the attic and stuff up the holes which the bats use to get in and out and leave the bats inside so that they starve to death, if they knew that was a consequence of blocking the hole. I should have thought that if the bats were in there when they did it it would be very difficult to prove that they had not intended to kill the bats. In other words, it is going to be quite difficult for somebody who is not an expert on bats to get rid of the bats from their attics without breaking the law.

The noble Earl suggests, from a sedentary position, that a stuffed owl might be a good idea. I do not believe the story of the stuffed owl. I once tried a rubber owl to discourage sparrows from a farm building, but it had absolutely no effect at all and the rubber owl was covered with sparrow droppings within about two days. I am always a little suspicious of these stories of the deterrent effect of various stuffed things. Bats move around from one roosting area to another regularly, and I suspect that they move more of their own accord than because of anything to do with owls. The writer of the letter may find that they are back again before long as part of their normal migratory pattern. So then I suggest that they get in touch with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology or the Nature Conservancy Council.

This is a serious point. I do not think the Government's position is defensible. They are passing a Bill which will make it illegal to kill bats in your house, but they are not providing anybody without considerable expert knowledge with a means of avoiding committing that offence. The noble Lord's amendment would, and I suggest it would remove the need for a lot of prosecutions which will occur under this Bill. It imposes only a requirement to notify. When we discussed this in Committee everyone agreed that was reasonable. They disagreed with my amendment and with an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but everyone agreed that if all you asked a householder to do is to notify the NCC that really was not asking too much, given the expert advice we have that this is the only way of ensuring the protection for bats provided in the Bill. All bat species are listed as endangered and the only way of ensuring that this works is by this sort of amendment. I hope that, if the Government do not feel able to accept this wholeheartedly, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will press it; but I hope that we do not have to spend time on a Division.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, my name is also down in connection with this amendment. I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I note he considers there may be alarm and concern among the general public if this amendment is allowed to go forward. I believe that if he were to give appropriate publicity to it the general public would be reassured rather than alarmed and concerned, because this amendment, which has been so carefully phrased by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is a final fallback on what seems to be acceptable. It points a path whereby the public can get what is in fact a highly expert opinion. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has led research, I would say Europewide, into the behaviour and habits of bats. The NCC will undoubtedly have close connection with them and, in following the provisions in the clause as devised by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, members of the public wishing to rid their houses of bats without contravening the law—that is to say, without killing the bats—will be led instantly to the best advice obtainable anywhere in this country.

10.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 73F) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Howie of Troon, L.
Avebury, L. Kilbracken, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Killearn, L.
Birk, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]
Blease, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Brooke of Tremorfa, L. Melchett, L.
Burton, L. Middleton, L.
Caradon, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Chelwood, L. Northfield, L.
Collison, L. Onslow, E.
Craigton, L. Peart, L.
Cranbrook, E. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
David, B.
Davies of Leek, L. Ridley, V.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Rochester, L.
Gainford, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Gibson, L. Sandford, L.
Gisborough, L. Seear, B.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Selborne, E.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Hanworth, V. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stone, L.
Strabolgi, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Swansea, L. White, B.
Thurso, V. Winstanley, L.
Underhill, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Armstrong, L. Holderness, L.
Avon, E. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Bellwin, L. Kemsley, V.
Belstead, L. Long, V.
Boardman, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Bolton, L. Lyell, L.
Boyd of Merton, V. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Mansfield, E.
Caithness, E. Margadale, L.
Craigmyle, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Crawshaw, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Mottistone, L.
de Clifford, L. Mountgarret, V.
De La Warr, E. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Peel, E.
Dormer, L. Renton, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Rochdale, V.
Dundee, E. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Elliot of Harwood, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Elphinstone, L. Soames, L.
Exeter, M. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Ferrers, E. Stradbroke, E.
Forester, L. Swinton, E,
Greenway, L. Trenchard, V.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Ullswater, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Waldegrave, E.
Yarborough, E.
Henley, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 73G not moved.]

Clause 10 [Exceptions to s. 9]:

10.23 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale)

Amendment No. 74? Amendment 74A?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, there are two amendments numbered 74A. I think that this should have been numbered ZA.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, on the Marshalled List there is Amendment No. 74 and Amendment No. 74A. If the noble Earl could indicate which is Amendment No. 74ZA, I think it would be helpful to us all.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, our difficulty is that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. The Marshalled List, to which much care and attention has been given, appears to have a missing letter. The letters ZA should appear after Amendment No. 74.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I apologise for that disruption but I think my noble friend is correct. There are two amendments numbered 74A. Perhaps I may move the amendment which is numbered 74.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 11, line 44, at end insert— ("(3) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(a) as respects any action taken at any time if—

  1. (a) the risk of the damage was known before that time and a licence under section 15 authorising that action was not applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after the risk became known; or
  2. (b) an application for such a licence had been refused.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify the distinction between the licensing arrangements under Clause 15 of the Bill and the defence provision under Clause 10 which permits the killing of protected animals in order to prevent serious damage to property. Some concern was expressed during the Committee stage that the defence under Clause 10 should be available only in an emergency when there was no time to apply for a licence and that it should not be an easier alternative to obtaining a licence to deal with predictable damage. The amendment provides that the defence under Clause 10 shall not be available in cases where the risk of damage was predictable but where no licence was requested, nor in cases where a licence had been refused. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am afraid I have quite a few queries, which are rather complicated. The first is a question to my noble friend which is as follows: am I correct in assuming from the remarks made previously by my noble friend Lord Avon in connection with Amendment No. 24, which applies to birds but is similar to this amendment, that if a licence has been refused in relation to a particular species under Clause 15 it is not then permitted for a farmer to take emergency action for birds under Clause 4 or for animals under Clause 10? If that is so—and I think I understood my noble friend aright—I ask, what would happen should a licence not be granted, say, today, for shooting brent geese, because it was said that there were not enough brent geese to cause trouble, and then tomorrow or even next year I get an enormous influx of these birds and I am not then allowed to take emergency action to do anything about it?

My last worry is that I presume the Government are moving this amendment and not Amendment No. 24 relating to birds because it is not likely, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, that an animal in Schedule 5 is likely to be an agricultural pest, as was also pointed out in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. However, as I raised in Committee—and my noble friend Lord Ferrers supported me—what happens if in the future to Schedule 5 is added an animal that could be a pest? May I ask my noble friend to confirm that no future Secretary of State will ever put in Schedule 5 anything that is likely to be an agricultural pest?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with regard to the last question raised by my noble friend, I think the chances of an agricultural pest being added to the schedule are so remote as to be almost unthinkable. It would be quite inappropriate for me to say that never in any circumstances would any Secretary of State in future ever do anything of the kind, but I think it is extremely unlikely.

With regard to the first point raised by my noble friend, he said that if in fact he had applied for a licence and it had been refused, he could then be subjected to an influx of these animals. My immediate reaction is that that in itself would constitute an emergency and he would be entitled to take such action, because my noble friend will realise that all that the amendment says is that, A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(a) … —and the defence would be that it was an emergency. My noble friend Lord Avon said that in relation to birds he would consider this matter, and indeed we will do so with regard to this point as well. At the moment, I can only repeat that I fancy that should the occasion arise when my noble friend or any other person who had had a licence refused for normal circumstances suddenly found himself inundated, that in itself would constitute an emergency and he could take action.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I listened to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I can understand his concern, but I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said. I personally think that this is a very helpful and useful clarification. In fact, I think it begins to make Part I of the Bill acceptable to nature conservationists as opposed to being a major step backwards. I do not think it really changes the Government's intention, but what is going to happen is now clear in the Bill, rather than a reliance on the sort of assurances which nature conservationists frankly felt unable to accept. I very much hope that in the spirit of compromise and agreement this amendment will be acceptable to the House. Certainly from this side of the House we warmly welcome it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74 ZA:

Page 11, line 44, at end insert— ("(3A) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(d) as respects anything done in relation to bats otherwise than in a dwelling-house unless he had notified the Nature Conservancy Council of the operation and allowed them a reasonable time to advise him as to whether it should be carried out and, if so, the method to be used.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government have considered what provisions should be made in the Bill to take account of the point which came out so clearly at Committee stage that large numbers of bats rely on manmade structures for their roosts and many of these are killed unnecessarily as a result of maintenance and repair work on these structures. We were assured that expert advice, which is readily available, might prevent many of these deaths. The amendment accordingly provides that a person may not rely on the defence that his action in killing bats was the incidental result of a lawful operation, such as treating wood timbers, unless he had first consulted the NCC and given them an opportunity to provide advice. The amendment will not interfere with the maintenance of dwelling-houses because the Government do not think it right to restrain the freedom of householders in such matters. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.32 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74A:

Page 51, line 28, at end insert—

("Adder Vipera berus In respect of Clause 9(3) only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, throughout the Second Reading of this Bill and the earlier Committee stage I have consistently sought a degree of protection of an appropriate level for animal species other than birds that appear on Appendix 3 of the Berne Convention and are not already protected by other sections of the present Bill. I would remind your Lordships that Appendix 3 (that is to say, the protected fauna species) includes all birds other than the pest species; that is to say, the bird species that appear in the present Bill in Schedule 2, Part II. With these exceptions the two appendices of the Berne Convention cover all birds, and the United Kingdom legislation as proposed by this Bill therefore conforms. As far as reptiles and amphibians are concerned, at present the Bill offers no protection, and it is this that I seek.

In Committee I previously sought to provide the appropriate degree of protection by introducing a new clause, which was intended to follow Clause 9, and a new schedule which was to follow Schedule 5. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for the opportunity to discuss with him and his advisers this approach. He has written to me, after that discussion, a letter clearly laying out the opinion of the Government, which is that the orders by which variations may be applied to Schedule 5 need not necessarily embrace the full range of protective cover given by Clause 9. This is the important point. Such orders can be made in respect of particular provisions of the Bill; for example, an order could be restricted to the sale of the species but not the taking of that species in a particular area and during a particular time of the year. In fact, the orders can be finely tuned to meet the immediate need, and the Bill as drafted does permit, where appropriate, differing degrees of protection. I am very happy to accept that the Bill has been very expertly drafted and does in fact, without the addition of the new clause I sought, cater for the possibility of the degree of protection which is required.

In speaking to Amendment No. 74A I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 74B, 74E, 74F, 74G and 75A. With your Lordships' leave I should also like to take part only of Amendment No. 74D. At present that appears as an amendment containing two species. As I submitted it in writing to the Public Bill Office, each of those species appeared as a separate amendment. I wish to keep them separate, because different principles are involved. I wish to deal with Amendment No. 74D, the viviparous lizard, but not at this stage with Amendment No. 74D, the wall lizard.

The purpose of these amendments is to add all our native reptiles and amphibians—other than those three which are already given the full protection in Schedule 5—to the protected list, but only in respect of Clause 9(3), which is to say that trade in these species will be prohibited. That they are traded cannot be doubted. I have already mentioned in Committee the fact that the smooth newt, the water newt, the common frog, the common toad and the grass snake are traded in considerable numbers for the educational market. These are species which the British Herpetological Society informs me are already noted to be in decline either locally or at large in lowland Britain. The amendments will not, I suggest, prohibit the collection of tadpoles by small boys and will not prohibit "adder bashing" by the convinced adder bashers in your Lordships' House.

I would also stress that most, if not all, of our partners in the European Community have already enacted legislation that affords protection to the reptiles and amphibian species that appear in Appendix 3 of the convention and as regards which at present the United Kingdom lags behind. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that other European countries, including the German Democratic Republic, Switzerland and Hungary, also protect all species. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because we have been through a number of stages since the Committee stage when I moved, with my noble friend Lady David, an amendment to reverse list mammals, reptiles and amphibians. That did not receive a great deal of support around the Committee and I think that it was felt, certainly by the Government, to involve a great deal of rather complicated redrafting at this stage.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved an amendment which, in the absence of any support for reverse listing, I then supported. I gather that he has now had further discussions and feels that this amendment would meet the problem which he sees, and I certainly would agree with him. So we have, as it were, moved several steps since our initial debate. I very much hope that, because this does not introduce a new schedule and because it simply aims to require a licence for sale for a number of these things, it will be acceptable to the Government and will provide a measure of reassurance for those who are extremely worried about the abuse of the reptiles and amphibians which are listed in the amendment.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right: the amendment does not add another schedule to the Bill. But I am grateful to him and to my noble friend for drawing attention to the fact that it is quite permissible in appropriate cases to apply selectively the provisions affording protection to animals, and I can confirm that where advice is received to the effect that the course is the proper one, the Government will not hesitate to consider it favourably.

I am bound to tell my noble friend that I would find it difficult at the moment to accept his amendments which he has listed here, because the Government have not yet received the advice on the creatures which have been listed in these amendments, although I have now asked the Nature Conservancy Council to review the species which have been listed. I am advised, however, that this may take some time, and I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that on receipt of such advice the Government will take the appropriate action.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I point out that since the Committee stage we have had a number of cases where the Government agreed to take advice, and when the advice has come back they have not acted on it. Do I understand the noble Earl to say that, if the advice is that these species should be listed, the Government will definitely table an amendment to that effect?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my understanding is that it may take some time for the advice to be given, but when the advice is given—whether the Bill is in the process of going through Parliament or whether it has, in fact, been enacted—it is still possible to add these species to the list.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl did not quite meet my point. The worry is that the Government, having received the advice, will not act on it. The noble Earl very nearly said what I wanted him to say, but can he give us an assurance that the Government will actually make the changes which they are advised to make?—because at certain stages during the Report stage the Government have not accepted the advice that they have been given by the advisory committee. I hope that in this case they will do so.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, I was very careful in the words that I chose. Of course, the Government will act on the advice, but in the end the Government have to be the arbiter and the advice is only advice. I have no reason to suspect that the Government will not act on the advice which the Nature Conservancy Council gives them, but it is the Government who must, in the end, retain the right to act or not to act on the advice which they receive.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, if the Government intend to proceed in this direction, and if the Government—who are a signatory to the Berne Convention—do not intend to complete the requirements of the Berne Convention, exactly how will they then proceed to the ratification of the Berne Convention?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think that we are going down all sorts of hypothetical tracks. I have said to my noble friend that we have asked the Nature Conservancy Council for advice on the particular species that he has listed. When that advice is received, the Government will be in a position to act. We cannot act before receiving that advice.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 74B not moved.]

10.43 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74C:

Page 51, line 43, at end insert—

("Lizard, Green Lacerta viridis Channel Islands only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74C operates on a different principle. The green lizard is an endangered species throughout Europe and it is listed on Appendix 2 of the Berne Convention. All other Appendix 2 animals have been given full protection by the Bill which is before your Lordships. The green lizard occurs within the United Kingdom only in the Channel Islands. But, none the less, it is our duty, if the jurisdiction of the Bill extends to the Channel Islands, to protect this animal under Appendix 2 of the Berne Convention. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the same applies to this particular amendment; we asked for advice and we are waiting for it. Therefore, I would not be in a position to recommend to your Lordships that we accept this amendment until we have received that advice.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, may I confirm that, in fact, species that occur only in the Channel Islands are the proper province of this Bill?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the particular species to which the noble Lord refers applies in the Channel Islands, and does not, as I understand it, apply in this country.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, as I have not yet spoken, perhaps I could pursue this matter. I do not know whether the noble Earl can speak again, but at least we could put the point on the record and someone can write to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and myself before the Third Reading, so that we can consider whether or not to table the amendment again. We want to know whether the provisions of the Bill, which cover England, Scotland and Wales, also cover the Channel Islands. The noble Earl is shaking his head. It seems that the Bill does not cover the Channel Islands.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it does not.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I will find it easier to decide what to do with the benefit of that knowledge and I am grateful to the Minister.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with the leave of the House, might I make this clear, in case in the nodding of heads there might be confusion. The Bill does not apply to the Channel Islands.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 74D, 74E and 74F not moved.]

The Earl of Cranbrook had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74G:

Page 52, line 12, at end insert—

("Snake, Grass Natrix helvetica In respect of Clause 9(3) only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I only draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that as a demonstrator in a zoology class I have supervised the dissection of a large number of grass snakes, and the grass snake is an animal which is declining in its range in this country. It is a threatened animal. It is appropriately Appendix 2, and it requires this protection. With those words, I beg leave not to move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 74G not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 52, line 13, at end insert—

("Spider, Ladybird Eresus niger").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel sure that I shall be able to give my noble friend Lord Cranbrook a little pleasure here because recently the Nature Conservancy Council advised my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it was the Council's view that the spider, eresus niger, should be added to Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Creature and Wild Plants Act as its status as a British wild creature was in danger. I am advised that this spider was rediscovered only last year, and that prior to this the last authenticated sighting was in 1906. The population is extremely small, as your Lordships might well imagine, and specimens of this species would be highly prized by collectors. It is an obvious candidate for the protection which this Bill will afford, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]

The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 75B:

Page 52, line 15, at end insert—

("Vole, Orkney/Guernsey Microtis arvalis In respect of Clause 9(3) only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this because a different principle is involved. Given that the Guernsey population of this particular vole is outside the provisions of this Bill, none the less there remains the Orkney population. This is a particular animal of the Orkneys. The population is restricted to those islands within the United Kingdom. It is therefore at risk in so far as it is of limited extent and of very limited range. I propose that it should be in Clause 9 under subsection (3) only. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, may I say again to my noble friend that we shall certainly take his point and his observations into account, but I should prefer to suggest to your Lordships that we do not accept this amendment as it is until we have had the advice we seek.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 52, line 15, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to Amendment No. 58 which your Lordships approved earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77: Page 12, line 8, after ("aforesaid") insert ("any bow or crossbow").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I might speak to Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 as they are linked together. I need say little to them for my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke during the Committee stage about the use of bows and crossbows against wild animals. I believe it was the opinion of your Lordships that their use should not normally be permitted. In the wrong hands, they can be dangerous instruments and a menace to wildlife. The effect of Amendment No. 77 will be to make it illegal to use a bow or a crossbow for the purpose of killing or taking any wild animal unless a licence has been obtained for one of the purposes covered in Clause 15(2). Amendment No. 80 is a consequential amendment removing the bow or crossbow from the list of methods which were not to be employed against any Schedule 6 mammal. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

I welcome the amendment, my Lords, and thank the Government for tabling it.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.50 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 78: Page 12, line 9, after ("firearm") insert ("except that in England and Wales this paragraph shall apply as if the words" self-locking" were omitted").

The noble Lord said: This is not a frivolous amendment, my Lords, nor is it a re-run of the debate we had in Committee on this subject. I would say at the outset that I am reconciled to the fact that in some respects Scotland is a backward country, and that is why I propose to leave Scotland out of this amendment. They have been left out before. They were left out of the banning of the gin trap in England and Wales. It took backward Scotland 10 years to follow suit and get rid of that cruel trapping device which, in the more civilised England and Wales, we got rid of a decade before the Scots felt justified in doing so. And as long ago as 1911, when the English introduced the Protection of Animals Act, Scotland lagged behind even then and did not get their corresponding legislation until a year later. Having looked at the debate in Committee, and having looked at the Division List, I thought it was both seemly and desirable from my point of view to exile the Scots from this debate. There are evil elements in Scotland which go back into the dark ages of the history of that country, so I appeal to the more civilised elements in England and Wales on the question of the snare.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is not everything the noble Lord is saying calculated to encourage Scottish Peers to take part in this debate?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am afraid I did not hear that intervention. It is rather late at night to lay my snares, but I have a full collection of snares with me. I know it is not customary in your Lordships' House to have visual aids in the course of our debates, and I do not intend to bore the more sophisticated countrymen in the Chamber tonight by illustrating my full exhibition of snares. However, it is important that we know what we are talking about, and the extraordinary thing is that throughout the debate in Committee we had no explanation of what was the difference between a snare and a self-locking snare; how the police, the public and anybody else was to distinguish between the two, and what the purpose was of banning the self-locking snare and not the ordinary snare.

That brings me to a point I have frequently mentioned in connection with our proceedings. A Bill is printed; there are brief explanatory notes printed at the beginning of it; in Committee nobody explains what a particular clause intends to do; we go straight into the amendments assuming that everybody knows what the clause is expected to do, and the debate on the clause stand part is really the only occasion when the main purpose of the clause can be explained.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not tell us anything about the snare or the self-locking snare; nor did he tell us why it was proposed to ban the self-locking snare and not the other snare; and I think that it is important to know. Recently a friend of mine in Chard, Somerset, has been collecting snares of different kinds and sending them in bulk to the Department of the Environment, with a strong plea that snares being laid in the numbers in which they are being laid in some parts of the country are a threat to the conservation of our wildlife. In one small woodland he collected 70 snares, all tethered to barbed wire fences. Those snares went to the Department of the Environment, and in due course they were all sent back to him through the Bristol office. It was explained to my friend that the House of Lords, in its wisdom, had decided on the Committee stage of the Bill not to adopt an amendment to make the snare unlawful. What the letter did not do—

Lord Burton

My Lords, had the noble Lord's friend any permission to remove the snares?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

—was to distinguish between the self-locking snares and the ordinary snares in the parcel. The Department of the Environment did not tell the man that half the snares he had sent in would be unlawful, anyway. That was because they were self-locking snares and Clause 11 of the Bill would make them unlawful. What I have just stated suggests that the Department of the Environment did not know the difference between self-locking snares and other snares; nor for that matter did the local police. That raises very important questions as to what is the purpose of banning the self-locking snare but not the other snare, and how will the difference between the two interfere with the proper enforcement of the law?

We all know what an ordinary snare is. It consists of a simple loop. Many of them are made at home, but those that are made in factories are more finished articles than are the others. A self-locking snare has a device which prevents the snare from becoming loose once it has become tight; so the tighter it becomes, the tighter it stays. No matter what the animal does, the self-lock on the snare is never relaxed.

In some ways a self-locking snare may despatch an animal more quickly than would an ordinary snare, because the ordinary snare will relax when the animal, tired or unconscious, also relaxes, but when it recovers, or begins to struggle again, the snare will tighten afresh. That accounts in some cases for the horrible things that happen when an animal is caught in that type of snare. It struggles, it gets further out of the snare when it relaxes. The snare draws tight as the animal struggles to escape, and the snare wire is found round the animal's body. Horrible things happen to an animal in an ordinary snare when the wire begins to cut the belly. So from the point of view of cruelty it could be argued that the self-locking snare is less cruel than the ordinary snare, because once the self-locking snare is drawn tight, the animal never gets the chance of a looser snare from which to escape.

It is of course possible to distinguish between an ordinary snare, which does not have a device of the kind that I have described, and a self-locking snare, which has such a device. There is no difficulty in identifying the self-locking snare as distinct from the ordinary snare. But there is a snare which is both a self-locking snare and an ordinary snare, according to which hole the wire is put through; and this snare that I hold in my hand can be either a loose, flexible snare if the wire goes through one hole or it can be a self-locking snare if the wire is put through another hole. Is that a self-locking snare or is it a dual-purpose snare? Will this snare be banned under Clause 11 as a self-locking snare, or will it be exempted from proceedings if it has been put on the animal as an ordinary snare? Who is to tell the difference between the two unless this type of snare of itself is to be regarded as unlawful because it can be turned into a self-locking snare? I do not know what the answer to that is, but I think it is desirable to know the answer.

When we do know the answer, my Lords, then I think we are entitled to ask the Minister: What are you trying to do? Is this a conservation proposal, or is it an anti-cruelty proposal? The answer to that question, I think, will depend on how well informed the Minister may be on what use is made of the self-locking snare at the present time. The self-locking snare is used almost wholly by those engaged in the pelt business; and I have a letter here from the secretary of the Gamekeepers' Committee of WAGBI, who says that the self-locking snare is used by those catering exclusively for the pelt trade. So it may be that the banning of the self-locking snare is a discouragement to the pelt trade, and a discouragement to the pelt trade is a conservation purpose. If, however, it has some other object in Clause 11, I think it ought to be explained by the Minister what that is.

I believe that conservation of the fox is becoming a matter of some urgency at the present time in view of the substantial increase in the export of fox pelts and their use for female adornment, mostly, I am bound to say. They have a very good market and a very good price. There are advertisements in newspapers throughout the South-West of England saying, "Best prices paid for fox pelts", and it is quite clear that the fox pelt business is now a flourishing one and at the present time is expanding. Against that background I think that further elucidation is called for and further justification of the Government's approach to this clause is desirable.

I think that the question is so doubtful as to which way the argument is going that it is very difficult, if I may say so, for the House to come to a firm conclusion on the proposal before it at the present time. I do not think that this matter, so far as this House is concerned, has been fully investigated; and whatever may have been the reasons behind this proposal in the Bill itself, they have not been fully deployed either in your Lordships' Committee or in the House. That is why I feel that this is a very important matter that ought to receive more consideration than it has already received. I may say, adverting to Scotland for another moment, that I have consulted the welfare societies in Scotland and they are reluctantly willing to agree, for their part, not to make any fuss about dealing with this matter for the time being, at any rate, as one which relates to England and Wales only, and not to Scotland. There is much else that could be said. This is a very inconvenient time of the night to be saying it. I apologise to your Lordships for detaining you even as long as this. I cannot help it if important matters on this Bill come up late at night. They are as important at 11 o'clock at night as they are at 6 o'clock in the evening; and they are entitled to as much consideration by the House whatever the hour at which the matter may be discussed.

As I say, there are strong reasons, I believe, for ridding our countryside of this increasing method of taking foxes particularly, badgers by accident or (one never knows whether by accident or not) cats and dogs, we hope by accident, in snares which are laid principally for the pelt trade. In all the circumstances, we are entitled to a full explanation from the Government as to what is the purpose of the clause and how they propose to deal with the point I have raised. Many of your Lordships will have received through the post a report which appeared in the New Scientist on 1st January 1981 about foxes and what is happening to them and—a matter which should interest some of your Lordships—the fall, apparently, in the number of foxes being taken by hunting activities throughout the country. I do not pretend to know any more than the statistics given here, but it seems as if even hunting itself is threatened not by the activities of the hunt saboteurs, and still less perhaps from an Act of Parliament, but by the dearth of foxes to hunt. And that may become the eventual end of this process of erosion of the fox population.

It seems very odd—and I come to my conclusion—that we have been treating the only wild dog in Britain so badly over the years. We regard it as a pest. The word "vermin" is often used in this connection. But how strange it is that we attribute to human beings some of the qualities and some of the defects of the animal kingdom. Call a man a sly old fox and he will not feel particularly annoyed; but call his wife a vixen and she will feel insulted. One can give other examples of how the legendary attributes of animals are fixed upon human beings to portray the evil in mankind. This is an attitude that, it seems to me, we really have to get rid of in our approach to the animal kingdom, not only here but throughout the world.

I can see the Chief Whip is getting really agitated. He is not smiling and he is feeling that I have occupied enough of the time of the House. He is nodding his head to that, and other noble Lords approve. But, if your Lordships provoke me, I may have to go on until somebody takes advantage of the Standing Order which requires me to sit down. I am sure that that would be most inappropriate on this occasion, on this subject, at this hour of night. However, in deference to your Lordships' wishes I will not detain you any longer; but I think seriously that I have put before the House considerations of some importance in connection with this amendment. I beg to move.

11.10 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that one would not take offence if one was called a sly old fox. If I might say so with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, he is a sly old fox. Here he puts down an amendment, and first of all he said he looked at the previous debate and found everyone was against it. He looked at the Division List and found they were all Scotsmen, and so he put down an amendment which relates only to England and Wales to keep out the Scotsmen. So he realises in effect that the whole argument deployed at the Committee stage will be deployed with equal force in the Report stage and for the same purpose. He said that he wanted to know what the Government's purpose was in this Bill. I shall tell the noble Lord what the Government's purpose is: use of the snare should be continued for the purposes of catching such animals as it is necessary to catch because in some cases it happens to be the most effective weapon.

The object of the Bill as it is so directed is to stop the use of the self-locking snare. The noble Lord said that he had a whole series of snares. I have a whole collection of snares, too, because I prepared myself for this. I expect my collection is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But he brought his along to the Chamber and I left my sack of them behind. But I will tell him this: if a snare purports to be both a free-running and a self-locking snare, that would be considered illegal because it would be potentially a self-locking snare and that would be considered cruel. It he asks why we ban the self-locking snare, the answer is the very reason that he gave himself: the snare is designed to get tighter and tighter and the animal cannot get away from it.

As he knows, there are plenty of snares that can be used which can catch an animal without necessarily killing it. I do not like snares but I can only reiterate what I said at the Committee stage, that the snare is widely used and is a necessary tool of the trade for farmers, forestry workers and others.

I should tell your Lordships that informal soundings of suppliers which have been carried out by my department suggest that between 100,000 and 200,000 snares are bought each year. A much larger number are almost certainly made at home. Clearly, there is a demand for the snare. A licensing requirement in relation to use on this scale would be impossible to police. My fear is that, even if your Lordships were to accept this amendment, it would be impossible to police it.

If we were to attempt to enforce an amendment such as this, it would have extremely dire consequences. A much wider misuse would be made of poison and I would deplore this. I do not doubt that that is what would happen. I do not wish to be negative about this issue but my department has done research for some 25 years to find an alternative. If a suitable alternative could be found or had been found, would be in favour of using it and I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But a suitable alternative has not yet been found.

I can tell the noble Lord that trials are being carried out on what is called a foothold trap which could conceivably replace the snare. These trials look promising. To describe it as a trap is a misnomer because the device is, I gather, a spring-activated snare. It is in part a metal bracelet and only part wire. It does not cut into the limb of the animal. All the foxes which have been caught by researchers using this particular snare have been caught alive and apparently unharmed.

It might be described—and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might even remember Frank Sinatra using the expression—as the tender trap. We are looking into this and if it proves to be successful, maybe it will replace the snare. I would remind him, as he reminded the House, that it took some time to get the gin trap banned. It was eventually banned when an alternative became available. I hope the noble Lord will realise that, even though I cannot accept the amendment and cannot advise your Lordships' House to accept it, nevertheless that does not mean to say that I am unsympathetic to the noble Lord's desire to see this particular tool replaced by another when a suitable one can be found.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Earl said about this new combination between a snare and a trap. As he said, we had a debate on this at Committee stage. In putting my name to this amendment, I was quite seriously trying to take account of the objections raised by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who pointed out that she thought this would cause great difficulties in Scotland. My feeling was that it might be more acceptable to have the amendment which is now down, particularly as I stressed at Committee stage that licensing procedures would be available to meet the serious problems people foresaw in upland areas in Yorkshire, as a number of noble Lords opposite mentioned, and in Wales.

During our discussions on this there have been times when I thought the noble Lord the Chief Whip might have been getting a crick in his neck, and if we have done anything to restore his head to face in the right direction, that would be a help. But I think it is a little unfair, when we on this side of the House have done so much to keep things going quickly and to keep our remarks short—which is not the normal practice for an Opposition, particularly in your Lordships' House, where our only recourse is to delay the passage of Government legislation we do not approve of. As yet, we do not approve of this legislation, and I hope that was made clear by various things we said at Committee stage. But we have not adopted that tactic, easy as it would have been for us on this Bill; and I think for us to have had one debate which has gone on for about half-an-hour on an amendment we see as particularly important is not excessive. I must say that I, with my noble friends, would start to get a little bit cross and no doubt speak at rather greater length than I have up to now if noble Lords opposite see fit to make noises and faces at us, when we have not—for example, on the first amendment after the dinner break—made any noises or objections to any long debates we did not take part in. So I hope there will be a little equality of treatment in the House; if there is not, I am afraid we shall take a lot longer than—

Lord Denham

My Lords, if I have been making faces at the noble Lord I can only apologise. I do not think I made any noises.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for not making any noises to me. I am sure that would have a far more disastrous effect than a self-locking snare has ever had on anybody. I do not want to repeat what I said on Committee stage. We have had a good go at this and I feel—I do not know what my noble friend thinks—that in view of the really rather sympathetic reply by the noble Earl it might be best to leave the matter there. There will be a provision to add prohibited methods to the Bill as well as to take them off, and I hope this research will be given a high degree of priority. If it is not, it seems to me that snaring will be banned whether or not there is an acceptable alternative. It is a disastrously cruel method of killing indiscriminately. That is the main objection to it, at least in my mind—not that it is used to kill foxes but that whatever it kills it kills very cruelly, and also nobody setting a snare can know what kind of animal they will catch—a fox, a badger, a domestic cat, a dog, or in the few areas where they still occur, an otter. Most of the animals the snare was not intended to catch will be caught cruelly and will suffer a long and lingering death. It is a vicious thing and is bound to be banned sooner or later. If MAFF are giving high priority to finding an alternative, I think that is a wise course of action for them to take.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said and I will not labour that point. I was not persuaded by the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It is still a little doubtful as to what is the real purpose of this change of banning the self-locking snare and retaining the other. However, I think the noble Earl underestimates the concern throughout the country about the extent of this cruelty. I believe that time will show that public opinion wishes this change to be made from the use of an extremely cruel form of catching animals. The fact that there may be a demand for something does not mean to say that we have to meet that demand. There is a demand for guns; there is a demand for daggers. There can be a demand for all kinds of vicious things, if they are supplied. But we do not regard it as the duty of Parliament, or of society, to yield up to all sections of the community which may make demands for particular devices or implements or weapons. We have our own standards and we want to try to keep them.

However, I shall consult on this when I see the Minister's reply in the Official Report and see whether there is enough encouragement for us to leave the matter alone for the remainder of this Bill, or whether we should make ourselves a nuisance and even want to come back to it again at a later stage in our proceedings. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.21 p.m.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79: Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("whatever") to end of line 12.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for not pressing the last amendment, and this one is in response to a plea which he made at the Committee stage with my noble friend Lord Craigton. It has the effect of making it an offence to use any live mammal as a decoy for the purpose of killing or taking any other wild mammal. Your Lordships will recall that we were not able to establish, when we discussed the subject during the Committee stage, whether, indeed, live mammals were used as decoys to take or kill other wild mammals. I believe that is still the case, but your Lordships were generally of the opinion that if such a means were practical it was reprehensible. Accordingly, the Government have tabled this amendment to meet what seems to be the general wish of your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, I should like to register my thanks to my noble friend for moving this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Segal)

My Lords, I have to point out to the House that if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 or 82.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 80: Page 12, leave out line 28.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 77, which was agreed to earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 84: Page 12, line 37, leave out ("tape") and insert ("sound").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandys spoke to this amendment when moving an identical one to Clause 5. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

11.25 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 86: Page 12, line 38, after ("vehicle") insert ("or a pack of hounds").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86, to insert "or a pack of hounds" after "vehicle" on page 12, line 38. Subsection (2) of Clause 11 relates wholly to animals in Schedule 6. Your Lordships will notice that what is banned in paragraph (e) is the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle in immediate pursuit of any such wild animal for the purpose of driving, killing or taking that mammal". To do that a person would be guilty of an offence.

If noble Lords will look at Schedule 6, they will wonder which animals in that schedule might be pursued by a vehicle. It would not be the dormouse, or the hedgehog, or the red squirrel. In fact, most of the animals in Schedule 6 one would not think of chasing in a vehicle. But there is one animal there which could be chased by a pack of hounds, and that is the otter. The hunting of the otter has not been made unlawful either in England and Wales or in Scotland. In fact, until now the otter has not been a protected animal in Scotland, only in England and Wales. But when the protection was put on the otter in England and Wales it was protection against killing or taking and not against hunting.

I do not know how many otter packs remain in England and Wales—probably very few because, although they may hunt, they may not kill. Some packs have found some enjoyment from going about an otter hunt as if they were going to kill; but when an otter is put up, if they find one, they call off the dogs and the otter is not killed or taken. If they do that it is not an offence. But your Lordships know as well as I that for hounds to go chasing otters along the river banks, putting them up and running after them, can have a very adverse effect upon the peace of mind of the otter, its habitat and its way of life, even though the dogs are called off. Therefore I think the time has come to ban altogether the hunting of the otter.

Now that we have the otter protected in Scotland under the Bill and already protected in England and Wales, surely this is the proper time to say that there can be no further hunting of otters with hounds. Whatever the pretext may be of going after the otter without killing it, that practice should be abandoned. Some people who are still looking for otters will, if they are accosted, say that they are looking for mink or for other animals which may still be at large in our waterways and nearby.

This is a very reasonable proposition. There is great public sympathy for the otter which is not so well protected as people think it is. In Scotland, where it was thought that the protection of the otter was not really necessary on conservation grounds at the time that protection was introduced in England and Wales, there are now grave misgivings indeed about the otter population.

May I direct your Lordships' attention to the Evening News, presumably the Edinburgh Evening News of Saturday, 28th February, 1981: A view from the edge of extinction". This is a reference to otters in Scotland. If this is the parlous position of otters in Scotland, it is time to do more than protect the otter on the same basis as it has been protected in England and Wales and to ban the hunting of the otter throughout the whole of the British Isles. I think this is a reasonable proposition. It is surely not going to be in the heads of your Lordships to go into the Lobby to maintain the right to hunt the otter, although not the right in England and Wales, at the moment, to kill it. Surely that is a phantom kind of hunting that should be done away with, and if we are serious about our conservation of the otter we will give it the fullest protection we possibly can. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I hope this amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships. It seems to me to be no more than a clarification of what I think almost everyone assumes is already the law in England and Wales, and will be the law in Scotland once the Bill becomes an Act. As my noble friend has said, although I think some Members of your Lordships' House may have thought that he wished to go further, in fact all the amendment seeks to do is to prevent the hunting by hounds of the mammals listed in Schedule 6; and while we could have some fun speculating on which of those would be most unsuitable to be hunted by hounds—a porpoise or a bat, for instance—in fact we are really talking about otters and possibly the setting of dogs on badgers, although I think that would be an offence under the Badgers Act.

A number of packs of otter hounds—certainly the one in East Anglia—continue to hunt mink and that, of course, would not be affected by my noble friend's amendment, so long as that is what they were hunting. It would be an offence to hunt otter, even if they intended to call the hounds off before a kill was made. I think one of the main reasons for including the otter in this schedule in England and Wales, and in Scotland, apart from recognising the very serious decline that there has been in otter numbers, was also to try to provide some measure of protection against disturbance. This is particularly important when numbers are very low, because the chasing of a female when she has cubs or is about to give birth, even if it is for a very short distance and with no intention of actually killing the otter, may well be sufficient to prevent the breeding or to leave the cubs alone long enough for them to die. As noble Lords will know, otters are liable to give birth at any time of the year, so it is not possible to restrict hunting to the seasons when they are not cubbing. Where the population gets very low and very scattered, it is important that even a minor occurrence like the chasing by hounds for even a few hundred yards should be avoided, because that might be enough to decimate the young over quite a large area. Everyone assumes that it is no longer legal to chase otters with packs of hounds, but this would be a useful clarification and I hope it will be accepted.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I can understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has tabled this amendment. My understanding is that it is an offence to disturb an otter in its holt, but I really could not advise your Lordships to accept this amendment because in fact it is not a conservation amendment, it is an amendment against hunting—

Several noble Lords: Oh!

Earl Ferrers

It is, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head, but he has been arguing for the last five minutes that it should be wrong to hunt otters, and all I am saying is that this is not the correct place for that kind of amendment.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Earl has already made it clear that it is illegal to disturb otters in their holts and there is no way in which you can hunt otters without running the risk of doing that. It is already illegal and all the amendment does is to make the point clear.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, if it is already illegal there is no point in putting it in the Bill, and I think it is quite inappropriate to put in this Bill measures to outlaw field sports of any kind.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, if I may say so with great respect, I think that is a piece of humbug. We are conserving the otter; this is what it is all about. What is the point in saying we are conserving the otter if we still allow the hunting of the otter with hounds, but stop the hunt from killing the otter? What is that kind of charade for? Is this called field sports? Is it a sport to go hunting the otter but not be allowed to kill it, after centuries of the otter being allowed to be hunted and killed? I do not understand how the noble Earl's mind works on this subject. If we want to conserve the otter we must protect it in every possible way. One of the ways of conserving it is to prevent it from being disturbed, prevent it from being chased away from its habitat, from its young, whatever may be the condition of the otter when it is chased by hounds and when it is in danger of its life the hounds are called off. Is that a sport or is it conservation, or what is it? Surely we cannot keep up the pretence that we are hunting when the conservation of the otter prevents us from killing it. I cannot see how the noble Earl can rationalise the speech he has just made.

Earl Peel

My Lords, if I may intervene to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in fact a great deal of pleasure is derived in the simple use of hound work. More often than not in the case of fox hunting, when the fox escapes the hounds have been working and people have had the opportunity of watching them have a good chase, and this gives them more pleasure than the killing of the animal itself.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 88: Page 12, line 44, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is in effect a drafting amendment, and it is parallel to Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 89: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970

. After sub-paragraph (iii) of section 10(1)(c) (power to grant licences) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph— (iv) the protection of the flora or fauna of a nature reserve within the meaning of Part III of the 1949 Act or an area of special scientific interest of which notification has been given to any local planning authority under section 23 of the 1949 Act or which is designated by order under section 26 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke at some length to this amendment at Committee stage and I have no intention of repeating anything I said then if I can possibly help it. I withdrew it because it had only been down a very few days before it came before your Lordships, but I want to push it a little bit tonight. I think I should remind your Lordships that the purpose is to prevent erosion of the soil by grey seals breeding on the Fame Islands off Northumberland. I think many of your Lordships will have had a long letter from the National Trust, the owners of these islands, which sets it all out in some detail. There has been support from the NCC for an amendment in these terms. It has nothing to do with fisheries or the protection of fisheries, and I hope we can keep right away from the subject of what may happen to seals in Canada at this time, because this is nothing to do with that, either. We have understood over and over again that this is a conservation Bill—though conversation seems to be equally appropriate—and this amendment is a conservation amendment for the benefit of the habitat in the islands where these rare birds breed, and that is what it is all about.

There is a fear that, if we open up the whole question of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, goodness knows what might fly in or out of the door! I believe this amendment not only is so urgent that it should be taken as it stands, but should other amendments try to follow it through the door they can be treated on their merits, too. One argument was that if the Home Office has in the past given licences to cull seals in various numbers on these islands, why cannot they go on doing so? The answer is, I understand, that they would not be able to do so as the situation now is without an amendment of this kind to the 1970 Act. That is all that I shall say about it tonight.

I have reason to believe that the walls of Jericho, if not at least falling, may be crumbling slightly and that the debate may be better taken part in on Amendment No. 92ZA—the new schedule—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I understand that Part II of that schedule does what I am trying to do, but probably does it a great deal better. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, in order to be clear, because the amendment is in my name, I should point out that Amendment No. 91A and Amendment No. 92ZA, on which I have received some very considerable drafting help from the Government for which I am very grateful, do, in fact, encompass the noble Viscount's intention and my intentions on the Badgers Act and my noble friend's intentions on the Deer Act. Certainly speaking for my noble friend and myself, I think that we are entirely happy with the drafting in Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA. If the noble Viscount is happy and we have an assurance that the Government are at least not going to object strenuously to Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA, then I think that we could short circuit a great deal of discussion simply by leaving all the individual amendments and moving Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA when we come to them. That will cover what the three of us want simply and quickly.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am not quite certain what my noble friend meant when he said that the walls of Jericho were falling, but if he meant that the Government were being accommodating, he was entirely correct. The points which he seeks to make in Amendment No. 89 and which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, seeks to make in Amendment No. 91 are, in fact, all encapsulated in Lord Melchett's amendments, Nos. 92ZA and 91A. If the noble Lords were content not to move their amendments, I would be happy to accept Lord Melchett's amendments.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, at this stage I should like to say a word about the noble Viscount's amendment, because I think that it is a very important amendment in principle. It is the dilemma of conservation that very often one conserves one species, one type of living creature, and that in turn destroys another.

The whole point of conservation is to try to keep a balance so that one species does not erode the habitat or the food supply or predate too heavily upon another. I think that we must congratulate the noble Viscount on having pressed this point, because if the walls of Jericho had not cracked, as they have done, I would have hoped that many of us would have followed him through the lobby on this particular issue, because I think that the National Trust is just trying to do the proper duty which has been assigned to it in looking after the islands which have been put in its charge.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]

11.43 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 91 A: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

("Protection of certain mammals

. The Deer Act 1963, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Badgers Act 1973 shall have effect subject to the amendments provided for by Schedule (Amendments of the 1963, 1970 and 1973 Acts); and in that Schedule "the 1963 Act" means the said Act of 1973, "the 1970 Act" means the said Act of 1970 and "the 1973 Act" means the said Act of 1973".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the introductory amendment to Amendment No. 92ZA which is the new schedule after Schedule 6 which lists the amendments, first, in Part I to the Deer Act; secondly, in Part II to the Seals Act (which covers the points which the noble Viscount wished to raise, so I am advised); and in Part III the amendments that I wanted to make to the Badgers Act and which we discussed in Committee.

I should like to make three points. First, I am extremely grateful for the co-operation of the Government on this and, as I say, for the help they have given me in drafting. I could not possibly have drafted all this myself and would not pretend that I had done so. Secondly, I hope that when the Government do take a very reasonable and responsible attitude, we shall not talk of it in terms of walls crumbling.

For my part, on the Badgers Act I took my lead from what the Minister of State, Mr. Monro, had said in a debate in another place last year, when I thought that he made some extremely encouraging and helpful remarks about the need to amend the Badgers Act. Therefore, I do not entirely claim the credit for the changes that have been made; I think that the Government have taken a very reasonable and enlightened attitude towards the changes that have been proposed for the Badgers Act, for which I am extremely grateful to them.

I should like to say a few words, so that the matter is on the record, about the changes in the Badgers Act, because these are very important and significant changes in a major Act of Parliament. The effect of the changes will be to get rid of the concept of special protection areas and leave badgers protected throughout the country, unless someone has a licence to kill them—as, for example, MAFF officials have in the gassing operations that they are conducting in the South-West of England. Someone would be able to obtain a licence (if they really needed it) in order to prevent badgers doing some sort of damage, or, of course, licences would be obtainable if badgers were spreading disease in any other part of the country. I reiterate that they are not at the moment; there is no cause to suspect them of doing so, and the MAFF are dealing with the problem in the only area of the country where it is known to exist.

The second exception to that is included in the new Section 7 of Amendment No. 92ZA, which is to be found on page 22 of the Marshalled List, where we have followed the wording which we have now inserted in the Bill as applying to protected mammals. In other words, someone has to show that his action was necessary and if he is able to show that and the points are met in the new paragraph (1B) on page 22 of the Marshalled List, then he has a defence in court if he wants it.

However, I hope that the message will go out from your Lordships' House and from the Government once the Bill is passed that badgers are now fully protected, but if people think that a badger is causing any damage or is likely to, they should apply for a licence; otherwise these harmless and, indeed, very helpful creatures should be left unpersecuted in the countryside. I beg to move.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Government for their help in drafting the part that deals with deer. I should also like to thank noble Lords on the other side of the House who were present during the Committee stage and who were so strong in their support for the various measures to complete the work of the original Deer Bill, which has been through the House so many times, that they finally persuaded the Government to give way and allow that remaining part of the Bill to be incorporated into this Bill. I am very grateful indeed to everyone who has helped in this way.

I should point out that there are two small errors in printing. In Amendment No. 91A at line 6 "1973" should read "1963"; and at the top of page 19 of the Marshalled List at line 4 the word "that" should be "than". I trust that those corrections will be made when the amendments are, as I hope, finally written into the Bill.

As for the part dealing with deer, may I simply say that the reason why the amendment is put in this form—as a schedule instead of as drafted in my original Amendment No. 91, which was the one that I moved in Committee—is that, as I understand it, the Government were advised by counsel and parliamentary draftsmen that this was the proper way to do what we had been doing in a more amateurish way in an effort to get our message across.

So, in effect, it is exactly the same text as Amendment No. 91, but set out in a different way according to the requirements of legislation. It does what I said it would do at Committee stage: it only refers to England and Wales; it redefines the type of shot which can be used in a shotgun. It defines the circumstances in which that shot can be used and by whom it can be used. It legalises the use of a shortened shotgun as a slaughtering instrument. It provides for mercy killing and it allows the Minister, in agreement with the Minister of Agriculture and, as we have settled on earlier occasions, with the National Farmers' Union as appropriate, to vary the types of weapon and shot by area or by species as proves desirable so long as there is prior consultation with interests like the farming community and so long as the procedure is finally by affirmative order in both Houses.

Lastly, there is some amendment to the exemptions from prohibition in the 1963 Act from shooting out of season. That represents, without any undue repetition, a word of thanks to the Government for finally being convinced—and, I hope, a short explanation to the House of what is in fact a complicated amendment which completes what we have been trying to do for many years in this House; that is, to get a reformed 1963 Deer Act relating to England and Wales.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I think it would be churlish of me, having taken such an active "anti-part" in this Bill, not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for getting this through. If I took a part, he would accuse me in the words of this Bill of causing, or about to cause, damage to his Bill—and he would therefore be entitled to shoot me with any smooth bore gun, with, I hope, a single projectile weighing not less than 22.68 grammes! I congratulate him indeed for getting this through.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, may I thank the Government for taking the actions on the 1970 Seals Act. I am very grateful, and I am sorry if I unintentionally gave any other impression.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks which noble Lords have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, knows, when this particular amendment came up at Committee stage I was not particularly disposed to accept it for the reasons which I gave then. Your Lordships' views were clearly made at Committee stage and the Government sought to be as helpful as possible and to take those views into account. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is nice when one thinks of that as being accommodating as opposed to the walls of Jericho falling. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for pointing out that badgers are now fully protected around the countryside other than on the occasions when it is necessary to gas them from the point of view of tuberculosis protection.

I should like to make three matters clear. First, the amendment relating to deer applies only to England and Wales, and is without prejudice to conditions in Scotland. Secondly, as some aspects of the amendment relating to deer give rise to concern—for instance, the ban on night shooting of deer caused apprehension in some quarters—for their own part the Government are not entirely happy that further restrictions should be put on the use of firearms by a measure of this kind; but we appreciate the humane intentions behind the amendment and we recognise that it commands widespread support in your Lordships' House. Thirdly, I must stress in regard to the conservation of seals that this is as far as the Government are prepared to go in the context of this Bill.

Lord Gibson

My Lords, may I be allowed to express not only my own gratitude but also that of the National Trust for the Government's understanding of our problems in the Farne Islands. Their acceptance of this amendment will make our task so much easier.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that these amendments, large and important ones, represent a significant improvement in the Bill. I think the fact that they are the result of a great deal of all-party co-operation both on the Back-Benches and the Front Benches is something to be welcomed. We will, in this respect, have left Part I, as well as in a number of other important respects today, a great deal better for the time we have taken on it. I am delighted that this is going through as smoothly as it is.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Mammals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods]:

11.55 p.m.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 92:

Page 52, line 37, at end insert— ("NOTE. The first column in this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account".).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 92ZA: After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:

("AMENDMENTS OF THE 1963, 1970 AND 1973 ACTS

Forward to