HL Deb 10 March 1981 vol 418 cc108-69

3 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Denham

My Lords, before we begin proceedings on Report, I think that I should express the thanks of the House to all those who were concerned with the production of today's revised Marshalled List of amendments. Very late last night it seemed impossible that an even barely acceptable form of list could be produced in time and yet at nine o'clock this morning it appeared properly printed and in its normal form. That really was a splendid effort.

It might also be convenient if I say that it is very much the Government's wish to complete Part I of the Bill today. As your Lordships will know, many of the points which are to be debated today were considered in some detail in Committee. I feel that it would be generally welcome if noble Lords could keep their interventions as short as possible and that we can conclude discussion of individual amendments as expeditiously as possible and, if necessary, then come to a decision. I think that this would be both to the greater advantage of the Bill and also very much in accordance with the traditions of this House.

Clause 1 [Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 12, after ("use") insert ("or being built").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and with this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 17. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested on the first day of Committee on the Bill on 27th January that it would be proper to give protection to the nest of a wild bird not only while it is in use, but also while it is being built. We agree with that suggestion and these amendments will achieve that end. I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)

My Lords, the next amendment is No. 2. I believe that if Amendment No. 2 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("control") to end of line 5 and insert— ("(a) any wild bird or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or (b) an egg of a wild bird or any part of such an egg, then, unless he shows that the bird or egg was killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part or any order made under it or, in the case of a bird, of the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 or any order made under").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment seeks to make three changes. First, Clause 1(2) introduces a prohibition on the keeping of eggs taken illegally as well as continuing the existing prohibition on possession or control of illegally taken or killed wild birds. It now seems that the effect of Clause 1(2) as at present drafted is to make it retrospectively illegal to possess illegally taken eggs. That was not intended, required or desirable. The amendment corrects the situation and accords with our obligation under the birds directive.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested in Committee that Clause 1(2) made mention of blown eggs in addition to eggs. The Government accept that point. However, as a blown egg is part of an egg we have included the words, "part of … an egg" only. Amendment No. 33 will amend Clause 6(2) to accord with this amendment to Clause 1(2). Finally, we have included parts and derivatives of birds to chime in with Clause 6(2). I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking up the small point which I raised in Committee. Your Lordships will notice that I have down Amendment No. 3 which will not be called if this amendment is agreed to. It will be seen that there I propose to insert the words, "or nest" after "bird" so that the possession of a nest will also be an offence. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl that Amendment No. 2 should be amended before the next stage so that a nest is included there as well as a bird and an egg.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

3.5 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 9 and insert— ("(a) a bird included in Schedule 1 or any part of, or anything derived from such a bird; (b) the nest of such a bird; or (c) an egg of such a bird or any part of such an egg").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about his amendment, perhaps we could speak about it, as I have another solution to propose to him. The effect of this amendment is to include parts and derivatives of Schedule 1 birds and also parts of their eggs. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 14, after second ("is") insert ("in").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendment No. 18 at the same time. We all enjoyed my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard's dissertation in Committee on the difficulty of being on a flat surface. The amendment seeks to provide that a Schedule 1 bird receives protection from disturbance, irrespective of what position it chooses to adopt towards its nest. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 17 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who suggested a similar amendment to this one in Committee. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 at the same time. These amendments will ensure that the young which leave the nest very shortly after being born and consequently may not be found in or near a nest, receive the same protection against disturbance as those young which remain in the nest until they are able to fly. I am advised that the term "dependent" does not create difficulties of legal interpretation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.8 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 6A:

Page 2, line 18, at end insert— ("( )(a) If any person shoots any wild bird between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, he shall be guilty of an offence. (b) This subsection shall not apply to the shooting of any bird included in Part I of Schedule 2 at any time between sunset on the day three clear days before, and sunrise on the day three clear days after, full moon.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A. This is an improved amendment on the point which we discussed at the Committee stage. The amendment down at the Committee stage was to ban all shooting between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise. The argument was that in addition to much extremely bad shooting that occurs at night, causing a great many birds to be wounded, there was the considerable danger of shooting birds, which were on the protected list for one reason or another, by mistake in periods of very bad visibility.

There was some argument in your Lordships' House as to how often that occurred. Some noble Lords said that because of the different flight of various birds, sportsmen who were used to shooting at night could, in fact, distinguish fairly clearly between them and it was very unlikely, particularly as rare birds were by definition rare, that many of them would get killed in this way. I have since received some evidence showing that that is not entirely so, and Sir Peter Scott in particular has written to me about the amount of shot which he has found in some of the birds which get as far as his sanctuary—shot which is likely to have been occasioned through them being shot at night.

There was a strong argument that this was a traditional form of sport and that for a great many sportsmen it was pursued quite fairly and without damage to the endangered species. Therefore, I bring forward this amendment which is, I hope, an improved version and which makes it perfectly legal to go on with night shooting during the period around the full moon when, of course, visibility is at its best and sometimes rather better than it is in one or two of the hours during which shooting would be legal in any case. I hope that, with this concession to those who wish to shoot in the night time, this amendment will prove acceptable to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, as this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to say something at the Report stage, may I echo from this side of the House what the noble Lord the Chief Whip said about the magnificent work that was done last night to get the Marshalled List printed. Having seen what those concerned had to deal with in draft form, I have the greatest possible sympathy for them, and I am sure that we shall make much better progress today. Indeed, the only reason that we shall make any progress today is because of all the hard work that was done.

As did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I also received a letter from Sir Peter Scott about this matter, following our debate in Committee. I think that it is important enough to quote fully two sentences from the letter. Sir Peter Scott said: Another British practice that is impossible to defend in the international forum is that of night shooting. Britain is almost alone in permitting this sport, which carries the increased likelihood of protected species being shot by mistake, reduced chances of picking up wounded birds, and particularly in cold weather disturbance of birds forced to feed at night by shooting and other human activities during the day. It also makes wardening of protected areas much more difficult". He went on to say: I believe that night shooting is a major cause why more than a third of the Bewick swans X-rayed at Slimbridge carried lead shot implanted in their tissues, despite their being protected in every country through which they pass to reach us". I also had some additional evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the effects of this and they say, in contradiction to what was said by some noble Lords in Committee, that it is not a fact that night shooting is confined to the period of full moon, or just before or just after. They say that their wardens and other staff on many occasions have seen night shooting carried out on moonless and even misty nights, and in some cases under artificial lights. Apparently, some reserve wardens have said that shooting after dusk is increasing, and they believe that it is responsible for increasing numbers of pricked birds, including protected species, and is causing severe and sometimes continuous disturbance to roosts used not only by quarry species but also by protected birds.

We went through this argument very fully in Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said, those of us who wish to see night shooting banned have accepted that this simply will not be something that your Lordships will find acceptable. But everyone who spoke about this practice said very firmly that it was something that was only done at full moon, when visibility was good, and was only done by the most experienced and expert wildfowlers. We cannot ensure, without making it a licensable activity, that it is done only by experienced wildfowlers, but in this Bill we can ensure that the practice is carried out only at times when everybody on all sides of the House says it should be; in other words, at full moon or just before or just after, which is what this amendment would do. I hope that it will be acceptable to everyone.

Lord Burton

My Lords, this amendment does not include Schedule 2, Part II, birds, which I think has been referred to as the pest schedule. One of the species of birds which is particularly injurious in the countryside is the hooded crow and the carrion crow. They are one of the latest birds to come to roost, and one of the times that one wants to shoot them is when there is no moon, because otherwise one has to sit up all night, watching in the moonlight and hoping to get them. As they come in to roost so late—an hour after sunset—this amendment would make it impossible to shoot them coming into their roosts, which is one of the most effective methods. How anyone could possibly mistake a bewick's swan for a goose I do not know, but I suspect that any shooting of bewick's swans has been entirely intentional and has not been by mischance, as the noble Lord would like to suggest.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government quite appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Melchett, have done since the previous time that we discussed this. We have tried in the Bill to regulate the minority interests and treat birds differently from the rest of the community, but still in the case of night shooting we have not so far been persuaded that the action is required. This shooting occurs only for a fortnight of the year, that is true, but further to restrict the few occasions when it can occur in this way seems to us to be unnecessary.

Given the right combination of cloud and moon, wind and water, competent wildfowlers can shoot birds at night on nights when the moon is a great deal less full than three days either side of full moon. We think that this is a slightly emotional premise which field sportsmen could resent. They do not accept that only the protectionists are concerned with the conservation of species, and the Government receive proportionately as many suggestions for better conservation from wildfowlers as they do sometimes from protectionist groups. Therefore, we do not wish to encourage this amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, if the Government do not wish to encourage this amendment, they are certainly doing their best not to encourage it. I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, nor myself would want to be understood to say that we thought that wildfowlers did not contribute an immense amount to preservation. We know that over a long period of time that is absolutely true and that those of us who are interested in wildlife owe a very great debt of gratitude to those who, over the years, have been interested in this particular form of sport.

Nevertheless, I regard the Government's answer as remarkably unsatisfactory. It seems to me they could have gone quite a long way to meet us on this point. However, it is not one of the matters in the Bill which is of the greatest importance, and with the agreement, I hope, of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and with the permission of your Lordships' House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.17 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("which is shown to have been")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the discussion in Committee on an identical amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Government looked again at the relationship between Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(5), as doubt was expressed as to whether the provisions of Clause 1(2) applied to Clause 1(5). We wish to ensure that there is no ambiguity, and I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for the trouble that he has taken to meet us on this point.

Baroness David

My Lords, we are also very pleased that this amendment has been accepted, and it will become clearer later why I am particularly pleased.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 20, after ("bred") insert ("and keep").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the result of the previous amendment, this passage now reads: (5) In this section, 'wild bird' does not include any bird which is shown to have been bred in captivity". The intention of my amendment is to add the words "and kept" after the word "bred". It seems to me to be quite clear that a bird can be bred in captivity but can subsequently escape or be released, in which case it should be included among the wild birds. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree that, in order to escape inclusion as a wild bird, the bird not only has to be bred in captivity but must remain in captivity. This would be achieved by accepting my amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the amendment has the effect of applying Clause 1 provisions to captive-bred birds which escape or are released to the wild. These birds are not covered by Clause 1, because if a clause did apply to them it would mean that a person who loses his bird and retakes it is guilty of an offence. But it would also mean that a person hawking with his captive-bred bird would be guilty of an offence each time he recovered his bird. We consider that in practice a captive-bred bird which was released or which accidently escaped to the wild, would, for practical purposes, be covered by Clause 1. Certainly so far as persons other than the owner were concerned, as such birds cannot be distinguished from wild birds when in flight or otherwise at a distance, neither rings nor, on a falcon, jesses are indications that a bird is captive-bred. It is not considered that their lack of statutory protection puts them at extra hazard. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he is still in doubt I should be happy to write to him further.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I should like to study what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Exceptions to Section 1]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 36, leave out ("if that nest is in use by") and insert ("of").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 9A: Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("on Sundays") to the end of line 43 and insert ("in England and Wales").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also takes us back to something that we discussed at some length on Committee stage; the question of shooting on Sundays. Again, I have tried substantially to alter the amendment to meet the points made in the debate on Committee stage. First, the amendment does not apply to pest species, so the noble Lord, Lord Burton, need have no fear on that score so far as this amendment is concerned. Nor does it apply to game birds. In fact, it applies only to birds listed in Schedule 2, Part I, which are wildfowl species.

The objective of the amendment is to apply what is already the law in Scotland and a number of counties and areas in England to the whole of Great Britain. My understanding is—and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm it—that the advisory committee in Scotland considered this point and felt that the law should remain as it was in Scotland, and that it should be applied to the rest of England and Wales, which seems to me a sensible position for those in Scotland to take.

Orders prohibiting shooting on Sundays already exist in a number of areas; in particular the counties of Anglesey, Brecon, Caernarvon, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Cornwall, Devon, Denbigh, Glamorgan, the Isle of Ely, Merioneth, Montgomery, Norfolk, Pembroke, Somerset, Yorkshire, North Riding and West Riding, and in the county boroughs of Doncaster, Great Yarmouth and Leeds. So the position is already fairly well covered in a number of areas. This would simply produce the position where Sunday shooting was not possible for wildfowl species only, or those listed in Schedule 2, Part I, alone.

This would have a number of advantages. First, it would make the position much clearer. As noble Lords will have seen from the list I read out, those areas where there is no shooting on Sunday in England and Wales already are fairly dotted about. It would seem to make sense for there to be a uniform provision. The second point is one I made at the Committee stage and I shall not rehearse it at length. There inevitably is some conflict of interest between wildfowlers and bird watchers. It is particularly on estuaries and coastal areas where there is on the whole a great deal of public access, and where shooting will be going on very often over areas where there is public access, where these conflicts will occur.

There are over a million birdwatchers—the RSPB has half a million members on its own—and a smaller number of wildfowlers. WAGBI has about 60,000 But I am not suggesting that the division should be in terms of numerical strength. I am suggesting that it should be an equality over the weekend, with wild-fowlers having Saturday and birdwatchers having Sunday in those areas where both activities take place on the weekend. Wildfowling does of course cause considerable disturbance to wildfowl and waders, including those species which are already protected. That is why it is desirable in areas where there are a large number of birdwatchers out watching birds that there should, if possible, be one day in the weekend where that disturbance will not be taking place and birdwatchers may watch birds in peace.

Another point of which I was not aware at Committee stage is that the British Trust for Ornithology, the RSPB, and the Wildfowl Trust have co-ordinated wildfowl counts which provide the data on which our knowledge of wildfowl numbers is based. Indeed, a number of the discussions we have had on particular species in this Bill have been based on the data gathered from these counts. Those counts take place on Sundays. Of course, when shooting is taking place of wildfowl on a Sunday the counting procedure is either difficult or completely impossible. This amendment would allow those counts to go ahead and would bring us further into line with the rest of Europe, where a number of countries permit hunting on only two or three days a week.

Sardinia is often held up in this country as epitomising bad practices so far as birds are concerned. Noble Lords may be interested to know that there hunting is permitted on only two days a week. Having met the points that were made at Committee stage which concerned particularly pest species, and with the benefit of the considered advice from Scotland where this is already the case, and with the limitation that this amendment applies only to wildfowl species, I hope that this will now be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

3.26 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, nobody could say that the present state of the law with regard to shooting on Sundays in England and Wales is satisfactory. Indeed, it is administered in a strangely inconsistent way, if I may give an example with which I am familiar. In the county of Cambridgeshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned, it is illegal in the Isle of Ely, but it remains perfectly lawful in Huntingdonshire. But I do not think that anyone in Huntingdonshire would care to maintain that they were less Christian, or less observant of the Sabbath, in Huntingdonshire than they seem to be in the Isle of Ely.

I do not know of any shooting that goes on on Sundays in Huntingdonshire. They are both now part of the great new county of Cambridgeshire, and there may be similar inconsistencies at any rate in other parts of England. The Welsh seem to have gone fairly Sabbatarian over roost of the country of Wales if the noble Lord's facts are right, and I do not doubt them. What I am saying to my noble friend is really that to the extent that the amendment would enable the law to be made more consistent and more rational, I would be prepared to support it.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord has met our objection that we would be allowed to shoot pests such as woodpigeon, and he is applying this amendment only to Schedule 2, Part I, starting with capercaillie. In that case, I would be very happy to support the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is seems marvellous to hear the names of those old English and Welsh counties rolled off by a Member of the Front Bench of the reforming and modernising party. It seems silly to have a law for one part of the country and not for another, and I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, a lone voice, I rise to oppose this amendment. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I would say that Yorkshire, North Riding, and Yorkshire, West Riding, sadly have not existed since the local government reorganisation, which is a thorn in the side of many of us Yorkshiremen who like that name. I am not certain that I agree with the noble Lord that this does not rule out pest species, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about that.

If this amendment is passed it will take away the pleasure and sport from a number of people whose one chance this is to go shooting. It is all right for noble Lords—perhaps especially for some on this side of the House who have the fortune to shoot on Saturdays and often midweek as well—but for the majority of people who go wildfowling the weekend is their only opportunity. It seems to me that as you can do anything else on a Sunday, including playing football, or perhaps even going to the theatre, that perhaps it is wrong to take away other people's entertainment.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, may I intervene, if the noble Earl will allow me? If he looks at Clause 2(1) he will see that the birds included in that are included in Part I of Schedule 2. It is that subsection to which this amendment refers. Secondly, would he bear in mind that birdwatchers also often can go birdwatching only at week-ends, which is why I am suggesting there should be this division between the two groups.

The Earl of Swinton

I accept that, my Lords, and so far as birdwatchers are concerned, I think it would be easier for them to see the birds if they were disturbed and flying around, having been put up by a shot, than all tucked away in the reedbeds and marshes. I hope the Government will not accept the amendment. The people we are speaking of are not "cowboys" but are organised—they all belong to clubs which have very strict rules—and this is one of the few chances they have to go shooting.

Lord Burton

My Lords, one of the strongest arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was that birdwatchers wanted to look at birds on Sundays. He went on to try to impress us with the number of areas in England which were already closed to shooting on Sundays. It seems therefore that there is already a large part of the country where birdwatchers can go on a Sunday and where there cannot be any shooting taking place.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as has been recognised, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has tabled a modified version of an amendment put down in Committee. It seeks to prohibit the shooting of Schedule 2(1) species in England and Wales which would, as he said, bring the position in line with Scotland. The Scottish Advisory Committee, in considering the Scottish position, suggested no change. But they did not go further than that—they would not advise South of the Border—and the present position (namely, a total ban in Scotland and a prohibition in certain areas in England and Wales), reflects traditional practice and custom, and the Government do not feel there is any reason to alter that position. There is of course no conservation case for any form of prohibition, but we accept it is appropriate to continue to allow for traditional practice and beliefs. We have also retained the power to allow the Secretary of State to make orders prohibiting shooting of quarry species on Sundays in any area and we believe that this reflects the right balance, and I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am sorry that more support for the amendment has not been forthcoming from the Benches opposite. I was taught to look to the aristocracy for upholding the sanctity of the sabbath, but since the Lord's Day Observance Society seems to have gone out of business, nobody sticks up for Sundays any more. Look at the Bishops' Bench—completely empty—when we are discussing a question of Sunday observance. It is a dereliction of their duty in this legislature not to be present here this afternoon. We hear from noble Lords that the weekends are the only opportunity that some poor wretches get for shooting birds and other things, which they call sport. It is very nice of those who can shoot any day of the week to be considerate towards those who can shoot only on Saturdays and Sundays. I should have thought Sunday was the most unsuitable day of the week to shoot and kill anything. I should have thought that was one of the last vestiges of the observance of the Lord's Day, but it is obvious that we are in a chamber of heathens!

Lord Melchett

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised one other objection to the amendment—at least, I think it was intended to be art objection, although I would not see it as such—in that he said there were some areas of the country where birdwatchers could go and where there would not be Sunday shooting. That does not seem a point worth while making, let alone worth answering, but as it was the only substantive objection to the amendment, I will answer it. There are a large number of birdwatchers who cannot travel long distances—because they cannot afford to do so, because they do not have any means of transport or, as noble Lords will be aware, public transport on Sundays is not particularly reliable, to put it mildly—and many people will want to go birdwatching in an area close to where they live. The object of bird-watching, I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is not to watch birds being blasted out of the sky but to watch them feeding and acting naturally in an undisturbed way.

The Earl of Swinton

I was not suggesting that bird-watchers wanted to watch birds being shot, my Lords. I was suggesting that if a shot went off, a lot of birds that would otherwise be hidden away in the rushes and reeds would get up and fly around and they would then have a better chance of seeing them.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, areas where people go birdwatching are designed so that people can see birds in rushes and reeds and places like that, and that is what a million people as a minimum in this country like to do with much of their free time. I have no objection in the amendment to people who wish to go wildfowling doing so at the weekend, and it is ridiculous to suggest that people will not be able to do so on Saturdays. In Norfolk, the county where I live, people shoot on a Saturday, whether they work on farms or in other places or whether they are Members of your Lordships' House, and it causes them no inconvenience whatever, and those who wish to shoot pest species like pigeons and crows on Sundays will still be at liberty to do so after the amendment has been passed, which I hope your Lordships will now do.

3.35 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents 129; Not-Contents 64.

CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Caccia, L.
Amulree, L. Chelwood, L.
Ardwick, L. Chitnis, L.
Armstrong, L. Cholmondeley, M.
Aylestone, L. Clancarty, E.
Bacon, B. Coggan, L.
Banks, L. Collison, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.
Beswick, L. Craigton, L.
Birk, B. Cranbrook, E.
Blease, L. Daventry, V.
Blyton, L. David, B. [Teller.]
Bolton, L. Davies of Leek, L.
Briginshaw, L. Davies of Penrhys, L.
Brockway, L. De Freyne, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. De L'Isle, V.
Byers, L. Derwent, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Moyne, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Newall, L.
Dormer, L. Northfield, L.
Effingham, E. Onslow, E.
Evans of Claughton, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Fulton, L. Paget of Northampton, L.
Gage, V. Peart, L.
Gainford, L. Phillips, B.
Gaitskell, B. Plant, L.
Gardiner, L. Renton, L.
Garner, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Gibson, L. Robbins, L.
Gibson-Watt, L. Roberthall, L.
Gladwyn, L. Romney, E.
Glasgow, E. Ross of Marnock, L.
Glendevon, L. Rugby, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. St. Davids, V.
Gosford, E. Sefton of Garston, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Sempill, Ly.
Gregson, L. Shinwell, L.
Grey, E. Simon, V.
Hale, L. Sligo, M.
Hampton, L. Somers, L.
Hanworth, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hayter, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Hillingdon, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stone, L.
Hunt, L. Strathclyde, L.
Ilchester, E. Strathspey, L.
Janner, L. Strauss, L.
Jeger, B. Swansea, L.
Kilbracken, L. Swinfen, L.
Killearn, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Leatherland, L. Thurso, V.
Lee of Newton, L. Tranmire, L.
Leonard, L. Vaux of Harroden, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] Wade, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L.
Loudoun, C. Wells-Pestell, L.
McNair, L. Westbury, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Whaddon, L.
Matthews, L. White, B.
Melchett, L. Willis, L.
Milford, L. Winstanley, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Wise, L.
Mountgarret, V. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Allerton, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Alport, L. Inglewood, L.
Avon, E. Kimberley, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Kinnaird, L.
Bellwin, L. Lauderdale, E.
Belstead, L. Long, V.
Buckinghamshire, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Burton, L. Lyell, L.
Cawley, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Chesham, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Mansfield, E.
Cottesloe, L. Margadale, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Marley, L.
de Clifford, L. Melville, V.
De La Warr, E. Middleton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Digby, L. Morris, L.
Ellenborough, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elphinstone, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Ferrers, E. Orkney, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Peel, E.
Glenkinglas, L. Pender, L.
Gormanston, V. Penrhyn, L.
Gridley, L. Pritchard, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Ridley, V.
St. Aldwyn, E.
Henley, L. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Home of the Hirsel, L. Seafield, E.
Skelmersdale, L. Ullswater, V.
Soames, L. Vickers, B.
Swinton, E. Vivian, L.
Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.46 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 1, leave out ("section and section 1") and insert ("Part and in Schedule 3").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are intended as paving amendments for my Amendment No. 40, and Amendment No. 63 is consequential. I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships if I speak to all four amendments at the same time. The intention of Amendment No. 40 is to change Clause 6(6), on page 8 of the Bill, which lays down the periods during which birds from Part 11 of Schedule 3 may be sold from the single period of 1st September until 28th February to the period of the close season set down for each individual species in Clause 2(4).

I should point out to your Lordships what is the position at present. In Clause 2(4) there are set out four different periods as being the close season for different species of birds. Yet under the later clause it is permitted to sell those birds, whichever species they may be, always during the same period, and in no case does the period of the close season coincide with the period laid down on page 8. For example, at present the capercaillie and the woodcock may be shot only between 1st October and 31st January, but they may be sold one month before and one month after those dates. At present the snipe may be shot from 12th August until 31st January, but it may not be sold until 1st September, and it may then continue to be sold until 28th February—for four weeks after it may be shot. The same kind of arrangement applies regarding both duck and geese, which may be shot from 1st September to 20th February, and sold from 1st September to 28th February. With regard to the only two other species which may be sold, the golden plover and the coot—if anyone wants to shoot the coot—I would say that they may be killed up until 31st January, but they may be sold up until the end of February.

I cannot understand why there is that difference and why the position should not be made so much simpler by making the period during which a bird may be shot the same as the period during which it may be sold. I understand from the noble Earl, who was kind enough to write to me—I think his letter has been put in the Library—that it is thought it would be easier to enforce if there were the same dates when all species may be sold, irrespective of their close season. It seems to me that exactly the opposite is the case, because the local constable, or whoever is responsible for enforcement, already has to know when the close seasons are and he has to know the periods during which each bird may be sold, and, therefore, if he sees one on sale at some different time, he knows that there has been an infringement. My Amendment No. 40, for which this is preparing, would have the effect of making the two periods coincide. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I, too, should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 40 and 63, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has explained, are consequential. The Government (as he has also explained, really) do not accept that the result of these amendments would be better than the present position which is carried forward in the Bill from the Protection of Birds Acts. We regard it as right to provide that the sale season is longer than the open season to allow persons to dispose of birds killed legally, and many of your Lordships would not regard birds killed on the last days of the season as edible until the end of the sale period, anyway.

Having a single sale season for all species means that there should be no confusion over when dead birds may be sold, and we believe that this is important to sellers, to the police and to the general public. Instead of the police having to raid a shop at various different dates, depending on when the season ends, they now have a clear-cut date. Having different sales seasons for species could cause confusion and would not, in our view, confer any benefits. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord about woodcock, in England and Wales but not in Scotland, and capercaillie. Anyone who has the species hanging in their shop in September would almost certainly be in possession of illegally killed birds. We have no evidence of abuse of this provision, which has remained unchanged for some years. Our view is that it is important to keep it simple and so, we hope, enforceable. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if I may say so to my noble friend, I think that there is a balance of arguments here, and on the whole I do not think the one suggestion is that much better than the other. If the Government feel very strongly that things should be left as they are, I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be better to do that.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and therefore, although I think my argument has some force, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 11A.

Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 11: Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("woodcock (except in Scotland)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 59 and 64, which are consequential? There is a little difficulty with the next amendment, because that, too, refers to page 3, line 2, but they are on entirely different matters. I am not sure whether your Lordships would wish to take the two together, or how they should be dealt with, but I should like your Lordships to consider capercaillie alone, whereas the next amendment deals with woodcock. As to how we should deal with these, I must be guided. The object of these amendments is to make capercaillie a game bird. Strange as it may seem, putting these birds under the Game Act is a conservation measure; and, furthermore, the amendment would correct an anomaly in our laws. All the other three species of the grouse family in this country—namely, the black game, the red grouse and the ptarmigan—are already game. I understand that the only reason why capercaillie are not is that they did not exist in this country in 1831, when the Game Act came into being. They were reintroduced, I think, at a later date, some time after, in the late 1800s.

As this Bill stands at the moment it is, first, illegal to take the eggs of a capercaillie. Indeed, if I may go on to explain, if you did take the eggs you would be too late to get a licence, as they would be cold by the time the licence arrived. Secondly, if one hatched and reared the chicks then it would be illegal to release them into the wild unless, again, you secured a licence, which would cause a lot of bother and trouble, for which it appears you may well have to pay and which, indeed, you might or might not get at the end of the day. If, as I have seen happen on two occasions now, a hen caper is put off her nest by a dog, she will probably not return to the nest, and in that case the eggs are lost. If one was to uplift the eggs, which I have done before now, one would not at that juncture have a licence, and one would be breaking the law. If they were to become game this problem would be obviated—an easy and non-controversial solution, I think, which would also regularise the game laws.

There is also a need for some conservation. These birds are very susceptible to disease, particularly blackhead. Our stock of capercaillie was almost wiped out a few winters ago; and, indeed, in 1831 they must have been extinct. They are not numerous, and their numbers are probably less than in the case of some of the birds already proposed for Schedule 1. It is therefore desirable to give them proper control and protection. One argument from foresters may be that there is liable to be damage from these birds to young trees. In the first year or two after planting it is possible that these birds will take the heads off the trees, until such time as the trees come above the head height of the bird standing on the ground. After that very little damage can be done, because they are a big heavy bird and they cannot sit on the top of a tree without breaking it. What they prefer is an old "granny" tree which they can sit on and eat around them. Therefore, they really do remarkably little damage, and certainly less than black game, which are already game.

I wonder, then, what possible grounds there could be for refusing this proposal? If one plays the devil's advocate, the only possible grounds would seem to be that this opens up one more Act of Parliament. We have had the Deer Act and we have had various planning Acts, and so on, opened up, and this, I am afraid, would open up the Game Act. I am not sure that this is a valid argument, because it is obviously something which is desirable. If we do not make the amendment now, I wonder whether there is any possibility of including the caper in any Bill in the foreseeable future? I suspect not. Therefore, to correct this anomaly and also as a conservation measure, I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this amendment. It seems to me that it is an obvious example of a case where an old Act of Parliament should be revised when a species has established itself in Britain since the passage of that Act. The capercaillie is in fact a game bird; it is always considered as one. There is a further complication, which is that it is a member of the grouse family; it is a grouse. Therefore, both under the 1831 Act and under this Bill one could make the case that it is already included as a game bird because it is a grouse. So some clarification seems to be required on that point; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burton.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I, too, should like strongly to endorse my noble friend's moving of this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has taken words out of my mouth. I think the timber question is really quite small. When you consider the damage caused by deer, the amount of damage done by young caper is so infinitesimally small that it is not worth even considering. Just because it was out of the country it is not covered, but I think we should certainly give this bird the protection of the game laws.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I must say that I am worried about this for a number of reasons. I am not sure that the damage to forestry can be dismissed quite as easily as the two noble Lords opposite have dismissed it. In particular, as I understand it one of the effects not mentioned yet would be that the capercaillie would no longer be subject to the controls on introductions which come later in the Bill, and it would therefore be quite lawful to introduce these birds into any areas where they do not currently exist and where it was possible for them to live. It would therefore leave totally uncontrolled their introduction into a lot of areas in the North of England and elsewhere where there would be a lot of forestry and where at present none of these birds would be living.

I think that a more serious worry is the question of amending the Game Act, which Amendment No. 16 does. As the noble Lord has said, we have raised a number of different Acts of Parliament. At the moment we are likely to amend the Badgers Act, the Seals Act and the Deer Act. I think that one could argue in all those cases that the amendments were conservation amendments to protect or to add to the conservation status of the species or, as in the Deer Act, to improve conservation for birds. That is how it may get past the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Home, about amendments to the Seals Act to which I agreed at the Committee stage and withdrew my own amendment.

If we pass an amendment to the Game Act in this House it seems to me inevitable that a large number of questions concerning those Acts will be raised by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place if not by right honourable and honourable friends of noble Lords opposite in another place. It would open a very major area of debate about which, I suggest, there is even more controversy than there is about a lot of the provisions already in the Bill. I would hope that it might be possible to get at this, if there is a major problem, either by the licensing provisions in the Bill, which are designed to meet these sorts of problem and which make it possible to apply for licences in advance of as well as after the event. It will be possible, given that these birds have a fairly restricted range, for those likely to want to pick up eggs to apply for a licence in advance; or maybe the Government may have something to say about a more substantive amendment to the Game Act. I have been responsible for amendments to the Badgers Act which I hope your Lordships will pass later; but I think it is distinguishable on the basis that, in the other Acts that we are trying to change, we are doing so for reasons of conservation. It is difficult to argue that that is the case for these amendments. If the noble Lord wanted to put this bird into Schedule 1 that would be a different matter, but he has not taken that course.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government do not want to get involved in amending the Game Act and take the point that this is a conservation Bill and should not interfere with the Game Act. I should like to come back to the capercaillie because, if I understand my noble friend Lord Burton correctly, he has an interest in the conservation of the capercaillie and I fail to see why putting it in the Game Act would help to conserve it. If we lengthen the season, it will be shot more and the Nature Conservancy Council have said that that is a bad idea. If it becomes subject to game shooting, probably it will be more widely shot. Bearing that in mind, I should have thought that if my noble friend were to leave it with us it might be advisable to go back to the NCC and get their advice on the capercaillie with regard to making sure that it is not over-shot. With that, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and no doubt that will be the best course. It has been suggested that these birds be put on Schedule 1. That would cause an awful upset in forestry circles.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he is the one who suggested that.

Lord Burton

No, my Lords, I think it came from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I have not said so. To put it on Schedule 1 would cause a lot of difficulties. The amendment is a conservation measure. A number of those who have knowledge of the capercaillie have supported me on this. It is interesting to note that the main opposition came from Lord Melchett. This is definitely a conservation measure and he is leading the conservation lobby and it seems extraordinary that he should be so inconsistent as to oppose me on this. In view of my noble friend's proposals, I hope he will consider the matter and come back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.5 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 11A: Page 3, line 2, leave out ("except in Scotland)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved these three amendments in Committee and the noble Earl was good enough to say that he would take them away and ask the advice of the Advisory Committee. The arguments were fully deployed and I do not propose to deploy them again. I had a good deal of support in the Committee on each amendment. The noble Earl has written me a letter which leaves me not at all happy. He says that two points were referred to the Advisory Committee. I do not know whether he referred the third. Perhaps he will answer that. He said: The two points were referred … as I promised to recommend that the season for woodcock and snipe be amended in the way and for the reason you advocate". So far so good!— We have given careful consideration to the advice of both committees but note that they did not advise that there is a conservation case which would justify modification to the seasons of these two species".

The Government, in spite of the advice of their committees, have not taken any action, so we thought that the least we could do would be to bring it up again, in view of the support we had in Committee last time.

There are one or two points I should like to add to what was said last time. Noble Lords will remember that the objective is to reduce the period during which you can shoot woodcock and capercaillie to the same level in Scotland as it now is in England. In other words, you can do it for longer in Scotland than you can in England. In order to tidy things up, and for what we believe to be conservation reasons, we think that should be altered. In the case of snipe (which is the second amendment) in our opinion the period has to be reduced to 31st August instead of 12th. There is a good deal of evidence which I have here, but which I will not bother noble Lords with, that fledglings and young birds are found frequently right up to the second half of August. Therefore, to shoot them before 31st August is to shoot them at the time when normally the young ones are gaining strength.

The third amendment is to leave out paragraph (c) altogether which is the paragraph which gives a special longer period of shooting for wild duck and wild geese in or over any area below high watermark. I have the same letter already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, from Sir Peter Scott who knows more about these things than most. He says: The present situation, whereby a duck or goose may be shot, 1–20 February, on one side of the high-tide line but not on the other, is an anomaly which derived from some 'deal' made during the passage of the 1954 Act … The argument that it serves to protect paired Mallard beginning to take up breeding sites is set at naught as soon as there is a cold snap, as there often is in February. This drives the inland birds back to the shore and its unaccustomed dangers, making them hungry and therefore easier to shoot … The migratory species are then feeding intensively to lay on fuel for long flights …". The case is quite obvious. It is clearly a conservation case. I suppose the reason why the Government are not happy about this is that there is no special shortage of the birds concerned. Conservation is not only applicable to birds in short supply; it is applicable to the proper looking after of wildlife wherever it may be. To reject these amendments on the grounds that they are not sufficiently—I cannot think of the adjective of "conservation"—conservational, is very short-sighted indeed.

There is a good deal of evidence that snipe, for example, breed right into August. Woodcock, particularly British born woodcock, are in rather short supply even though a certain number come in from elsewhere. In any case, it must be of advantage to have a similar law all over the country which everybody can understand. We had a good discussion last time, and I do not need to say more, except that I am deeply dissatisfied with the reply that was given and I hope that I can get something more out of the noble Earl now. I beg to move.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. When, in the economy of shooting in Scotland, grouse moors are let, and in quite a considerable number of years there are no grouse, it makes quite a difference to the tenant, who often comes from overseas, if he is able to shoot the occasional woodcock and snipe. When the noble Lord says that the numbers of woodcock are quite small and they may be quite young in August, this is not so. I suppose that the woodcock is the earliest nester in the United Kingdom. They nest in March and by August an enormous number of them are well matured. Most of the woodcock who breed in Britain in the United Kingdom move comparatively early in September to Ireland where they are shot. So there is no case for the date for the present season for the woodcock being altered.

The same is basically true of the snipe. Occasionally you get a young one in August; but again the only chance the average shooting tenant has to shoot the snipe is in August and early September because again they move off. The indigenous snipe population on the mainland of Scotland moves again to the South of Ireland and Spain. They are replaced of course by an enormous number of immigrants. If we were to adopt the noble Lord's idea, quite a number of shooters who do not want to shoot very much but want to shoot a variety of game would be deprived of sport in August and September. I do not think that is really necessary on the merits of conservation.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, particularly regarding the shooting of woodcock in Scotland. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred quite correctly to woodcock leaving Scotland—very wisely—for Ireland, to spend the winters there. Of course a great many more arrive from Scandinavia and the North. I do not see any reason why the shooting of woodcock should be permitted in Scotland a full month before it is in England. That is the situation at present. It means that woodcock can be shot in Scotland from 1st September instead of from 1st October. I would have thought that there were not many birds to shoot at that time—only birds that have bred in Scotland. I should like to think that woodcock at that time should not be shot and that the majority of guns would not shoot them. Therefore I support my noble friend.

4.15 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I should like to make two comments. First, I should like to congratulate the social democratic alliance, the Liberals and the Socialists, for all speaking with one voice. Secondly, one should ask the question: Does it do any harm? It has not been shown to do any harm at all and therefore one should not interrupt people's sport.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, when the Minister replies—and this may be irrelevent—I wonder whether he would answer this point. This may be irrelevant but we seem to be concerned about the shooting of certain birds in particular seasons. I am rather intrigued to know that irrespective of seasons in this particular clause apparently one can kill any of the birds on Christmas Day or Sundays in Scotland. It seems as if it cuts right across whether it is the month which is applicable if there is this rather curious clause. I am sure that there is an explanation, but I cannot think what it is, offhand.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that there has not been a case made out for making the changes. May we take snipe and woodcock as one case and then turn to the wildfowl question later. The arguments are different and the noble Lord, Lord Home, addressed himself to only the first of the two amendments. I think that there is a strong case on biological grounds regarding snipe. I have been given some information about various studies regarding breeding snipe and the development of young snipe. For example, in a study on St. Kilda, 12 nests were found between mid-July and mid-August that contained eggs. If nests which contain eggs are found at that time of year, I cannot believe that the snipe are developed sufficiently for it to be justifiable to shoot them at the time when apparently in Scotland a few people think it is right to shoot them

In a more recent and extensive study of the breeding biology of snipe three clutches were started in the first 15 days of July and the birds would not be fully grown until 27th July to 10th August. Two clutches were started in the last 15 days of July and would give birds not fully grown until between 14th and 28th August. One clutch was started in the first 15 days of August and that would not give birds fully grown until 27th August to 11th September. A significant percentage—not a large percentage, I agree, because on the whole they would be breeding earlier—of breeding pairs would have young which were only just fully grown by 12th August.

Lord Home of the Hirsel

My Lords, I have actually shot snipe for 50 years consecutively. On only two or three occasions have I seen immature snipe in August. It is a totally insignificant proportion and certainly not a proportion which justifies altering the present law.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, as in all these matters, what is important is what is discovered by scientific inquiry and what the Government's experts on the advisory committees have to tell us. I hope that the noble Lord will pay at least as much attention to that as he would to his own personal experiences. My understanding is that the advisory committees both in England and Scotland, which are made up of those interested in the protection of birds as well as of those interested in the shooting of birds, recommended that these changes should be made. At the Committee stage we all agreed that it would be sensible to refer these matters to advisory committees, and we should not disregard the expert and considered advice that the many people who serve on these committees in England, Wales and Scotland have given us on these two points.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I took the Lord Kilbracken's point. Most of our early English snipe emigrate for him and his friends to shoot in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was insinuating that the ones which are bred later might be shot before they matured. I agree with my noble friend Lord Home; I have seldom seen small ones. The average people who go shooting do not see many of these birds because they are found in awkward places and therefore are not the most popular to get at. Surely a lot of these snipe do not survive into winter, anyhow.

Lord Gibson-Watt

If I may make a "Welsh" remark, everybody has his own experience of this, but perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I do not think he is right. All my experience points to the fact that in mid-Wales all home-bred snipe normally leave the hills about the 20th August and I certainly have never seen an immature snipe—jack snipe, yes, but not immature snipe. In spite of the profusion of scientific evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has given to your Lordships' House on this matter, I must with respect disagree with him.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has a point about trying to reconcile the seasons and get them together; but may I suggest that for once England might come into line with Scotland? So far as I can see, there would be no great objection to removing paragraph (a) altogether, which means that the period with regard to woodcock (and capercaillie too, but that is a minor point) would start in both countries on 1st September. In the North of Scotland I think that even the conservationists would say there has been a steady increase in the numbers of woodcock breeding over the last few years. They are, of course, very charming to see. The numbers seem to increase steadily and it is the same in Scotland, where there is no protection at the moment in September. I suspect that the only reason why the 1st October was put into the English Act was that woodcock would start at the same time as pheasant, and that was the only time when they were likely to be shot in England. Therefore why not scrap (a) altogether?

Lord Peel

My Lords, surely the basic point here is that we are discussing the responsibility of sportsmen. Of course, there will always be cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, when birds will breed late and will overrun the dates of their season. It happens with partridges, pheasants, and indeed most birds. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the snipe. There will always be certain a number of snipe that will be unshootable. Therefore, as I have said, we are really talking about the responsibility of sportsmen. For that reason, I think it would be as well to leave these dates alone: over the years they have been extremely well proven.

I should also like to put in a plea on behalf of myself as much as anybody else in regard to snipe because, living in an upland environment, one finds invariably that snipe disappear round about the 20th August and we do not have the opportunity of shooting these birds, which gives many people a great deal of pleasure. The numbers shot are so insignificant that I do not think they will make much difference to those that will go on to breed—and that, of course, is the essence of all our efforts at conservation.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, a noble friend behind me mentioned that he had never seen an immature jack snipe. But so far as I am aware jack snipe do not breed in this country. They are completely migratory.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, may I remind him that these amendments are not about the jack snipe. We are at the Report stage, and if we could try to speak to the subject, I think it would be helpful. If I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who noted the point concerning Christmas Day and Sundays, that is a carry-over from the 1954 Act, and these are the traditional practices carried over into the Wildlife Act. If I could now turn—

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, does it mean that you can shoot on Sundays, even though it is in the closed season? I do not really understand what it means.

The Earl of Avon

No, my Lords; and what is more the amendment we have just passed means that there will be no shooting of quarry species anywhere on a Sunday. Regarding woodcock, the Government carefully considered the advice given by the NCC but concluded that they could not accept the recommendations as we were not satisfied that an adequate conservation case had been put forward. That is basically what my noble friend Lord Onslow said. We believe it is inappropriate to make a change for reasons other than those concerning the conservation of the species. As regards snipe, again the Government believe it to be wrong that one should extend protection to a species essentially for the protection of others. This is what we believe a major case was made on. I should like to speak only to those two now and to speak again to wildfowl later.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I confess to some disappointment because the last time we discussed this we got support from at least half a dozen noble Lords on the other side; but we seem to have lost that support, I suppose as a result of thinking they know better than the technical advice. In view of the fact that we have aired this twice and we have had strong support from the advisory committee, and the Government have rejected it on grounds which seem to me not to be adequate, and since I seem to have lost the support of the "huntin' and shootin' lobby" which I thought I had on the last occasion, I think I would be wise not to press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 11B not moved.]

4.27 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 11C: Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I have already read a long and moving extract from a letter from Sir Peter Scott. I do not know that we want to say any more about it, except that it is a rationalisation which I think is important and I should be very interested to hear what the Government have to say. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I have very little to add to what we said at Committee stage. We do not think that a conservation case is fully proven in this case either, and I said then that licences would be available at this end of the season, though not of course at the other end of the season. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, spoke about shooting in cold spells, which is particularly bad, and we would of course issue a ban under Clause 2(6) to cover this. I believe he also said there was little conservation need, but that it was purely a matter of disturbance of other creatures at this particular stage.

Lord Melchett

No, my Lords, with respect, the case is a great deal stronger than that. As the noble Earl has not been as forthcoming as I, for one, was hoping he would be, perhaps I could briefly state what the case is. First, I think that noble Lords interested in field sports and in particular in shooting in this country are running the danger of making this country by far the worst in Europe from the point of view of the extent to which we shoot things, the length of time for which we shoot things, and so on. Nowhere do our own practices stand out, compared to the rest of Europe, in a worse light than in this case, where we shoot wildfowl so late in the winter.

In December 1979 there was a meeting of more than 60 experts representing 20 states and organisations covering the western palaearctic region, and that included both governmental and non-governmental organisations. A resolution was passed which suggested that Governments give waterfowl populations the necessary protection after mid-winter when determining open seasons. The biological evidence presented showed that hunting after mid-winter may increase total mortality and reduce the breeding capacity of wildfowl populations.

As the noble Lord opposite said when we were discussing an earlier amendment, it is the effect on the breeding population of the shooting season which is all-important. Certainly the shooting of wildfowl at the end of the winter affects the breeding population. For example, after the beginning of February mallard, the principal quarry species of wildfowl, are almost fully paired and would have started their courtship before Christmas. Less than two weeks after the end of the coastal shooting season, mallard should have started breeding and wildfowling in February almost inevitably will destroy the pair-bonds which have been formed since Christmas. If that happens, it is very unlikely that such pair-bonds will be able to be replaced and the birds will not be able to re-pair and synchronise their breeding with another duck in time to hatch birds successfully that year. For those birds which migrate from this country there is a great deal of evidence to show that waterfowl are already paired before they leave the British wintering grounds for their more northerly breeding sites. Of course they need to be fully paired when they arrive at a breeding site, because otherwise they cannot take advantage of the very short Arctic summer in the areas where they breed. Those birds which arrive in the Arctic nesting grounds without a mate—in other words, when the pair has been disturbed by late wildfowling—will almost inevitably fail to breed, because by the time they have re-established a pair it will be too late for the young to survive.

What distinguishes this amendment from the one that affects shooting at the beginning of the season, is that in February what are being shot are the birds that have survived all the shooting that has gone on during the winter; all the hard weather that has occurred during the winter. They are the fittest birds, the birds that it is most important to leave to provide breeding stock for the following year. Therefore, it seems to me that this greatly increases the threats to early breeding duck and, far more than the first two amendments, will affect the success of the breeding.

Of course, shooting at this time of the year is also liable to disturb all the other birds which are protected and which, in the same way as the mallard have done, have formed pairs at Christmas or shortly afterwards and may, indeed, by that time even be starting to look for nesting sites or territories. The noble Earl touched briefly on the problem of severe late winter weather, but, with respect, this period cannot be covered by the orders which are available to prohibit shooting when there is severe winter weather, because the agreed policy on banning wildfowling—that is, the policy agreed between WAGBI, the bird conservation organisations and others—depends on there being cold weather for more than 14 consecutive days. In fact, there has to be freezing weather for more than 14 consecutive days.

If there was freezing weather for the first 14 days of February, then, by the time that period had ended, it would be too late to stop the shooting and it would not be possible, as the noble Earl suggested, to stop shooting in that period under the existing provisions for a cold weather ban on shooting. In other words there are no safeguards for the last two weeks of February—that is, when a cold spell occurs, which is not unheard of in this country—and there is no protection of wildfowl during that period.

This shooting occurs only on the foreshore. Certainly, in my part of the world it is not an area where you can do a very great deal of wildfowling, though I know that in some parts of the country it is considered very important. It seems to me an anomaly in terms of our own legislation on wild birds, particularly when looked at in a European context. It is something which will have to be changed before too long because of international pressure on the sportsmen and shooting people in this country. I hope that we can take the opportunity of changing it in this Bill.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I should just like to say this. There is no pressure on mallard numbers. There is no pressure on several breeds of duck numbers. The noble Lord also said that Great Britain is one of the worst countries as regards the length of seasons, et cetera. But the point is that there are a large amount of game species available in this context. If that is the case, why should we alter it? Let us not alter things just for the sake of altering things. By all means, internally, let us make things orderly, but let us not just for the sake of bringing ourselves into line with not shooting marsh tits in Sicily or something like that, stop people shooting mallard on the Solway Firth.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I made the point that this shooting in February also disturbs all the protected species of waders and wildfowl as well as the quarry species which are shot. That is something which, surely, the noble Earl should be concerned about.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, the noble Lord asserted that, but he has produced no evidence for it.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I really do not think we can accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the mallard being a faithful husband. It is the most promiscuous bird. I can take your Lordships to see what is going on in St. James's Park on any afternoon.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I should like to add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Melchett, by saying that, however promiscuous the mallard drake may be—and I agree with the noble Viscount opposite—it also starts its courtship extremely early in the year. The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that he thought the woodcock was the first bird to pair and mate, but in my own experience the mallard is even earlier and has already been at it for at least a month. That is a very good reason for following the proposal of my noble friends.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a point. I am quoting from a letter from Sir Peter Scott and I certainly would not want to criticise, in any way, anything that Sir Peter has to say. He said that there was a deal—I think it was the 1954 Act—and that was the reason. Of course there was a deal, because the wildfowlers were losing so much at the beginning of the season, and this was agreed at the end. I shall not repeat all the arguments which I put forward in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a very strong point on Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B, but what we must do is to support what the advisory committee said and I think they made absolutely no point about the numbers of wildfowl decreasing. The numbers of geese, in particular, have risen enormously, especially the quarry species of geese. I really cannot see any conservation grounds at all for supporting this amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I shall probably be shot by some wildfowler for suggesting this, but if the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, are factual, could not subsection (6) of this clause be implemented in any year when the weather might be hard, and would that not solve a lot of his problems?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I clarify one point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made about the period? The ban is after 14 days, but we can have a period of restraint after seven to 10 days.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, the noble Earl did not reply to my question as to whether he had acceded to my request to put this suggestion to the advisory committee. Perhaps he can tell us whether it was put. I particularly asked him to do so in Committee.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, again with the leave of the House, as the noble Lord is aware, I replied to the first two—I think probably on purpose. I have in front of me a long paper on this subject, but I am not sure from whom it comes, so I cannot give him an answer.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, on the whole, I should like to take the views of the House on this amendment. There has been such a curious change in the opinion of noble Lords opposite. The very fact that Sir Peter Scott suggests it seems now to put people against it. So I think we must be sure whether they are serious. It seems to me, when the advisory committee is not asked, as I requested it should be, when it has agreed to both of the first two amendments which the Government have refused to accept and when there is a very powerful letter—I did not read anything like all of it, because we are trying to restrict the time—from Sir Peter Scott, who even wildfowlers think knows more about the matter than anyone, that this is a case on which I should like to test the views of the House. I very much hope that there will be as many people who agree with Sir Peter Scott as disagree with him.

4.38 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Caccia, L.
Ailesbury, M. Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Amherst, E. Chelwood, L.
Avebury, L. Chitnis, L.
Aylestone, L. Collison, L.
Bacon, B. Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.
Balogh, L. Cranbrook, E.
Banks, L. David, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Davies of Leek, L.
Birk, B. de Clifford, L.
Blease, L. Denington, B.
Blyton, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Donnet of Balgay, L.
Briginshaw, L. Dulverton, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Elwyn-Jones, L.
Byers, L. Evans of Claughton, L.
Gaitskell, B. Peart, L.
Gardiner, L. Phillips, B.
Gisborough, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Gladwyn, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Gosford, E. Romney, E.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Rugby, L.
Grey, E. Sefton of Garston, L.
Hale, L. Simon, V.
Hampton, L. Sligo, M.
Hanworth, V. Somers, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Ilchester, E. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jacques, L. Stone, L.
Janner, L. Strabolgi, L.
Jeger, B. Strauss, L.
Kilbracken, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Kimberley, E. Thurso, V.
Leatherland, L. Wade, L.
Lee of Newton, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Leonard, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Whaddon, L.
Longford, E. White, B.
McNair, L. Winstanley, L.
Maelor, L. Wise, L.
Melchett, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Milford, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Allerton, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Alport, L. Inglewood, L.
Ampthill, L. Killearn, L.
Armstrong, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Auckland, L. Kinnaird, L.
Avon, E. Kinnoull, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Long, V.
Bellwin, L. Loudoun, C.
Belstead, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Bessborough, E. Lyell, L.
Birdwood, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Burton, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Caithness, E. Mansfield, E.
Cawley, L. Margadale, L.
Chesham, L. Marley, L.
Clinton, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Cockfield, L. Melville, V.
Cottesloe, L. Middleton, L.
Craigton, L. Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Daventry, V. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
De Freyne, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
De La Warr, E. Moyne, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Derwent, L. Newall, L.
Dormer, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Onslow, E.
Ebbisham, L. Orkney, E.
Ellenborough, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Peel, E.
Elphinstone, L. Pender, L.
Exeter, M. Penrhyn, L.
Ferrers, E. Radnor, E.
Forester, L. Ridley, V.
Fortescue, E. Rochdale, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Gainford, L. St. Davids, V.
Gibson-Watt, L. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Glasgow, E. Selkirk, E.
Glendevon, L. Sempill, Ly.
Gormanston, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Gridley, L. Somers, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Strathclyde, L.
Strathspey, L.
Hayter, L. Sudeley, L.
Henley, L. Suffield, L.
Hillingdon, L. Swansea, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Swinfen, L.
Swinton, E. Ullswater, V.
Terrington, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Teviot, L. Vickers, B.
Trumpington, B. Vivian, L.
Tryon, L. Waldegrave, E.
Tweedsmuir, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.46 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12: Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("period") to ("as") in line 22.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2(6) allows the Secretary of State to declare a period of special protection for any bird, and it is stated that such a period shall not in any case exceed 14 days. I was of the opinion that the purpose of making such an order would be to extend the close season of birds. I felt that it should not be limited to the period of 14 days by which such protection may be extended. That would have been the purpose of my amendment. I now understand that this period of special protection is for cases where some calamity arises, either due to pollution or to cold weather, and that close seasons may be extended as the Secretary of State desires by means of the preceding subsection. Unless therefore any noble Lord has a point which he wishes to make, I do not intend to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)

My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 14A.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 14: Page 3, leave out lines 29 to 32.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, since the Committee stage we have been endeavouring to tidy up the consultation procedures in Part I of the Bill. A number of changes are proposed to Clause 25. Clause 2(7)(a) is a duplication of Clause 25(2)(a). Clause 2(7)(b) we now see as unnecessary. It is the only paragraph on birds in which the Nature Conservancy Council are mentioned, though as they are to be the nominated wildlife advisory body it will continue to be the practice to consult them on all bird matters. I suspect that the noble Lord opposite may wish to speak to his amendment at the same time. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am quite happy to let Amendment No. 14A fall because later we shall come back to a similar point. However, I should like to ask the noble Earl where it is said that the Nature Conservancy Council will always be consulted. I know that from now on they will themselves appoint the advisory committees, but I thought it was a printing error when the noble Earl indicated that he was deleting lines 29 to 32. I could not understand why he was deleting the Nature Conservancy Council and assumed that he had done so by mistake. But obviously he has not. Where does it say in the Bill that the Government will consult the Nature Conservancy Council? It may be that we shall need rather more than simply the noble Earl's assurance, valuable though that is.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is a duplication of Clause 25(2)(a)—or that is what it says in my brief but I do not think that is quite right, so I may have to come back to the noble Lord on this!

Lord Melchett

My Lords, the noble Earl is obviously still making his speech, in which case perhaps I may intervene in it. I am not sure that he is right; I think that Clause 25(2)(a) might well cover it but I think it would be simpler if he were to continue his speech and then he could write to me, if he wants to, but I am probably happy about Clause 25(2)(a).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 14A not moved.]

4.50 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 15: Page 3, line 35, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a drafting amendment to convert "species" into "kinds" in Claus 2(7) so as to chime in with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I quite understand that what the noble Earl is doing here is to conform with the usage in the rest of the Bill. I myself regret this. I wish, rather, that he had left out the word "kind" throughout the Bill and inserted the word "species". The word "kind" is an extremely vague term. There are all sorts of different kinds of birds, including those that can fly and those that cannot fly. I do not understand the shyness that has been shown throughout the drafting about the use of the word "species", which is an exact and scientific term. Therefore although I shall not oppose the amendment I think it would be very much better to use the word "species" instead.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 15A:

Page 3, line 36, at end insert— ("; and (d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the protection of birds of the kind proposed to be protected by the order").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.14A, which fell, was a paving amendment for this but I think that, on page 3, subsection (7), which these amendments affect, would be quite reasonably worded if this amendment were accepted, although we might need the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c), which of course will presumably not be transformed into "(a)" unless my amendment goes in but will simply carry on from "consult".

As we have it at the moment, before making one of these hard-weather orders the Bill says that the Secretary of State shall consult, a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species proposed to be protected by the order"— and that is it. Noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage will remember that one of our problems in debating this particular subsection was that we got to the stage when it seemed that there would be far too many people for the Secretary of State reasonably to be able to consult in time to make an order. It seems to me that is not now an argument because we are simply left with somebody who is representative of persons interested in shooting but that seems to me to strengthen enormously the argument for our amendment; representative of persons interested in birds of a kind which it is proposed should be protected by the order. One of the arguments that was put up against this at the last stage was that the Secretary of State would have to consult too many people. I think that is now cleared out of the way. All that this would suggest (if my amendment is carried) is that the Secretary of State should consult two people; one interested in shooting and one interested in protection. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

The second argument that was put up against it was that those who were interested in protection were already going to be consulted, either by the advisory bodies or the NCC. In the first place neither of them is now mentioned in the subsection but even if the noble Earl is right and the NCC would always be consulted, that does not seem to me to be an argument against my amendment—because advisory committees, as 1 understand it, in the first place do not have representatives of those interested in the protection of birds sitting on them, if they are like the existing advisory committees, and we have been told that they will be. They have individuals who are there in their own right as individuals, not as representatives of particular organisations and there are on the whole individuals there from organisations like WAGBI, in the same way as there are individuals there from organisations like the RSPB. WAGBI is one example, and I think it is quite right that they should be on the advisory committee and that they should be consulted under subsection (7). I think that is absolutely right and I make no complaint about that, but if they are to be represented on the advisory committee, as I hope they will continue to be, and if they are to be mentioned in subsection (7), I cannot for the life of me see why the bird protection people should not also have one of their members on the advisory committee and also be mentioned in subsection (7). All I am really asking for is some even-handedness.

I think this is particularly important because, after all, these orders on the whole are requested by bird protection organisations, although of course wild-fowlers often join in and there may well be complete agreement between all concerned. But the one case where a bird protection order was made recently was in fact requested by the RSPB and opposed by a number of other people and eventually the government made the order which the RSPB had requested. So it seems to me to be vital that somebody representative of the protection of birds should be mentioned specifically in subsection (7), in particular because now even if an advisory committee, which will have the interests of bird protection at heart, advises in favour of an order, it is always open to the NCC to ignore that advice and to tell the Government not to take that action. In those circumstances the people who have asked for the order would not have to be consulted by the Government and that seems to me to be wrong, particularly if the Government are (quite rightly) required to consult somebody representative of those interested in shooting. Having got rid of a lot of the arguments against this which were raised at Committee stage, I hope it will now be acceptable. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government continue to resist this amendment for the reasons given at the Committee stage, on the grounds that we want shooting to be included here because it is specifically the shooter that we are intending it against; the basic point being that the Nature Conservancy Council is the adviser throughout this Bill. However, in view of my unsatisfactory reply on the previous amendment, I should like to take this back and look at it again.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am grateful. I think it would be worth looking at this again. It is a small matter. The subsection has to be re-drafted as a result of the Government's amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord's advisers will consider this from the viewpoint of those interested in bird protection as well as those interested in shooting. I think it is excellent that the shooters are to be consulted, and it is excellent that they are on the advisory committees; but if that is to be the case, as I hope it will be, I think it is only right, in the case of these particular orders, especially that the bird protection people should also be (a) on the advisory committees and (b) mentioned in the Bill along with those interested in shooting. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look at this again. I hope we can clear up this minor matter at Third Reading—it will be one of the few that we shall actually have to do then, and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Clause 3 [Areas of special protection]:

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 17: Page 4, line 2, at end insert ("or being built").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 18: Page 4, line 5, after ("is") insert ("in").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 19: Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 8 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 20: Page 4, line 26, leave out second ("the") and insert ("dependent").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also is consequential upon Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 1 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 20A: Page 4, line 28, after ("(3)") insert ("where").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment brings us back to the subject of bird sanctuaries in Clause 3. Noble Lords will remember that we had a considerable debate about this at Committee stage. With this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 20B, 20C, 20D, and 21A and 21B because they all go together. The effect of thes amendments, or at least the intention behind these amendments, would be to remove the power of veto which could be exercised by one owner or occupier on a bird sanctuary being set up. I think it is worth while saying right at the outset, because we had some confusion in this debate at Committee stage, that bird sanctuary orders do not prevent owners and occupiers from converting land from one use to another; they do not interfere with agricultural operations; they do not interfere with things which are subject to planning control. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will take this in, because I am particularly making the point that bird sanctuaries are no threat to farming or forestry interests or economic interests on the land at all. That is a different part of the Bill which we do not have to deal with today; but, as I say, there was some confusion at Committee stage in the minds of some noble Lords who spoke on the amendments, and I hope we can avoid that confusion today. Bird sanctuary orders would control the shooting of birds in those areas. Under the Bill as it has been presented by the Government, it would not actually prohibit the shooting; it would, for example, allow wildfowling to take place in a particular area during the winter but there would be no disturbance of the birds during the summer breeding season, if that was the particular reason for the sanctuary being set up.

What worries a lot of people, and it certainly worried noble Lords opposite at Committee stage, as well as some on this side, is that at the moment all bird sanctuaries can only be set up if there is complete agreement among all those concerned. In other words, if there is a large area where people want to set up a bird sanctuary, and a number of owners and occupiers are involved—let us say, half a dozen or a dozen—and one of those refuses to accept an order, then the whole thing falls and cannot go ahead. It seems that, for this relatively modest provision for increasing protection for birds, it would be very useful to have a provision in the Bill which allowed the Secretary of State, if he saw fit, to ensure that the one maverick (as I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, called the individual concerned at Committee stage) who was not prepared to accept the order could be compelled to do so, with, of course, adequate compensation being paid. That is what the amendments, particularly No. 21B, would provide for.

There are important bird sanctuaries, in particular in estuaries, and particularly in Scotland, where there is an unrestricted right of access to the foreshore and it is not possible to control shooting on estuaries in the same way as it can be done in England and Wales. Noble Lords may have seen some recent correspondence in magazines such as the Shooting Times.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I think the noble Lord said it could not be controlled in Scotland. Am I not right in thinking that the local authority can impose by-laws? In fact, I think they have done so in a number of areas.

Lord Melchett

Not as I understand it, my Lords. As I understand it, it is not possible to pass a by-law in Scotland which would prevent somebody shooting on the foreshore, as they are now able to do. Part of my authority for this comes from correspondence in the Shooting Times; there have been some very vociferous complaints from members of WAGBI and wild-fowlers about the unrestrained and unrestricted shooting on estuaries in Scotland and the fairly horrifying consequences of that, which these members of WAGBI reported on in this letter. I will not go into all that; if noble Lords want it I can do it when I wind up the debate. I hope that the modest proposals which we now have will be acceptable.

As I say, we are not interfering with farming or forestry. This is simply to try and make bird sanctuary provisions effective. There have been only 30 set up under the existing provisions, and almost all of those, I think I am right in saying, were set up very soon after the Act came into force. Since then it has proved virtually impossible to get bird sanctuaries set up. I do not believe the changes the Government are making will necessarily make it any easier, but I believe this amendment would. As bird sanctuaries are something which I hope all of us on all sides of the House support, I hope these amendments will prove acceptable. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, once again I am afraid I cannot support the noble Lord on this. It poses the question of compulsion to start with. I am not in favour of compulsion. Once you start compulsion you will lose goodwill. I am all for seeing these sites set up, but if you compel a farmer or owner to take part I am sure you will somehow or other lose the site. Apart from that, if you are going to have compulsion I think you should have an appeal; I do not think this amendment does allow that, although I am sure the noble Lord will put me right if I am wrong. Lastly, there is the question of compensation. I do not know how you are going to compensate. Technically it is very difficult. What do you compensate him for? The last point is the one which the noble Lord made specifically to me, that it is not going to affect farming operations. I really cannot quite understand that. You are not going to be able to disturb the area, and neither should you if it is a bird sanctuary. You must not go in during the nesting time. This may well affect farming operations. You might want to plough it; I know that is rather an extreme case, but you may want to go in and spray for some reason. So I do think there is an agricultural content, even though not directly. I do not think I can support the amendment as it stands.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, this is one of a number of cases in the Bill where this question of ultimate compulsion comes up. It is a question which in principle was settled about 150 years ago, when the railway Acts first started coming in, that where one person wishes to hold out among a large number of others who are prepared to be compensated for something which is for the public good there should in the last resort be an element of compulsion. All parties have gone along with this. This is not a very extreme case. What we are talking about is basically shooting rights, and I would not have thought there would be any difficulty, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in putting some kind of figure on that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, however, that I think possibly there should be some appeal, and maybe that could be looked at again if your Lordships pass this amendment; it is something which could be put in at Third Reading. It seems to me that there is a strong case here for having an ultimate compulsion to take away a small part of people's rights, in a case which really seems worthwhile for the benefit of the whole. I think this should be supported.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, basically I cannot support this amendment on the grounds of the compensation. I think that the amendment is technically inadequate because it does not specify what the compensation is for; how it will be assessed; who it is going to; and what rights those people have. That is a fundamental part of compensation law and I have experienced cases where the clarification as to what the compensation is to be assessed on has been vague and that has led to all sorts of problems from the district valuer right through to the agent acting on behalf of the owner-occupier. The amendment could lead to serious areas of difficulty.

The second point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has underestimated is, of course, the effect on agricultural operations. I do not think that I am at all confused, as he suggested I might be, as regards this matter. There is very clear evidence in the wording of the Bill as drafted at present that people will feel restricted, that this will mean a restriction on agricultural operations and I think that, without any form of appeal or a more sensible basis of looking at this, the House ought to reject the amendment.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am very surprised at the farming objections to this amendment. Last time we discussed this matter we became rather confused and talked about habitat protection where there is, of course, an interference with farming. It seems to me that it is not an interference—and by far the most likely example here will be shooting rights—if it is required that the sanctuary should not be shot over. Shooting rights are perfectly easy to value—there is no problem about that. They are often let and people pay so much a gun. It is not a difficult problem. It is perfectly simple to say what the farmer is giving up if he is told that he must cease exercising his shooting rights.

I cannot see the problem. I cannot think that any other aspect of farming will be affected at all. He could even plough permanent pasture or moorland. There is nothing in this amendment, but there is something in the habitat regulations which arise later. I think that very heavy weather is being made of this matter. It is perfectly simple and it is important that if we are to have an element of compulsion—which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is very much against—at least we should freely give compensation for what the owner is forced to give up.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I think that there is an element of damage to the farmer—which is not recognised by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—certainly in ploughing, probably in re-seeding and very possibly even in the making of muirburn. The very fact that there is an element of damage and interference with the farmers' existing rights is recognised by the suggestion that there might be compensation. I feel that the strongest objection to this particular clause must be the fact that a compulsory order can be introduced without any form of public hearing being provided for, and that to me is the one reason why I cannot possibly support these amendments. However, I think that there are flaws in the amendments anyway as regards the way in which they are drafted and I personally shall resist them if they are moved in your Lordships' House.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, are we speaking to all four amendments? If that is so, I think that it would be quite impossible to support Amendment No. 20D. That would be quite absurd and extremely unfair. Why should you not consult with the local authority in whose area the order is to be made? Of course, you ought to notify the owner or the occupier of the land and, if he cannot be traced, you should advertise in a local paper in the area. I really cannot see how we can strike that out. It seems extremely high-handed.

5.16 p.m.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, these amendments are the same as the ones which were put down in Committee and it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords that the power of veto to owners and occupiers has done a good deal to emasculate the sanctuary order provisions of the 1954 Act and has led to only 30 sanctuaries under the present Act—I think that that figure was given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.

The Government do not believe, on the evidence of the sanctuary proposals put forward, that the power of veto is the principal reason for the limited number of sanctuaries being created. In fact, six or seven sanctuaries have been made in the last three years. Shooting rights are not affected and existing vested rights are retained under the present provisions. So this is not a reason for farmers to fear an area of special protection. In any case we consider it important for the proper working of such orders that the consent of the people directly affected by them should be freely given and we believe that that is a cardinal issue here.

We understand the concern that frivolous objections might stop an order, but it is our experience that such objections are withdrawn when the objector fully understands the effect and reason for the order. More serious in our view is the fact that, under the present restrictive conditions for sanctuaries, only a limited number of proposals are being made. When we receive objections on a large scale it is normally because the current law on bird sanctuaries prevents activities such as wildfowling although that may not be incompatible with the purposes for which an order is being made—for example, to give greater protection to migrating breeding birds in the summer. We hope that the revised provisions in Clause 3(1) will mean that better protection can be given to birds where and when they need it.

It is important to be clear that Clause 3 is not a habitat protection measure; it is a species protection measure. Neither would it be suitable to adapt this clause to help preserve habitat. Part I of the Bill is concerned with species and I would like to confirm what I said in Committee—namely, that Clause 3 provisions do not themselves meet the requirements of the birds directive and they were never intended to do so. There are already existing powers to meet the directives' requirements on habitats and those will be supplemented by Clause 26, which could, for example, allow the Nature Conservancy Council to identify an area of special concern in the conservation of a species of bird. In such circumstances the failure to get agreement could be followed by compulsion and compensation—indeed, the compensation issue has been raised by my noble friend.

In principle, if shooting were a prime threat an order under Clause 26 could be made prohibiting shooting over land as an operation likely to destroy or damage its fauna. The council would then be bound to pay compensation under Clause 27(2)(b) for the loss incurred. If the NCC did not have sufficient funds it would be open to them to accept donations for this purpose. Accordingly, we could not accept—as we do not consider it necessary or see the need to include—compensation provisions in Part I of the Bill. The provisions of the clause do not seek to prevent an owner or occupier of land from using that land in any way he sees fit. Clause 3 is to give statutory backing to the best kind of protection—the kind voluntarily given by the people concerned.

I was asked about the question of appeal which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I think that it was also raised a second time. No appeal on bird sanctuaries is set out in the Bill: this is an agreement among all parties with regard to the Bill as drafted at present. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that an appeal procedure might be added at a later stage if the point were conceded in the amendment. The Government do not intend to do that. We do not accept that Clause 3(4) is redundant. Clause 3(4)(b) is a much stronger provision, and in our view properly so, than Clause 25(2)(b). Therefore, I must ask your Lordships to reject all the amendments.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, at times I am astonished at the extent to which Ministers do not appear to understand the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships' House and which we have spent so much time discussing. For a start, I assume that the noble Lord was referring to Clause 27 and not Clause 26, which is a red herring, and which is why I did not mention it myself. The noble Lord saw fit to do so, so I am afraid that I have to respond, although it is a waste of time in this part of the Bill to start talking about Clause 27.

It does not meet the point at all, because even if one of the 30 or 40 orders which the Government have promised us under Clause 27 were simply restricted to an area which was suitable as a bird sanctuary and prevented shooting on it, it runs for only 12 months and after that the landowner or occupier is free to go ahead and do what he wants. It seems to me to have absolutely nothing to do with this clause at all.

Two other points have been made about this. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, came very close to saying, an appeal against the kind of order that I am proposing in my amendments would be available under Clause 25 where appeals are available for any orders that are made. I accept from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the compensation provisions are technically inadequate. I should be astonished if any amendment of any noble Lord, other than those on the Front Bench, and even sometimes theirs, were not technically inadequate. The point of drafting amendments to Bills, whether they are the noble Earl's amendments or mine, is to try to get the House to decide on the principle, and then it is for the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen to perfect them. If any of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, are agreed, I have no intention of mentioning the fact that they are technically inadequate, and I hope that he will extend the same courtesy to me.

On the question of goodwill, which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, raised, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, of course we all want goodwill. But, with respect to the noble Lord, it is no good coming forward to the House and saying that anything we do to change the existing situation will lead to an enormous loss of goodwill and will, therefore, be a step backwards, if we have made no steps forward since 1954, with all the goodwill that there is in existence. It is one thing if we were making enormous progress and if there was no problem in setting up bird sanctuaries where they were needed, where wildfowlers and bird protectionists agreed that there ought to be bird sanctuaries, as I think they do; that there should be a bird sanctuary on every major estuary in England, Scotland and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is looking horrified; I did not say that every major estuary should itself be a bird sanctuary, but there should be an area on each major estuary which should be available as a bird sanctuary, and I think that that is a widely accepted policy. But that simply is not possible under the existing provisions because of the powers of veto which are perpetuated in this Bill.

There is another reason for thinking that this amendment is a vitally important one. I do not believe that the provisions of Clause 3, as drafted, come anywhere near meeting the requirements of the EEC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds, as it relates to the disturbance and the protection of migratory species. The EEC directive lays on us a duty to ensure that certain migratory species are free from disturbance and are protected while they are in this country. Of course, we have in this country, uniquely in Europe, a vitally important position, because of the importance of the bird estuaries in this country, for protecting migratory species, none of which breeds here but a great many of which winter here, in Ireland and in other countries—they move through and along the different estuary systems.

I believe that these provisions, coupled where necessary with the habitat protection measures—and it is the habitat protection measures which we shall come to and which control farming, forestry and so on—would enable the United Kingdom Government to establish meaningful areas of special protection which would comply with the spirit of the EEC directive and the letter of the directive, but, as drafted, I do not think that the clause does.

As a last attempt to get the agricultural lobby with this farmer over here, may I point out to noble Lords opposite that this clause prevents, first, the killing, injuring or taking of a wild bird, or the taking, damaging or destroying of nests or eggs, or the disturbance of birds when they are building nests. Therefore, it is quite true to say that it would prohibit farmers from ploughing and converting permanent pasture during the breeding season; I suppose that it would prevent them spraying permanent pasture during the breeding season, or harrowing grass during the breeding season. But that does not seem to me to be a major restriction. We are not talking about stopping someone converting permanent pasture to arable; he can do that at any time he wants to out of the breeding season, as he can any other agricultural operation. It is very specific protection, simply to prevent the disturbing or destroying of a nest, destroying an egg or killing a bird, and no more than that; and therefore, would imply any restriction on agriculture for only very limited times of the year, after which anyone could do what he wanted.

Lord Burton

My Lords, has there ever been a case where a farmer has vetoed a bird sanctuary?

Lord Melchett

Yes, my Lords, there are a large number of areas where bird protectionists would like to set up bird sanctuaries, and where either owners or occupiers—I am not sure about farmers, about which the noble Lord asked me specifically—have prevented the sanctuary being set up. I do not regard sanctuaries as being of any threat to farming and I am trying to persuade noble Lords opposite that they should not be. Having made my case, I hope that they will support this amendment.

5.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 131.

CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Kilbracken, L.
Ardwick, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Avebury, L. Lee of Newton, L.
Aylestone, L. Leonard, L.
Bacon, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Banks, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Longford, E.
Beswick, L. McNair, L.
Birk, B. Maelor, L.
Blease, L. Mais, L.
Blyton, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Boston of Faversham, L. Melchett, L.
Briginshaw, L. Meston, L.
Brockway, L. Milford, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Noel-Baker, L.
Chitnis, L. Northfield, L.
Collison, L. Ogmore, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Peart, L.
Cranbrook, E. Phillips, B.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Leek, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Denington, B. Ross of Marnock, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Segal, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L, Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. Stone, L.
Gaitskell, B. Strabolgi, L.
Gardiner, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gladwyn, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Underhill, L.
Gosford, E. Wade, L.
Granville of Eye, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Greenwood of Rossendale, L.
Hale, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hampton, L. White, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wigoder, L.
Jacques, L. Willis, L.
Janner, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Jeger, B. Wynne-Jones, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M. Ellenborough, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Allerton, L. Elphinstone, L.
Alport, L. Exeter, M.
Armstrong, L. Ferrers, E.
Auckland, L. Forester, L.
Avon, E. Fortescue, E.
Balerno, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Gainford, L.
Bellwin, L. Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.
Belstead, L. Gibson-Watt, L.
Bessborough, E. Gisborough, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Glasgow, E.
Burton, L. Glendevon, L.
Caithness, E. Gormanston, V.
Cawley, L. Gridley, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Chelwood, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Chesham, L.
Clinton, L. Hanworth, V.
Cockfield, L. Hayter, L.
Colwyn, L. Henley, L.
Cottesloe, L. Hertford, M.
Craigton, L. Hillingdon, L.
Crawshaw, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Daventry, V. Hylton-Foster, B.
de Clifford, L. Ilchester, E.
De Freyne, L. Inglewood, L.
De La Warr, E. Ironside, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Killearn, L.
Derwent, L. Kimberley, E.
Drumalbyn, L. Kinnoull, E.
Dulverton, L. Long, V.
Dundee, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L. Romney, E.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Macleod of Borve, B. St. Davids, V.
Malmesbury, E. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Mansfield, E. Seebohm, L.
Margadale, L. Selkirk, E.
Marley, L. Sempill, Ly.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Simon, V.
Middleton, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Soames, L.
Mondon, L. Stamp, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Morris, L. Strathclyde, L.
Mottistone, L. Strathspey, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Sudeley, L.
Moyne, L. Suffield, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Swansea, L.
Newall, L. Swinton, E.
Nugent of Guildford, L. Terrington, L.
Onslow, E. Teviot, L.
Orkney, E. Thurso, V.
Orr-Ewing, L. Tranmire, L.
Peel, E. Trumpington, B.
Penrhyn, L. Tryon, L.
Pritchard, L. Ullswater, V.
Radnor, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Rawlinson of Ewell, L. Vickers, B.
Reading, M. Vivian, L.
Renton, L. Waldegrave, E.
Ridley, V. Wise, L.
Rochdale, V. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 20B, 20C, and 20D not moved.]

5.35 p.m.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 21: Page 4, leave out lines 34 to 36.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been tidying up the consultation procedures in Part I. Clause 3(4)(a), which requires consultation with any local authority affected by the making of an order, is, like Clause 2(7)(a), for practical purposes, a duplication of Clause 25(2)(b) and as such unnecessary. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord a question about this amendment? As I understand it, this removes the provision for local authorities to promote bird sanctuaries. I assume that there is still somewhere in the Bill a provision stating that the local authority can do this, because I know they are particularly interested in bird sanctuaries. It would be helpful if the noble Lord pointed out where that arises.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, having checked up on this, as opposed to the one before, I can say that it is in Clause 25(2)(b).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 21A and 21B not moved.]

Clause 4 [Exceptions to Sections 1 and 3]:

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 22: Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments, Nos. 22 and 23, and 30 and 31, would be, for the convenience of the House, better moved together. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kil- bracken, may be in agreement with this proposal, and he nods his head. With your Lordships' permission I shall also move Amendment No. 23, which is the substantial one, and speak to Amendment No. 30.

During Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested that it was inappropriate to allow any person, albeit an authorised person, to catch ducks and geese for the purpose of ringing or marking them, as ringing of any wild bird is a skilled occupation. We asked the advisory committees for their advice, and I promised in Committee to obtain their reply. They recommended that the exception should be removed and that it should not be permissible for an untrained person to undertake skilful work of this kind. The Government accept this advice. It is proper that it should only be undertaken under licence—as is the case for all other birds—and after the necessary and, I understand, rigorous period of training that the British Trust for Ornithology require. Amendment No. 30 is for practical purposes consequential on these, deleting the provision allowing the use of otherwise prohibited methods—the cage trap and certain types of net. I beg to move.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment, which covers the two separate points I raised in Committee and which will enable me not to move Amendment No. 31, which covers the same ground as Government Amendment No. 30.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 23: Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("1976") to end of line 27.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.41 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 23ZA: Page 6, line 2, after ("necessary") insert ("and urgent").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled rather late in the day because it came to my notice that the Government might not intend to move Amendment No. 24, which is down in their name. I thought it an important point—it would apply to mammals later in the Bill but Amendment No. 24 would have applied to birds—and I would have been happy with the wording of No. 24. If I am wrong about the Government not intending to move that amendment, I shall be happy to withdraw No. 23ZA and allow No. 24 to stand, but I see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, shaking his head in dissent, which means the Government are not likely to move No. 24.

It might be helpful if I explained why I feel that my Amendment No. 23ZA would be a useful substitute, and doing that might help us to make progress more quickly. I understand that the Government are happy with the wording of Amendment No. 24 as it applies to protected mammals but not as it applies to birds; in the birds part of the Bill all birds are protected, except those on the pests species list, and it would be necessary for people to have anticipated the risk of damage not just from a few protected birds but from all birds, except those of the pest species, and to have got, as it were, a pre-emptive licence in advance.

I am not sure I agree with that, but I can see there is some argument for making a distinction between mammals, where just a few are protected, and birds, where most are protected. I felt that it would be useful to insert in Clause 4 some wording which reflected the consensus in Committee. At that stage, I failed to get into the clause wording which some of my noble friends and I wanted—about the grounds on which farmers or others could take action to prevent birds destroying crops or forestry or whatever—and I wanted that to be done only under very strict conditions.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in particular made the point, as did a number of his noble friends, that the agricultural let-out in Clause 4 was useful because occasionally farmers or landowners would need to take action in an emergency when there was not time to apply for a licence. I accept the force of that argument and I do not think there is anything between us on that. What worries me, however, is that people reading Clause 4 as it stands will not take that meaning from it, because the word at present used in the clause is "necessary". If prosecuted, a farmer or landowner will have to go to court to prove that his action was necessary for the purposes set out in the Bill, and I do not believe that the average individual reading this provision will take it from the word "necessary" that the action had to be urgent and that he had not had time to apply for a licence.

As the result of letters and meetings with the Government since Committee, I understand that the view of parliamentary counsel is that "necessary" includes "urgent" and that therefore my amendment is not necessary. I believe that that is wrong, because we are here talking not about a licensing procedure where experts will be involved and MAFF or the NCC will be issuing licences. We are talking about a clause which people will read and they will take action on it without anybody else having any say-so. We are talking about action that people will take in an emergency. The situation should be made clear in the wording so that ordinary people will understand it.

If I as a farmer were to read the clause as drafted and saw that I could take action when it was necessary to prevent damage, I suggest that nothing in that wording would tell me that I could be liable to prosecution unless the action I took was urgent or was in an emergency. It seems to me that nothing in the clause as drafted would tell me as a farmer that I would be liable to prosecution if I took action for which I could have got a licence, and apparently that is what the word "necessary" means, according to parliamentary counsel. I suggest that that is not fair. Even if parliamentary counsel says that the amendment is unnecessary, I still think it is highly desirable, because it would make clear on the face of the Bill what we are told "necessary" means, and it would make it clear to people who might otherwise end up in court being prosecuted for things they did not know they should not have done.

As I say, I would have preferred Amendment No. 24, but I appreciate, having had brief discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and his colleagues, that it presents certain problems so far as farmers are concerned. However, I cannot see any difficulty standing in the way of accepting Amendment No. 23ZA, except the view of parliamentary counsel, and I suggest that we should worry about what farmers will make of the clause rather than what parliamentary counsel make of it. I therefore hope my amendment will be acceptable. If not, I should want to press Amendment No. 24.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that ordinary people do not read Bills, and he is not an ordinary person. Apart from that, I support the principle of the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has rehearsed all my arguments, not only about Amendment No. 24, but about my words of warning in this context. As he said, it is purely that parliamentary counsel advise that it would not have the effect he suggests, but the noble Lord has argued the case on that point and I must leave it to him.

Lord Melchett

I am grateful to the Minister, my Lords. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, says, but farmers, like others, will be advised by people who will have to read the Bill. They will not have had the benefit of parliamentary counsel's lengthy opinion on what the word "necessary" means or does not mean. I suggest it would be a small improvement to include "and urgent" in the provision, especially if, as seems the case, the Government do not propose to move Amendment No. 24.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.47 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 23A: Page 6, line 6, after ("timber") insert ("or any other form of property").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 125A. I raised this matter in Committee, since when my noble friend Lord Avon has been kind enough to write to me stating that the Government were writing to the commission for advice on whether including the words "or any other form of property" was correct. I raise it again now simply to see whether the Government can clarify the position and whether they have any further points to make on the subject. To save the House time, I will not repeat the original argument; anybody who wants to read it will find it in col. 699 of Hansard for 27th January. I beg to move.

Lord Burton

My Lords, the next amendment is down in my name and is on exactly the same subject. I am happy to accept my noble friend's wording. As we have different words on the same theme, it shows that we are of the same mind, while not being in collusion. I understand that this matter has gone to the EEC, but we should not wait too long for the bureaucracy there to deal with it; we should have the matter dealt with by Third Reading. We should not send a Bill of this type to another place containing something of which we do not approve. If an answer has not been received from the EEC by Third Reading, the other place will be able to remove any offending words, if, by chance, we find that the EEC do not like what we suggest.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, I will with permission also speak to Amendment No. 23B, already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Burton. This makes similar alterations in Clause 15(1)(l). The term "any other form of property", was removed in Committee because of its non-compliance with the bird directive. However, we took note of the concern expressed at the time—for example, about protection of animal foodstuffs—and we have written to the EEC Commission about this and related matters. We are now awaiting a reply. Pending advice from the Commission, we would not wish to make any alteration to Clause 4(3) and Clause 15(1)(l), particularly as in our view that is contrary to the directive. I hope that my noble friends will accept my undertaking that on receipt of advice we shall table whatever amendment is appropriate to deal with the problem.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am perfectly happy with that answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 238 not moved].

5.51 p.m.

Lord Bellwin had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:

Page 6, line 6, at end insert— ("(4) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (3)(c) 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.").

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I wonder whether I may beg leave to move this amendment, simply in order to raise with the Government a point on which I would not expect an answer now, but perhaps the Minister will consider it and write to me. As the noble Lord has already intimated, the Government do not themselves intend to move this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is concerned about the proprieties of the matter, I would say that any noble Lord is free to move it. The amendment raises the question of what is the legal position of a landowner or farmer who applies for a licence to do something, is refused the licence, and then goes ahead and does it in any event. The amendment would have made it quite clear that in those circumstances such a person would be committing a criminal offence, and that seemed to me to be quite a useful point to state in the text of the Bill. As I understand it, at the Committee stage the Government said—I do not have the reference with me—that that was the case in any event. If a person who had applied for and been refused a licence then took action under Clause 4—or under the later clause, which applies to animals, where the same problem will not now arise; and so we are talking about only Clause 4—the court would hear that the person had applied for and been refused a licence, and that fact would be used in evidence against him. That was the Government's view of the matter at the Committee stage.

Since then I have taken some legal advice, according to which what I have just described is not the case. The advice I have is that if someone applied for a licence to do something with a bird, was refused the licence, and then took action under Clause 4, that fact would not be admissible in evidence because it would not be directly related to the case that was being brought. That is an important point. I would not expect the noble Earl to give me an answer now, but I hope that he will agree to write to me, in which case I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, certainly my reading of the Bill is as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has stated, and I shall check as to whether I am correct. Certainly the Government's view is as has been stated, but if the position is otherwise, obviously we shall have to do something about it.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 25: Page 6, line 21, leave out ("or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 go together, but Amendment No. 27 relates to another matter. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, raised the question of whether the catapult should be one of the weapons that should be prohibited in the killing of birds. I saw the noble Lord in his place a few moments ago and I was about to apologise to him for any apparent discourtesy in my taking over his initiative, as it were, but—

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will allow me to intervene, I would say that my noble friend has asked me to apologise on his behalf. He has an appointment in Scotland and he has had to depart to catch his train.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord; I am sure that the House fully understands the situation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, took an interest in this matter and perhaps it was fortuitous that I tabled amendments on it. At the earlier stage, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that if pressed he would give further consideration to the question. He was not pressed very hard. Nevertheless, he apparently took, it away for further consideration. It may be that he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, as he courteously has done to me, and, I am sure, to other noble Lords, on matters raised during the Committee stage, but I am not myself aware of any grounds on which the Government accept or reject the idea of adding the catapult to the list of prohibited weapons.

When during the Committee stage we considered the catapult in regard to a later clause, Clause 11, dealing with weapons that are prohibited in the killing of certain scheduled animals, I referred to the slingshot. I spoke of the lethal nature of a slingshot, recently imported from the United States. It is described in publicity as a hunting weapon, effective at 225 yards, and there is other blurb about the use of this new method of killing. The advertisement that I saw in the Surrey Mirror suggested that with the slingshot one could kill birds, mammals, otters, pigeons, squirrels and so forth. Obviously it is intended to be a serious weapon, and that particular newspaper was somewhat indignant about the way in which young people of any age can go into a shop locally and buy one of these weapons for £2.50.

I hope that the Government have favourably considered the idea of including the catapult among the weapons prohibited in the killing of birds. I believe that the catapult must be banned generally. It would be difficult to provide that the catapult may be selectively used for killing some species but not others. I think that generally users of catapults are quite indiscriminating. They can hardly distinguish one species of small bird from another, and I feel that all birds, of whatever kind, are at risk.

I do not see any reason for encouraging the use of a catapult in any circumstances, but I think that most of all one should protect birds from this kind of activity. People who use catapults regard a bird as a pot shot, no matter what kind of bird it is. Very often the birds are not killed, but are wounded, and are left in a rather shameful condition. That is all that I can say about this matter. This is really a continuation of the point raised during the Committee stage, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say on the Government's attitude towards it.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter and support the two amendments. I spoke on the subject at the Committee stage and I have received a few letters on it from various people. I should like to read to your Lordships extracts from one of the letters, written by a Mr. Staig, a farmer of Old Slade Farm, near Iver, Buckinghamshire. He says: … we try to farm in a very urban area, and are constantly at war with poachers, mostly young people … but also adults, with very sophisticated catapults, killing, maiming, and leaving to die in agony many wild birds, rabbits, et cetera. Also they fire at our cattle, pigs, horses, et cetera, and could very easily blind one of them". That is only one of the letters I have received, but it is a fact that a great deal of cruelty is caused with catapults. I do not know much about the slingshot, but from what the noble Lord has told us it should certainly be banned. But I can see no excuse for catapults. The people who use them, as the noble Lord said, are quite indiscriminate. They do not know anything about wildlife. That is not their fault necessarily, because they probably come from urban areas; but that is no excuse for allowing them to cause agony to birds and animals. Therefore, I heartily support these two amendments.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, surely Goliath was the only one who really needed to worry about the slingshot, and he suffered the fatal penalty for it. Are we not in danger here of making too much fuss? The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, has quoted a letter from a farmer who wrote to him saying that his horses and cattle had been fired at by catapult. That is not legal anyway; and anybody who can hit a rabbit or a pigeon with a catapult must be very clever indeed. I had a catapult until it was confiscated by my father, and I totally failed to hit anything with it at all. I suggest that here we are in danger of making too much fuss and of stopping a relatively harmless piece of amusement.

Lord Burton

My Lords, may I ask a question on this point? I think that on this one unique occasion I may be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Looking at Clause 26, the interpretation clause, I am not sure that anything in subsection (1) is defined. I know that when we tried to get a crossbow included in the deer legislation there was some difficulty in defining a crossbow. Perhaps this might be looked at in the future.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I should like to say a brief word in support. There is absolutely no doubt that small boys enjoy killing things just for the pleasure of killing them, and one of the ways they do it is with a catapult. I think that the more one can make this not part of every child's upbringing the better. I believe it to be something quite different from the pleasures of the chase or the skills of hunting or shooting, which I am not particularly opposed to, unlike my noble friend; but I think that for children to be let loose, with everybody's approval, to pot what they can with a stone, and probably damage it, is a very bad thing, and I support the noble Lord.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I fail to understand the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he says that we are making too much fuss over this. If it is wrong to do a certain thing, then it is wrong whatever weapon one may use for it; and to say that it is making a fuss to ban certain weapons but is not making a fuss to ban others seems to me absolute and utter nonsense.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, perhaps I could intervene here. I think sentimentally we are all against catapults, and I should like your Lordships to consider very seriously whether in this Bill on conservation we should include catapults. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has mentioned, we discussed this in Committee on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. The Government have again considered the question of adding catapults to the prohibited methods listed for birds and mammals in both Clause 5 and Clause 11. We asked the advisory committees for their views. They considered that a prohibition is not justified in present circumstances, and we are in agreement with this.

We appreciate that some of the catapults being manufactured nowadays are powerful weapons—in fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself brought this up in Committee—and they are capable of firing metal pellets and similar objects. We agree that they are not weapons suitable for use against birds and animals. However, the Home Office have had few reports and they do not have evidence of serious misuse of this type of catapult. My department and the Home Office will keep the catapult and slingshot under review, and can take action by order to amend this clause if necessary. I would therefore hope that the House would reject this amendment and not be too carried away on sentimental grounds.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I feel that on a matter of this kind the House should register an opinion. I think it would be a good thing if the House expressed its disapproval of the spread of this kind of indiscriminate weapon against our wildlife. I fully understand the practical considerations mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, but I should like to see a little more moral fervour in decisions of your Lordships' House, and this might be an occasion for a little of that to be shown on a matter of this kind.

Lord Hale

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that there is moral fervour involved in the proposal to bring little children before a juvenile court for playing conkers?

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]

6.19 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 27:

Page 6, line 34, at end insert— ("(ix) any airgun, air rifle or air pistol; or").

The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the Government would take a favourable view of banning the airgun or similar weapons in Clause 5 of the Bill, and on that understanding I withdrew the amendment that I moved on that occasion. But the subsequent events, I think, are of some importance. On 6th February, 1981, which was a few days after the Committee stage on 27th January, there appeared in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine of 6th February, 1981: STOP PRESS Airguns banned? Without proper consultation the Government have adopted a amendment moved in Committee by Lord Houghton of Sowerby on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill to the effect that it will be an offence to use an airgun against live targets unless that gun is powerful enough (ie one for which a firearms certificate is required). The matter will come up at the Report stage at the end of February. The Department of the Environment has commented that 'There is a considerable will in the House of Lords for something to be done about airguns'. A leading manufacturer of British airguns has said that this could mean the end of the British airgun industry. We will report on this urgent matter as soon as further information is available". I thought, Ah!—somebody is getting at the Government. One recalls that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in replying to the debate, said that he had had a clearance only that morning from the Home Office to include the airgun in the prohibitions in the Bill.

It was therefore not without complete surprise that I received a letter dated 12th February in which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, completely caved in. He gave me, courteously, a lengthy explanation of why the airgun should not be included in Clause 5 of the Bill. I thought that the least I could do was, courteously, to give the noble Earl, Lord Avon, the opportunity of putting on record why the Government changed their mind. The Government change their mind so little that I think that when they do they ought to have a full opportunity of explaining why. Here we are on this momentous topic and I think that the Government would wish to explain themselves.

Therefore, in moving this amendment I hope we may hear why the airgun is apparently, on the Government's initiative, not to be included in the Bill. Then the House may wish to judge the value and persuasiveness of the Government's reply in deciding what they should do about the amendment which I now move.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I do not think that my name is supposed to be on this amendment; it just got there. But I should like some noble Lord to tell me the difference between an airgun and an air rifle. I thought they were the same thing. Provided that you have a powerful enough airgun or air rifle it would be all right to shoot birds. You can shoot quite a lot of birds with a powerful airgun but I do not see how you are going to ensure that the person who has the airgun and who is going to shoot a bird has a powerful enough gun. The only way in which to ensure that is if the law is changed and you have to have a fire-arms certificate for certain types of air rifle. Otherwise, somebody might be shooting birds with a very weak airgun which would wound the birds. I should like to say that a mistake has been made in including my name on this amendment.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I should like to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whose heart I sympathise with, is perhaps slightly under a misapprehension that small children with these weapons will be probably using them at bigger prey than they should be. I accept what my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said and what Lord Houghton said. These weapons should not be used for birds. I have not myself any knowledge of anyone who allows his children to have such weapons who would dream of allowing his children to do such things. In the countryside children are probably on the whole reasonably well controlled and I see no reason why weapons of this nature should not be used against small pest birds or small vermin. The idea that anyone who had a wepaon like this would have to have a game licence and use it against anything more important in the animal kingdom is inconceivable.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene, we are having a confused debate. We are not looking at all the amendments that are down. If the noble Lord looks at the amendments to the animals clause he will see that my noble friend has not prevented the use of guns against pest species but only those specially protected mammals referred to in Schedule 5, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has an amendment down which would allow the use of the airgun against pests. The noble Lord will be happy with the package.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I had noticed that but as the debate was ranging so widely I thought I would make the point now.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, perhaps we could look at this more rationally. I do not know if Lord Stanley and his colleague the noble Earl are planning to speak to their amendment. It would be helpful if the House knew what their intention was.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the Government had to say.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, the Government seem to have temporarily disappeared.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, as we are on Report stage we are in danger of falling out of order. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was trying to be helpful to the House. In a brief moment, my noble friend Lord Avon will be returning to reply.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I was trying to make a speech and I gave way to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the hope that I would get some clarification, which I did not. Perhaps it would be helpful to go through the various amendments on airguns, air rifles and air pistols so that we all know what we are talking about. My noble friend has down an amendment which is the same (except for the inclusion of the word "or") as Amendment No. 27A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. That would prevent the use of airguns, air rifles and air pistols against birds. They then have Amendment No. 32A, which would allow the use of those weapons against bird pest species and that, from my point of view, is acceptable. It states what I understand to be what the law already is: that it is illegal to use an airgun, air rifle or air pistol against anything but a bird pest species. So all that your Lordships would be doing, before we get heated about it, is re-stating, where it ought to be stated, what the law now is. I hope that we will accept either my noble friend's amendment or the noble Earl's amendment. It seems to me not to matter which. I have not worked out whether the "or" should be there. I would prefer not to see bird pests shot with airguns, but I would not wish to oppose that amendment if noble Lords opposite wish to press it.

Then we get on to animals. My noble friend's amendment would prohibit the use of airguns, air rifles and air pistols against the specially protected mammals in Schedule 5 inclusing bats, butterflies and lizards in the list of animals which it would be unsuitable to attempt to shoot with an airgun or air rifles. In any event they are specially protected and should not be. I would hope that in one way or another we have an acceptable and reasonable package of amendments. My name is not on any of them. I think it should have been and I would have been happy for it to be there. I hope that either my noble friend or noble Lords opposite will ensure that their amendment goes into the Bill and we will be able to take the rest as read. I hope the Government will be in a position to accept this amendment. If not, I suggest my noble friend gets up and moves it quickly.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, on the previous amendment when we were talking about catapults and slings the Minister said there was power to add in my order instruments of killing, which were not already mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) so that whether it be a catapult or sling shot or rifles there would be this order-making power. It is somewhere in the Bill. Will the noble Lord explain how this list is capable of expansion if it is found subsequently that any weapons which ought to have been included have been left out?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, if I may reply to this short debate, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 5. I am replying to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because when the noble Lord moved an amendment on this subject during the first day's debate in the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Avon, in good faith, said the Government would consider tabling their own amendment, and it was subsequent to that that the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary looked at this question in more detail.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord would not wish to alter what was said, but the noble Earl, Lord Avon, actually said that he had that morning received clearance from the Home Office for the Government to table an amendment. He did not say that the Government would consider doing it; he said that the Government would do it.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, that was the reason why I said that my noble friend mentioned this in good faith. He was advised that this was the situation, and I am afraid that this was not the situation. If there is any responsibility for what went wrong, then I must take it and not my noble friend. The reason for the change of course was that we had discussions afterwards and we felt that it would not be appropriate for the Government to table an amendment, because although the Government have very great sympathy with the objective of preventing the misuse of guns, we believe that we ought to adopt a somewhat wider and more voluntary approach to the question of air weapon misuse. Several of your Lordships have made the point in speeches, probably founded upon experience with your own families, that airguns are very much used by the young, and a recognition—also in speeches, if I may say so—that the problem that we are dealing with is to a very considerable extent a problem of the young.

Your Lordships might like to be reminded of the severe restrictions which are laid at the moment upon young people so far as the possession and use of air weapons is concerned. It is an offence to sell or hire an airweapon of any kind to a person under 17. For a child under 14 it is an offence if he does not have with him an adult in any place where he has an air-weapon or ammunition. That adult has to ensure that the missiles fired do not go beyond the premises on which the weapon is used. Thirdly, it is an offence for someone under 17 to have an air weapon in any public place unless the weapon is covered securely so that it cannot be fired.

I say those things because those restrictions, in addition to the law generally, the law on theft, criminal damage and the prevention of crime, present quite a battery of controls. It is in the context of those controls that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear previously that he has no plans to strengthen the controls in the Firearms Act of 1968. May I repeat that the Government fully appreciate the humane and environmental considerations which lie behind Lord Houghton's amendment but take the view that it would be wrong to include ad hoc provisions on air weapons in this Bill.

May I give one example of what I mean. It is a curious feature of this amendment that it would prevent the use of all air weapons, including the more powerful of them—for example, those subject to control under Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. I was interested that my noble friend Lord Massereene, from his experience, said that there are some very powerful air weapons which are perfectly suitable to use to shoot certain birds. Although he did not specify, I think my noble friend would have been referring to the more powerful air weapons which have to have a certificate under Section 1 of the 1968 Firearms Act.

Lord Melchett

My Lords—

Lord Belstead

No, my Lords, I will finish if I may and then I will put in context what I am saying. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, obviously will say to me "What are the Government going to do? Is this just words or are the Government going to do nothing at all?". If I may suggest it, there is a way forward. It could be to try to concentrate on the general issue—which we all know is present—of trouble from time to time with air weapons and to try to seek to heighten public awareness and a sense of responsibility about the dangers that there are. Consideration is now being given by my right honourable friend's department to the possibility of mounting a campaign on these lines. I should like to give your Lordships an assurance that the misuse of air weapons against wildlife could well form part of that campaign. Then the whole question of what should be done could be reviewed, in consultation, of course, with organisations concerned, including the British Shooting Sports Council and other organisations, when the outcome of the campaign has been evaluated.

What I am really putting to your Lordships is that I would have asked that we might proceed in the matter of this amendment on a rather wider and slightly different approach to the issue. This approach would rely first of all upon agreement which is especially important when dealing with young people. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not press this amendment.

6.25 p.m.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I gave way a number of times, and I am sorry that he did not see fit to give way to me when I wanted to broach the point. May I ask this. The noble Lord may not be aware of the fact, but at Committee stage there was an amendment down on the Marshalled List which excluded from the provisions which would ban air rifles and airguns those which were subject to firearms certificates. I would be quite happy to see that repeated. It was a sensible amendment. It would take out of the amendment of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord's opposite those guns which are subject to firearms certificates. None of us want to have any additional controls there; we all recognise that they are adequately controlled. I wonder whether the noble Lord could address himself to that amendment. It may not be on the Marshalled List, but it was part of the package which the Government apparently accepted at Committee stage.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise for not giving way to the noble Lord; but I have given way twice. I do not think that we can conduct the Report stage as a kind of musical chairs. Regarding the specific question which the noble Lord has asked me, if I may say so, it does not alter the main thrust of the argument that I was trying to put to your Lordships on this amendment. What we need to do is to carry people with us in recognising the difficulties which there undoubtedly are so far as the misuse of air weapons is concerned. It is for that reason that again I would repeat that the Government would very much prefer to see, if your Lordships agree, that we go ahead by way of the campaign to which I have referred, and with the consultations which I assured your Lordships would follow, rather than by writing something on this particular matter into the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, as I understand it at the moment it is illegal to shoot anything other than pest species with an air rifle. Nobody has suggested that one should be allowed to shoot a mole cricket, an Essex emerald moth or a bottled-nozed dolphin with an air rifle. That, as I understand it, is illegal anyway. Are we not again making rather more fuss than is absolutely necessary? Surely we should back my noble friend in trying to advertise the dangers of illegal and irresponsible use of air weapons. To be quite honest, there is a danger of a class element when we in your Lordships' House discuss our children using air rifles. There are other people who perhaps are not so well represented in the House, whose children may not be quite so privileged as some of ours, where the problem may be slightly more difficult. That is where the approach of my noble friend and of the Home Office seems so much wiser.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I am not clear how it was that the Home Office first of all took one view and then another. The noble Lord the Minister has explained quite clearly why the Home Office now takes the view that it does; but what he did not explain was why it was on the point of accepting the proposals in this amendment or something like it at an earlier stage to the extent that even the noble Earl, Lord Avon, gave an undertaking, as I appreciated it, that the Home Office were going to come forward with an amendment of their own at Report stage. What the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has failed to tell the House is why they had reached a favourable decision on these proposals at the earlier stage and what it was in particular that was not known to them at the time which has suddenly altered their minds in such a short space of time. Maybe it was the article which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, quoted from one of the shooting magazines.

Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has told the House this evening could have been known to the Home Office at the time when we had the earlier discussion. The fact that air weapons, for instance, are used largely by young people was not a sudden revelation which became known to them in the past few weeks. It is a fact that sometimes you can achieve better results by mounting a campaign than by making something illegal. May I say that if the Home Office thinks that by passing laws saying that young people may not do something with air weapons they are automatically causing youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 to do precisely what the law says, they are gravely mistaken. Air weapons are used very widely by young people without the controls the Minister has referred to. I honestly think it would be very difficult to enforce regulations of that kind, because frequently when people see youngsters using air weapons they would find it extremely difficult to estimate their age and to say, for example, whether they were under or over 17.

I would have thought that if the Minister had taken the hint that I dropped him in my intervention and had said that the Home Office were going to examine the experience of the operation of this Bill very carefully, and that they would be prepared to come forward with order-making powers later if it was found that the persuasion they hoped to mount was ineffective, then the House might have been satisfied. But there is sufficient evidence for us to be able to say that without such an undertaking by the Home Office we want to be able to test the matter and see whether people do not think we should put this provision in now rather than depending on the Home Office coming round to the view that the abuses would be dealt with in some manner later.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has left the position in a very unsatisfactory condition. I think the Government intended to do something and subsequently lost their nerve. Government departments and Ministers do not take impulsive decisions on a matter of this kind, and the clearance given by the Home Office on the very morning of the debate during which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, told us the Government were going to put down an amendment of their own was a clear indication that the Home Office had completed their consideration of this difficult matter.

When Governments lose their nerve it is the duty of the legislature to reinforce their resolve and to steel them against the strange forces that must have got to work upon the Government's intentions to include air weapons in Clause 5. Therefore I do think that the House should reinforce that resolve. Indeed, it might even be welcome: I do not know. It would be nice to have a confession from the Front Bench opposite that the Government would welcome having their original decision reinforced by the House itself.

I will make only two further comments. The point made by the noble Lord about the definition of "air-gun" was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. In moving the amendment at the Committee stage, included in the list of definitions what an airgun meant; it meant to exclude those air weapons which needed a certificate under the 1968 Act ". But much was said when we were discussing this question earlier to the effect that the airgun was really a target weapon and was not intended to kill things. It was intended to be a test of skill—the kind of thing one sees at a country fair when people shoot at targets or pots and pans, and it was not intended to be a lethal weapon for shooting things in the countryside. If an airgun was of that calibre, then under the existing law it had to have a licence under the 1968 Act; so I believe that the use of airguns for the purposes for which they are being used at the present time very freely indeed is an abuse of the concession given in respect of the airgun that it required no licence—and that was because it was believed it was to be used under close control as an exercise in marksmanship and not as an exercise in killing birds. I think that birds especially should be protected from the depredations by the airgun. They are vulnerable.

Baroness David

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? It would be a great help to us on this side if we knew the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about the two amendments they have got down and which cover the same thing.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, perhaps I might just say a quick word. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would withdraw his amendment, I would withdraw mine and perhaps we might be able to put our heads together before Third Reading and bring forward a new amendment. I did not have the opportunity of getting a letter from the Government, alas!—and perhaps I might just ask, the next time when I have an amendment to be considered, could they send me a copy too, please? Then perhaps we could come forward with a joint amendment, having considered what the Government said. I think there was something in what they said, but, having heard it for the first time, I would not want to support the noble Lord's amendment and I would not want to push my own.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I must say that the offer of co-operation with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is too tempting to cast lightly aside! If there is real business to be done and if we could combine to put the Government back on course on a matter of this kind, quite apart from other matters, I think that would be courteous to the Government and would give us an opportunity of considering the matter further. My main purpose in raising this matter again was to get on record what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had said, repeating what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, had courteously sent to me by letter. But we cannot leave the matter where it is without further thought being given to it. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 27A:

Page 6, line 34, at end insert— ("(ix) any air gun, air rifle, or air pistol.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very similar amendment to that just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, except that it allows certain birds to be shot by airguns. In view of what I said a moment ago, I do not want to press this at the moment. I will come back to it on Third Reading, but I should like to have the Government's confirmation that they will consider this matter further, following representations from us. I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not deal with this in the course of his remarks. My understanding is that Amendments Nos. 27A and 32A, which I gather the noble Earl is taking together, if they were put into the Bill, simply restate the existing law. I may have been misinformed, but my information is that it is illegal to use airguns against game species of birds which have to be shot by shotguns or by other means. It is not legal just to shoot other birds because they are all protected. The only thing you can shoot at the moment with an airgun is a pest species; so these two amendments, as I understand it, restate the existing law but they do so in a clear way and in a place where it ought to be restated. It would be an enormous help to the sort of campaign which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to launch on the public in the near future. I would have thought that the Government would accept these immediately. If not, I hope they will accept them at Third Reading, having thought about them more carefully.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, responds, I hope that if the Government accept these amendments that does not mean that the united exercise involving the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might not take place at a later stage, because I believe we still need to return to the other matters. Like the noble Lord, I was by no means satisfied with the answer given to us on that, but I was entirely satisfied with the course of action which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, proposes to take. Therefore, if the Government are going to accept these, I hope they would be under no misapprehension that all our fears and apprehensions in regard to the other matter were therefore at an end.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, as the law stands, it surely is illegal to shoot anything other than pest species with an air rifle: therefore there is no other matter involved.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I do not know that my answer will be very satisfactory, because, perhaps not for the first time in your Lordships' House, I have to admit that I do not know the answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am not aware that Amendment No. 32A, which is in the names of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Stanley of Alderley is simply a restatement of the law as it exists. If it is, then your Lordships' House will not wish to write it into legislation, because, as your Lordships know, we do not write into legislation for a second time something which is already in legislation once—

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Belstead

I was under the impression that your Lordships wished me to reply. That is the answer to one leg of what the position may be. If, on the other hand, this is not a restatement of the law as it stands, it still might be held to be desirable. Before embarking on any long explanation—and there are one or two points which I should have liked to draw to the attention of the House, as to whether or not it would be desirable—I should like very much to go down the road indicated by my noble friend Lord Caithness, which is wholly reasonable. If we could have a discussion between now and Third Reading, so that he and his noble friend can be absolutely certain as to whether or not this is a restatement of the law as it stands, and the exact effect of it, and then be free to come back on Third Reading, that would be the best way to leave the matter for the moment.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said on behalf of the Government and the support from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—I almost called him my noble friend—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 28: Page 6, line 36, leave out ("tape") and insert ("sound").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 84 which makes identical provision for Clause 11. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked in Committee, in the discussion on Clause 5, whether the term "tape-recording" covered every kind of recording whether or not one was using tape recording or wire recording, and later reminded me of the existence of such wire recording. This amendment, and the identical one which is in similar terms to one suggested by my noble friend Lord Onslow, provides that all sound recordings, including those on round black discs, are covered. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I am very grateful. This is, quite definitely, a useful amendment. Without this amendment, there might have been problems and I am delighted to find that the Government have been able to find the right solution.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.43 p.m.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 28A:

Page 6, line 43, at end insert— ("( ) The owner or occupier of any land who causes or permits any act on such land which is an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a special penalty.").

The noble Lord said: This is another point on which we spent a great deal of time at Committee stage. It is the question of the degree of liability which an owner or occupier of land should have for offences under Clause 5 which are committed on that land. Noble Lords will remember, that in terms of this amendment, we are dealing with offences which involve causing bodily injury to any wild bird by spring trap, gin snare, hook, line, electrical device for killing and so on. There are a number of things which—perhaps I may, as a digression, point them out to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—are already illegal under a number of Acts of Parliament, but which are restated in this Bill to meet the provisions of the EEC directive. That is why it was that there were muted groans when the noble Lord said that it was not the case that we reiterated in Acts of Parliament things which were already contained in Acts of Parliament. Most of this Part of the Bill does that, or a large part of it does.

Returning to the question of the liability of owners and occupiers, we had a long debate on this at Committee. The Government agreed that there was a real point that needed consideration. The amendment which I moved at that stage was felt by, I think, most noble Lords opposite to go too far, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was felt to be more acceptable. The Government then wrote to me on 6th March and said that, although a number of areas of the existing law already covered the question of employer's responsibility, they hoped to include whatever did not seem to be covered by other legislation to meet the general idea conveyed by "causes or permits". They said that counsel had that with them at the moment and they might not have anything concrete by Report. Looking at the Marshalled List very hurriedly this morning, that seemed to be the case. I may have missed something, in which case I apologise to the Government, but I do not think I have.

The abuse which this amendment strikes at is the setting of poisons or pole traps, or other illegal methods of killing birds on land. Noble Lords will know that this happens fairly frequently, highly regrettable and deplorable though it is, and it is felt, from time to time, that actions that are taken by servants or agents are condoned on a very few occasions by the landowner or occupier of the land. Yet if an offence is proved, it is the servant who is taken to court and found guilty of an offence. That does not seem to me—and I think it did not seem to noble Lords on all sides of the House at Committee stage—to be a very reasonable or fair state of affairs.

It was said then that it would be very unfair to place on landowners or occupiers an absolute liability to make them responsible for what went on on their land, even if they had no way of knowing that it was happening. I should have preferred something stronger that would give them the responsibility that employers have under, for example, the Factories Act, but that clearly was not going to be acceptable to your Lordships.

So what we have done in this amendment is to take the Government's words "causes or permits" and this, it seems to me, is very narrow. What the landowner or occupier has to do is cause the offence to be committed by saying, "Go and put up a pole trap" or, "Go and illegally poison birds" or they must permit it, which I take to mean knowing that it is happening and doing nothing about it. I think those are both circumstances which all of us, on all sides of the House, agreed should give rise to liability on the owner or occupier, and not to such a great extent, at any rate, on the servant who is carrying out the boss's instructions.

I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be acceptable. If it is not technically drafted correctly—and I suspect that, as counsel were having some problems, it may not be—I hope that at least there will be an assurance that the Government will have an amendment ready by Third Reading. If not, I hope your Lordships' House will agree to this amendment, which certainly reflects the spirit of our Committee stage. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I, too, should have liked something stronger and I still do not really understand why we cannot have something stronger. It surely is not too much to ask that an owner or occupier of land should have the duty of instructing his employee about certain things which he is not allowed to do. Many of us, on both sides, know of cases where employers have quite deliberately kept quiet on such matters, knowing what their employees were doing but covertly encouraging it. But we could not have that. We have put this forward again, and I certainly hope that the Government will be able to give us a completely positive response, either by accepting this amendment or by putting forward their own amendment.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. This is really the nod and wink clause. I have certainly come across such cases and I do not approve of them. If you employ people, you must be responsible for their actions. It is possible that this is already covered by the law, but if not I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to this amendment.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

My Lords, I totally support what has been said on this amendment. However, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that if this were to be strengthened as he would like—and I sympathise with his desire to strengthen it—there could be cases where a landowner, a lady or a gentleman, was in older years and not able to take as active an interest in affairs as before. Such people could not take an active interest in the gamekeeping and farming side of their property and might let the shooting to, say, a syndicate, be it British, or foreign or a mixture of both.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I see people nodding. I want it to be on the record that the noble Lord is not talking about the words in the amendment but about a strengthened version. I take it that he agrees with the amendment?

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

Yes, my Lords, but I would just like to say, so that we do not get it back again at Third Reading, that a strengthened version might be very unfair to the owner concerned. So far as the amendment goes, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am with him.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, I think that the amendment exactly meets the situation. I support the noble Lord.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am in considerable difficulty. At one stage, and quite genuinely, we wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying that we liked the words "causes or permits" and would see what happened. However, they have come back very much on the same point as my noble friend Lord Belstead has spoken about. I am advised that these words would not add anything to Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which provides that any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of a like offence. Inclusion of the words would not be meaningful for absolute offences which do not involve intention. The offences in the Bill of course all require intention. That is the advice which we have been given and I shall have to ask the noble Lord to consider it.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, when I did not see an amendment on the Marshalled List I had a nasty feeling that the noble Earl was going to say this. It does not seem to me to be good enough, for various reasons. It is worth reminding ourselves, even if we cannot get this through to parliamentary counsel, what kind of legislation it is that we are considering. This is legislation which on the whole does not lead to many prosecutions, though I know that there have been a number under the Protection of Birds Acts. For example, under Clause 4 which we have just passed, and a similar clause applying to animals, I am not aware of a single prosecution ever having been taken.

This is legislation which we pass through Parliament mainly for its educative value. We are telling people about the kinds of attitudes and the kinds of actions which they should adopt towards our wildlife and our countryside. None of us expects or wants to see a large number of people ending up in court, and when they do we are all agreed that we do not want them to be locked up in prison. This is legislation whereby we hope we shall shape attitudes—no more than that.

It seems to me that the fact that something is included in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 is no great help to us when we are looking at wildlife and countryside legislation, at a Bill which consolidates many other Acts of Parliament and which would be greatly strengthened in its effectiveness if these words were included in it. That, it seems to me, is the criterion by which we as legislators should judge their desirability or otherwise. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, will these words make it more effective? I believe that they would make clear to all those who read them what they can or cannot do legally when killing birds. They will see that they will not be allowed to cause or permit these things to be done on their land and that if they do they will be liable to be taken to court. I think it would be a major step forward towards meeting a major abuse which is of great concern to many people. It clearly has support from all sides of the House. It meets exactly the minimum view, as it were, that was put forward in Committee and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.

Lord Craigton

My Lords, if the existing legislation says only what is said in this amendment then the existing legislation is not working. That is why I support the amendment.

6.55 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS
Ardwick, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Avebury, L. Kimberley, E.
Aylestone, L. Lee of Newton, L.
Bacon, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Banks, L. McCarthy, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Beswick, L. McNair, L.
Birk, B. Maelor, L.
Blease, L. Malmesbury, E.
Boston, L. Melchett, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Brockway, L. Noel-Baker, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Noel-Buxton, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Ogmore, L.
Chelwood, L. Onslow, E.
Collison, L. Peart, L.
Craigton, L. Peel, E.
Cranbrook, E. Phillips, B.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Leek, L.
de Clifford, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Dulverton, L. Rochester, L.
Dundee, E. Ross of Marnock, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. Seear, B.
Fulton, L. Segal, L.
Gaitskell, B. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
George-Brown, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gibson, L. Stone, L.
Glasgow, E. Strabolgi, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Swinfen, L.
Hale, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hall, V. Thurso, V.
Hampton, L. Underhill, L.
Hanworth, V. Wade, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Jacques, L.
Janner, L. Wigoder, L.
Jeger, B. Winstanley, L.
Kilbracken, L. Winterbottom, L.
Killearn, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M. Drumalbyn, L.
Allerton, L. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Alport, L. Elphinstone, L.
Ampthill, L. Ferrers, E.
Armstrong, L. Forester, L.
Avon, E. Fortescue, E.
Balerno, L. Gainford, L.
Bellwin, L. Gormanston, V.
Belstead, L. Gridley, L.
Boardman, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Burton, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Chelmer, L.
Colwyn, L. Henley, L.
Craigavon, V. Holderness, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Daventry, V. Hylton-Foster, B.
De Freyne, L. Inglewood, L.
De La Warr, E. Kemsley, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Long, V.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Romney, E.
Lyell, L. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Selborne, E.
Margadale, L. Selkirk, E.
Marley, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Soames, L.
Middleton, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Strathclyde, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Sudeley, L.
Morris, L. Swansea, L.
Mottistone, L. Swinton, E.
Mountgarret, V. Teviot, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Trenchard, V.
Nugent of Guildford, L. Tryon, L.
O'Neill of the Maine, L. Ullswater, V.
Orkney, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Penrhyn, L. Vickers, B.
Radnor, E. Vivian, L.
Reigate, L. Waldegrave, E.
Renton, L. Wise, L.
Ridley, V. Yarborough, E.
Rochdale, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Back to