Lords Sitting of 30 March 1981

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

Helsinki Agreement: Madrid Review Meeting
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will report on progress made at the Madrid Conference on European Security and Co-operation to extend human rights, expand economic co-operation and ensure a European Disarmament Conference.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Madrid Review Meeting is in its final stages. It is too early to forecast the outcome, but I hope it will be possible to reach agreement on a number of substantive measures in the fields of European security, human rights, freedom of movement, information and family reunification.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that optimistic estimate. Is it not the case that this conference has been meeting for six months, with failure up to the present time? Has that not largely been due to recriminations between the two power blocs? Was it not saved by the non-aligned nations, when there was controversy over the dissidents of the Soviet Union—a legitimate protest—and will the Government do their utmost now to secure at least acceptance of the French proposal for a European disarmament conference to extend the confidence-
2
building measures, in view of the fact that President Brezhnev has said that he is prepared to expand supervision over the whole of Soviet Europe extending 1,600 miles, instead of the 160 miles that now obtains?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's description of the non-aligned countries as the saviours of this conference. It has, indeed, been a long and difficult one, but one of the reasons for that was initial Russian reluctance to discuss the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in the period since the last review conference. As for the French proposal, it is true that the Soviets have accepted at least one part of that proposal—indeed, only one part of that proposal. However, the proposal itself consists of at least four elements, all of which are necessary to form a credible whole, and it remains to be seen whether the Soviets will accept the whole of that proposal.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, may I put two queries to the Minister? First, will he consider issuing, when the conference is over, a statement including verbatim reports of the speeches made by the leading delegates and identical to or similar to the statements in the White Paper which we issued in 1978 after the Belgrade conference? I leave that query for the noble Lord to go into. Secondly, on the question of disarmament and the French proposal, is the noble Lord aware that there is a very firmly-held opinion—and it is, I think, a bipartisan opinion—that any advance on the French proposal, while welcome in itself, should not prejudice whatever success awaits us in Vienna and Geneva, and certainly not in the SALT talks, which everybody hopes will be resumed as soon as possible?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I most certainly agree that the negotiations to which the noble Lord refers, and which are being held in Geneva and Vienna, as well as the SALT process itself, are separate from the Helsinki review conference which is now reaching its final stages. But I think that the French proposal, as a whole, is likely to be the most important outcome of this Madrid conference.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is there now some reason to suppose that the Soviet Government will agree to the international supervision of manoeuvres right up to the Urals?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that remains to be seen. But I have to confess that, going on past performance, the prospects are not good.
Lord Segal: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Poland is represented at the Madrid Conference on European Security and by whom?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Poland is represented, but I do not know the name of its representative.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is not verification the difficulty about the French proposal? Is it not the case that the Soviet Union has fulfilled its obligations under the present agreement to inform the West of its manoeuvres? Will the Government do everything they can to encourage the non-aligned nations, which are now seeking to save the conference, as—despite what the Minister said—they saved it before?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the French proposal envisages, initially, the negotiation of what are called militarily significant, verifiable and binding confidence-building measures applying to the whole of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals. It is this last point, of the geographical extent of these measures, that the Soviets appear to have initially accepted, but the other three aspects of the proposal are apparently still being considered by them.

Vacant Houses: Cost to Ratepayers
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many empty houses owned by local authorities (in England, Wales and Scotland) have remained vacant for more than 12 months and what is the estimated cost to ratepayers arising from those local authority dwellings (in England, Wales and Scotland) which have remained empty for more than 12 months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, estimates on returns indicate that 23,000 dwellings had been vacant for more than 12 months. For Scotland and Wales this information is not collected centrally. Information on the estimated cost to ratepayers arising from vacant dwellings is not available, but the Chief Inspector of Audit in his report for 1979–80 estimated that rent losses for that year arising from all empty dwellings in England were in the order of £35 million.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer. I hope the Government will encourage as much as possible the
4
habitation of these empty houses, if there is a housing shortage, though this does not operate in all areas. In fact, in the area in which I live there is a housing surplus. I hope very much that the Government will do their very best to see either that these houses are sold or that they are let as rapidly as possible.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would like to see a booklet which my department has just produced, entitled Reducing the number of empty dwellings. There is a copy in the Library. I should be glad to send a copy to my noble friend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the noble Lord send a copy of that document to the Property Services Agency so that they can take steps to eliminate the large number of vacant dwellings which were formerly occupied by military personnel, in particular the 400 dwellings at Tidworth which were the subject of a Question last week?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the publication refers to empty dwellings in the ownership of local authorities. Should there be any aspect which applies to the dwellings to which the noble Lord refers, then of course we shall look at it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true that many of the empty houses to which the noble Baroness has referred would have been made fit for occupation if local authorities had not been subjected to the moratorium, in addition to the sharp cuts in the housing investment programme? Secondly, in view of the acute housing shortage, will the Government now treat finance to enable local authorities to repair vacant property and bring it into use as a priority allocation? Before he tells me that there were a number of empty houses under the last Government, which unfortunately was the case, may I also ask the Minister whether he is aware that the last Government issued a circular, 1977, on the better use of vacant property?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness requires no reminding of the situation which pertained under the previous Administration. In answer to her question, perhaps it should also be said that if certain authorities had not so enthusiastically embarked upon municipalisation, the problems that they have of dealing with great numbers of empty dwellings would not be so great as they are. The application of the resources of an authority to housing as, indeed, to any other service is for the authority itself to decide. I would only remind the noble Baroness, though I am sure she needs no reminding, that those authorities which will be selling council houses will have an additional source of income which they can then apply to this or any other aspect of their housing.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I further ask the Minister how he thinks this is going to help housing in the short term, which is what we are also talking about? Are the Government going to raise the moratorium? In view of the lengthening housing waiting lists, will they allocate additional finance?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, so far as the moratorium is concerned, that is a quite separate question from the one as to what can be done to help authorities to bring their empty dwellings into repair. I say again that the authorities which have the worst of these problems are those which embarked upon so much municipalisation. Their problems have not suddenly come about because of any moratorium or anything else.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the figure which he has just quoted, regrettable as it is, of empty houses indicates how relatively little the current recession has as yet bitten into the economy by comparison with the official figure for 1931 of over 300,000 empty houses in the country?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not sure how far that figure which my noble friend has mentioned was divided between private and public housing. Therefore, I cannot help him by drawing any useful comparison. But I note what he says.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is known how much money is being spent by local authorities under the Homeless Persons Act upon placing homeless families in hotels and boarding houses instead of in empty properties?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware of that figure. I will gladly ascertain it and write to my noble friend.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, could my noble friend supplement what he said regarding the number of empty houses in Scotland by making a statement and putting it in the Library? He mentioned that his figures did not cover Scotland. Could he place a statement either in the Official Report or in the Library stating, authority by authority, how many empty houses exist?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as I think I said previously, this information is currently not collected centrally for Scotland and Wales. I shall have to ascertain exactly what would be involved in obtaining that information. If it is practicable, I will see what can be done to help my noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, would the noble Lord also tell us how many houses are in the programmes of local authorities? I can remember that at one time a Conservative Government had 300,000 houses, 40,000 of them in Scotland. Could the noble Lord find out whether they are building anything like that number today?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this is so far away from the first Question that I shall have to ask my noble friend to allow me to discuss it with him privately.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether his figure includes only those houses which are habitable at present or whether it also includes those very many houses which could be made habitable if money were spent upon them?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, these are the figures which come in from the housing investment programme returns. Without a detailed analysis, which I do not have before me, it is very difficult to answer exactly. But I think that the figure of 23,000 is sufficiently large to cause real concern. That is why we have produced the booklet, which I hope all those interested will find both constructive and helpful in considering this particular problem.
Lord Hawke: My Lords, undoubtedly the figure of 23,000 causes concern, but to me it is an incredibly low figure if it includes those houses which could be put into operation if some money were spent upon them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would only say that it is a figure which varies so much from authority to authority. In some authorities it is as low as ·01 per cent. of their housing stock, while in other authorities it is as high as 9.7 per cent. of their housing stock. That indicates the wide variation which the problem presents.

BAOR Personnel Dependants and Unemployment
2.50 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many young persons of BAOR personnel who are of working age, are unemployed and whether they are receiving unemployment benefit or any other welfare payment.
Viscount Long: My Lords, at the end of December 1980, which is the date of the latest figures available, there were some 600 children of British Army of the Rhine personnel who were in the 16–19 age group and were not at school. It is possible that some are working in the German market or with organizations such as NAAFI or YMCA, but the Army keeps no figures of those in employment.
While certain social security benefits are available to service dependants overseas, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit are not, although the former may be paid for a maximum of three months if drawn previously in the United Kingdom.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many Members of both Houses, involved and concerned in these matters, are completely unaware that this situation exists, and will his department consult with other relevant departments in order to rectify the situation and to ensure that these youngsters who are unemployed receive exactly the same benefits as youngsters unemployed in this country?
Viscount Long: My Lords, the administration of social security benefit is of course the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister of Defence has examined thoroughly the question of extending the payment of supplementary

7
benefit for service dependants overseas through the DHSS but this has not proved possible. As I mentioned earlier, it would be a major step to amend the law in this way.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain why these 600 children, who presumably could join the British Army of the Rhine, are not being employed in that fashion? Do any of them seek employment along with their parents?
Viscount Long: My Lords, the 600 children that I mentioned just now are aged from 16 to 19, and of course if any of the 18-year-olds wish to join the forces, we shall be only too happy. Some do, but I have no figures on that because it is a slightly different question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is it not possible to get the figures? Is it not all wrong that the adult sons who are entitled to join the British Army or one of the other services, should be unemployed? Is it advisable that nothing should be done about it?
Viscount Long: My Lords, some of those unemployed are in the United Kingdom and, of course, when their families go over to BAOR they are given three months' benefit in order to get a job if they have not already tried to go into the forces, but I cannot really go any further than that at this stage.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the House was debating the EEC draft directive on extending the rights of residence to people who were not seeking employment but were students, self-employed businessmen or retired persons, the noble Viscount may recall that it was said that unemployment benefit and the equivalent of supplementary benefits were in theory available to British citizens in Germany so long as they were in fact looking for work there. So how does it happen that these young people, aged between 16 and 19, if they are registered for work in Germany, do not obtain the unemployment benefits and supplementary benefits that German citizens would obtain if they were in this country?
Viscount Long: My Lords, if I may go one further, unemployment benefit is a contributory benefit: to receive it one must have worked for a minimum time, made the necessary contributions and also be available for work within the United Kingdom. I have already said that we are looking at the age group of 16 to 19, but I am afraid that, as your Lordships know, the 16-year-olds do not contribute at that stage; only the 18 to l9-year-olds contribute. So it is unlikely that school-leavers would be entitled to unemployment benefit if they were in this country. Under certain specified conditions, however, this benefit may be paid outside the United Kingdom. Service dependants who qualify in this country may continue to receive it for up to three months after arriving in Germany. They must, however, have registered as unemployed before they left this country and they must sign on as unemployed within seven days of arriving in Germany. This concession can of course be useful in giving a period of grace in which to obtain a job in Germany.
8
I think the noble Lord mentioned the EEC situation. I have no answer in regard to that at this stage, but I will write to him.

Passports: Format
2.55 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to replace the present United Kingdom passport with some form of EEC passport; whether until this change takes place the Foreign Office will continue to issue United Kingdom passports for the same periods as at present; and whether this House will have an opportunity of expressing a view on this proposal.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no question of adopting any form of European Community passport. Our passports remain British. We do, however, intend to adopt the European Community common format for United Kingdom passports at the same time as we adopt the International Civil Aviation Organisation's recommendations for a passport in a simplified standardised format with machine-readable capability. A considerable amount of work is needed to assess the costs and the technical problems involved, and until this has been done it is not possible for the Government to set a date for the change in the format of United Kingdom passports. Until that change takes place we will continue to issue United Kingdom passports for the same periods as at present. There will be opportunities for the new format of United Kingdom passports to be debated before any change is made.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I must say, in thanking the Minister for that reply, that at the end of it I am not quite sure whether the proposal is or is not to do away with the traditional British passport in blue with gold lettering which has been carried all over the world by tens of thousands of citizens with pride and confidence. Further on this matter, does the Minister not think it about time that the EEC bureaucrat enthusiasts for standardisation in all forms of our national life should be curbed? We have already heard about the proposals to do away with our milk deliveries; we have already heard some proposals that we should learn how to pour our beer—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: We are not allowed to have summer time when we want it, and now we have the passport proposals. Surely it is time that the passion for international standardisation of the customs and habits of our nation should cease. These small, petty matters do little good but much harm for support of the larger issues of the EEC, and, believe me, the EEC needs all the support that it can get at the present time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government's position on this matter has been that no important change like this should take place unless there is some real and identifiable benefit to be derived from it. The principal benefit, to which I referred in my main Answer, will be the machine-readable capability, which will greatly enhance the processing of passengers moving through our ports and airports. Also, a United Kingdom passport in the common format as we foresee it will retain the main characteristics of our present passport, such as the Royal coat of arms on the front and the rubric about Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State inside the front cover. It is likely to be burgundy coloured instead of blue, and the front cover will bear the additional words, "European Community".
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether this has the unanimous approval of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Trefgarne: Not yet, my Lords. I think the details are coming before the Council of Ministers at their next meeting.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that the EEC passport control channel at Heathrow gives considerable priority to those using it? Further, can the Minister say which category of persons is allowed to have this preferential treatment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a slightly different question. Speaking from memory, I think there are more than two channels for the various passport holders going through Heathrow. There are EEC passport holders, United Kingdom passport holders and I think there is at least one other channel, and all, of course, are treated equally when they get to the desk.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that the other two channels have considerable queues, while those holding EEC passports are allowed to pass through without any delay at all? Who are these people? That is all I am asking.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the time taken to process persons going through the immigration controls depends among other things on the purpose for which they are coming here.
Lord Segal: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the proposed burgundy colour is due to French influence?
Lord Trefgarne: I should not be surprised, my Lords.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, may I take it from what the noble Lord has said that there can be no agreement by Her Majesty's Government without prior approval of the two Houses? Will the noble Lord recognise that there are many who are British nationals who live within overseas territories which carry our passports, and that, if we wish to avoid a second relationship—and may I say how much we applaud the Government's decision in regard to the Nationality Act as it applies to the people of Hong Kong in particular—there should
10
be no differentiation in the passports between ourselves and those who claim British nationality?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the question of parliamentary approval, the position, as I understand it, is this: that formal parliamentary approval for the format of the passport that we issue is not required, but of course the Government would wish to take very carefully into consideration the views which Parliament has already expressed and will express in the future.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's assurance that Parliament will be consulted, will he consider putting in the Library of this House, and possibly the other place, a facsimile—he need not produce the whole passport—of what is proposed, so that we can judge the rubric and the contents, as well as the relationship of the EEC to the extra-British nationals who will be using our passport?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a committee of your Lordships' House considered this matter a year or so ago. We had a debate in your Lordships' House on the report at about that time, and I had with me then, and showed to a number of noble Lords, a specimen of how we then thought the passport might look. There has been no substantial change in our thoughts since then. On the other hand, this matter has still to be finally decided, so I should be reluctant to put a specimen in the Library at this stage, when our thoughts are still rather fluid. However, we have made no secret of the way our thoughts are going, which includes the explanation that I gave earlier.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, when my noble friend says the matter still has to be finally decided, are we to take it that a proposal will be put before both Houses of Parliament and fully debated before the Government give their consent in the Council of Ministers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not, I am afraid, in a position to give that assurance. After all, this matter is, at this stage at least, a European matter. However, we shall certainly want to take the views of Parliament very carefully into account.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as a member of the committee to which the noble Lord referred, may I ask him whether it would not seem that the fears of his noble friend Lord Balfour are perhaps exaggerated? May I ask the noble Lord whether he recalls that in the report of the Select Committee to this House, we did say:
"The committee support the proposal for a uniform European passport as a modest symbol of the Community's identity provided that passports retain their national character."?
May I ask the noble Lord whether he recalls that that was an all-party committee and assure him that we very much support the Answer that he has given to the House today?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, indeed, my Lords, but I must emphasise that it is not proposed to issue a European Community passport. It is proposed that the passport will remain a national document, issued by national

11
authorities, although in a common format. It is worth noting that most other European countries are being called upon to make substantially greater changes in format than we are contemplating.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that he used the expression to "process" a person? Will he in the interests of the English language try to discover a different form of words to explain what he had in mind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what I had in mind was, of course, processing a person's application to enter the United Kingdom. If the noble Lord wishes me to use all those words on every occasion, I may unduly detain your Lordships.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Mansfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Council of Ministers (Fisheries).
It may also be for your Lordships' convenience if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. Subject to the progress of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, it is proposed that the House should not adjourn for dinner.

Charterhouse Japhet Bill
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Sion College Bill [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out second ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission and, I hope, to the contentment of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 29, 33, 35 and 37. These are the first of a number of amendments to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. These amendments remove a number of superfluous "or"s. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 9 and insert ("Woodcock (except in Scotland)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 73, 110 and 113 at the same time. When this matter was raised on Report, there was practically no valid argument against the amendment; indeed it was supported all round the House and a number of noble Lords told me that they were sorry I had not pressed it. That is the reason why I have put these amendments down again. I have made two slight alterations. One alteration is that I have added this to one of the clauses where it should bave been included before, and the other is altering the season slightly, to meet one of the objections.
The only possible argument against these amendments was that they increased the open season by one month in the summer. This would in fact have had no effect; I did it only to regularise the dates to 1st September, which applies to a lot of other birds. However, to meet the objection, I have altered it so that the season is exactly as at present. What is not appreciated is that, although it may seem an anachronism to make a bird or a beast a quarry species, it is one of the best means of protection one can give it. If partridges had not been game birds, there would be practically none left in the north of Scotland; they would probably all have been wiped out by predators. The reason why there are so many foxes in England and Wales is because they are a quarry species. Therefore, to make these birds game birds would give them the best possible protection.
The only other argument produced was that another Act of Parliament would be opened up. But many Acts of Parliament have already been opened up in this Bill. If one looks at the end of the Bill, one finds that no fewer than 17 Acts of Parliament have been opened up. Therefore, I think that argument is really a very poor one; it will not make any difference. I believe that the Government, rather than change this Bill, will maintain that all that is desired by these amendments can be secured by licence.
Surely it ill becomes this Government unnecessarily to increase bureaucracy with form-filling and possibly with a payment for the form as well? Do they intend to cut the public sector or not? My amendment,

13
albeit in a small way, seeks to restrict unnecessary bureaucracy. I think that all those noble Lords with a knowledge of capercaillie supported me on Report. Indeed, I had so much support that I regretted that I did not press the amendment, and a number of noble Lords said that they wished that I had done so. Therefore, I hope that the Government have re-thought the matter since then. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to the same amendments. I am surprised that my noble friend thought that there was no valid argument against his case last time. I thought that I presented a valid argument, but perhaps he failed to understand me. Although I appreciate that as the capercaillie is a grouse there is a superficial attraction in including it with them in the Game Acts, the Government do not believe that this would bring any conservation benefit. Indeed, it could be detrimental to the conservation status of the species.
Let me explain again. The Bill provides ordinary protection for the species, and should it be thought necessary this could be increased by, for example, reducing the shooting season under the powers in Clause 2(5) or by taking it off the sale list—that is, Schedule 3, Part III. It could also be given protection in particular localities. None of this is possible under the Game Acts. I understand that the only area where the Game Acts might be considered to have better powers than this Bill is as regards penalties where a prison sentence is available. However, it was the general feeling in this House that while protection of our wildlife heritage was of prime importance, offences against wildlife were not of the order of gravity for which imprisonment would be appropriate, and that is the reason why the prison sentence penalty for offences has been removed from the Bill. Therefore, this, too, goes against the feeling of the House. The Government are also, as my noble friend is aware, unwilling to see amendments to the game laws in this Bill. I remind the House that the Bill is still to be considered in another place. We are most reluctant to accept piecemeal revision of the law in this area which is already confusing enough.
The amendments are also deficient in that they make no provision for the capercaillie in Scotland—where most of the birds are—and the part of the Game Act which my noble friend seeks to amend does not apply to Scotland. They would therefore be without protection there, and unless I have misunderstood my noble friend that is the opposite of his intention. I really do not think that this is a matter upon which I should delay the House any further and I hope that my noble friend will accept my reasoning.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, at the last stage of the Bill when this matter was discussed we on this side of the House agreed with the Government in their objections to the amendment, and I must say that I would strongly agree with everything that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has just said and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend was not advised that the amendment was faulty at the Report stage because we might have corrected
14
it. But clearly, if the amendment is faulty, I cannot sustain it, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("him").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is a simple drafting amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Exceptions to ss. 1 and 3]:
3.14 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is a drafting amendment to remove another surplus "or". However, I should explain that this "or" was inserted in Committee as a result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am taking advantage of his offer, at that time, to delete it if necessary when we were tidying up the drafting. I hope the House will accept that in this matter it would be sensible to take the advice of the experts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 5, line 39, after ("was") insert ("urgently")
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("and urgent").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 en bloc. Noble Lords have wrestled with the problems of how to make it clear that the defence in Clause 4(3) is for emergencies and not appropriate for situations where the prudent man would have sought and obtained a licence. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved an amendment which this House accepted which added the word "urgent" to the word "necessary" as the justification for action to protect crops.
The guardians appointed among other things to watch over the syntactical and etymological purity of this House have suggested that "urgently necessary" is better than "urgent and necessary". On the basis that we are grateful for all the help we can have in our difficult task, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am quite happy to accept the superior wisdom of which the noble Earl has had the benefit, and I am grateful to him for moving these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 43, after ("livestock") insert ("foodstuffs for livestock").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55

15
which makes identical provision in Clause 16(1)(l). My noble friend Lord Sandys said on Report, when speaking to the amendment moved on Report in the names of my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Burton to reinsert the words "any other form of property" in Clauses 4(3) and 16(1)(l), that we had written to the European Community Commission about the matter.
We have heard unofficially that they agree that the term "any other form of property" would be contrary to the directive as at present written. However they regard "crops" as intended to cover animal feed-stuffs, but may need to amend the directive to make this clear. As we see it, our amendment clarifies the European Community's intention; other areas troubled by birds such as food factories and grain stores are covered by the "public health" purposes.
It may also be a suitable moment to mention that there has been some understandable but unjustifiable concern because some lawyers have held that "fisheries" would not include "fish farms". That is as may be—however, we still believe "fisheries" covers them, but if it does not then the fish in them are covered by the word "livestock" and can therefore be protected. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that statement, and also to thank him very much for the letter that he wrote in the intervening period explaining the problem which I think is now resolved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds]:
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc:
Page 6, line 8, leave out second ("or")
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("or")
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 when I moved Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
("(ix) any air weapon; or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 71. All these amendments refer to airguns, and this time I am very pleased to have the support of not only my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but of the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have discussed this matter in detail in your Lordships' House and I would just summarise the argument by saying that we should like to prevent the use of airguns on animals and mammals except for what is colloquially known as the "pest" species.
16
I think that the arguments which we have put forward are substantial. I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend at the Home Office has said. He has been very kind and we had a long meeting with him on Friday. However, I am afraid that I am not convinced by his arguments and I think that the amendments as drafted would only help the situation.
I ought to mention Amendment No. 71 in a little more detail. That amendment classifies the words "air weapon". It does not refer to those that are already covered by the Firearms Act and thus is not causing any complications to the legal system at the moment. I think that the best thing I can do now is just to move the amendment. I beg to move.
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for briefly moving the amendment and I shall try to be reasonably brief, although perhaps just a little longer than my noble friend. First, on the general merit of the case to which my noble friend has spoken, I appreciate the humane considerations which lie behind this group of amendments. The problem of air weapon misuse is, of course, one which extends beyond misuse against wildlife and embraces damage to property and, indeed, sometimes danger to the public. This is more a problem of enforcement than a result of any inadequacy in the existing controls.
The misuse of an air weapon in nearly every case involves the commission of one or more offences under existing law. Indeed, I would put it to your Lordships that the power already exists to control misuse of air weapons by unauthorised persons in the way which my noble friend who tabled this amendment would wish to see. I mean that it is already an offence to carry a loaded air weapon in a public place or as a trespasser on private land without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he has no plans to strengthen the controls in the Firearms Act 1968. I say to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment that this does not mean that the Government are complacent about the problem of misuse of air weapons. We should prefer to proceed by consent. As I said to your Lordships at a previous stage of the Bill, it seems that a good way forward would be to seek to heighten public awareness and sense of responsibility about the general dangers of air weapons misuse, and consideration is now being given to the possibility of mounting a campaign on these lines. The misuse of air weapons against wildlife could form part of that campaign. The whole question of what should be done would then be reviewed when the outcome of any campaign has been evaluated and, of course, the order-making power in subsection (3) could be used for that purpose.
Therefore, the problem with which we are dealing is one of enforcement against unauthorised persons and one of good sense to be shown by authorised persons. It seems right to try to proceed by consent in order to solve this problem. Legislation exists to deal with misuse of air weapons and we would hope to make the general public more aware of it. It would be our intention to seek the views of the British Shooting

17
Sports Council and other interested bodies on the form and nature of any campaign against air weapon misuse.
So the policy of the Government is to try to move by agreement. I am bound to say that, before moving an amendment of this sort into a Bill, it would have been desirable to talk to the police and to the gun trade in order to explain what is being proposed, to see whether they believe this is the right way to proceed. For those reasons and given the assurances that I have attempted to give the House, I hope that my noble friend will think again and not press these amendments, but rather might lend us support in proceeding in the way that I have outlined.
In conclusion, I think that there may be a misprint in this group of amendments; Amendment No. 15 is correct and the following amendment ought to have been printed as Amendment No. 15A. I must apologise to the House for my oversight; I have also spoken to Amendment No. 72, which is purely consequential.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, when small measures of reform are put forward Governments frequently have two reasons for not accepting them. One is that they want to do more, and the other is that they want to do nothing or something different. Why is it that Governments cannot see that progress is gradual, that one thing leads to another and that if you do not make a beginning, you do not get any further anyway? In one place or another I have been listening to this kind of argument for 30 years, and it is extraordinary how even the new generation of Ministers put forward the same excuses as their predecessors, who grew old and grey repeating this kind of formula.
When the noble Lord says that we ought to consult the gun trade, what he is really doing is letting the cat out of the bag. It is the gun trade that is his worry. Who got us into this muddle anyway? Earlier on the noble Earl, Lord Avon, gave us an assurance about the airgun. He had received a clearance that morning from the Home Office and he was so joyful over it; we joined in his glee. We thought that at last we had won something on this Bill and then lo and behold! he had to write a long letter to say that all sorts of reasons could be given for not following up what almost amounted to a promise that he gave.
Just now the noble Lord said that the problem of airguns goes much further than the birds listed in Part II. Of course. Noble Lords may have read the article published in the Guardian on 24th March on a very sad case; it was that of a man who said that a cat was raiding his pigeon loft so he shot it with an airgun. He hit it in the eye; poor pussy was blinded. The owner took proceedings against the man and the magistrates fined him £30 with £65 compensation for damage to the cat. So the case was then taken to the Crown Court and the Crown Court decided that the gentleman who had done the shooting had not caused unnecessary suffering to the cat. Whether this case will go from the Crown Court to the High Court and eventually come to your Lordships' House, I do not know. However, quite obviously, it is a very important case of, as the Guardian put it, "the cat among the pigeons".
This is an indication of how wide the problem of airguns goes. Two things are important: first, that the
18
man who did the shooting said that he aimed between the cat's eyes and he intended to kill the cat; and then his defending counsel said that if the conviction stood, pigeon fanciers would be unable to protect their pigeons. You see what a mess we are in with this wretched airgun. Apparently a man can freely shoot a cat between the eyes, blind it in one of them, be convicted by the magistrates, the conviction can be quashed by the Crown Court, and his counsel can make the silly remark that if the conviction stands no pigeon fancier will be able to protect his pigeons.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, tell the House in what way the present amendment prevents a cat from being shot at with an airgun?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, not at all. I was merely confirming what the noble Lord said, that the problem of the airgun goes much wider.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have been at great pains to tell the House that those problems are already covered by existing legislation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am suggesting that there is a wider problem of the use of the airgun. The serious point about the airgun is that it is a weapon. It was really intended to be a target weapon; the sort of weapon that was used at fairs, rifle ranges, and so forth. I am illustrating the fact that some people are using the airgun as a weapon to kill mammals and certainly birds. Earlier we tried to get a wider ban upon the use of the airgun. Now my noble friends on the other side—the mafia led by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—have put forward a fresh amendment which comes within the rules of order. I am merely trying to start off on an entertaining note for the afternoon and urge your Lordships to disregard the advice of the Minister and accept the amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words. We have had debates on the abuse of air weapons at every stage of the Bill. I should like to reinforce what my noble friend has said about the abuse; it certainly goes much wider than that which would be controlled by the amendments. I had two letters this morning from parents, both of whom had children who had been hit in the eye by airgun pellets, and both of whom had lost the sight of that eye as a result. One was from Wales and one from England. It is a widespread and serious problem.
These amendments will not of themselves do anything to prevent people breaking the law by shooting children in the eye with airguns, and I do not think that any of us who have our names to the amendment claim that it would. The argument goes like this. This Bill, particularly in Clause 11, already prohibits a number of things which would be offences under existing legislation. For example, the use of explosives to kill wild mammals. I am not aware that it is possible without a licence and without complying with all sorts of rules and regulations in existing laws to go around blowing up wild mammals in the countryside. There are already laws which cover that, but the Bill repeats the prohibition, and quite rightly.

19
It controls a number of other things which would be offences under cruelty to animals legislation, like the use of crossbows, of live decoys tethered, and a number of other things—gas, smoke and so on; a number of things which are already covered by existing rules, regulations, or laws. Nobody, including the Home Office, has complained to your Lordships' House about all of that, presumably because it was put in by the Government and was therefore all right. Now noble Lords on all sides of the House want to put in a similar prohibition on air weapons and we are told we should not do it. I do not think that that is any more acceptable today than it was when the noble Lord came to the House and said it at Report stage.
I am surprised at the new point the noble Lord made. He said that before moving this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others should have talked to the police and the gun trade. We all imagined that during the Committee stage of the Bill that is exactly what the Home Office had done before the Home Office said that it would be all right to have an amendment of this sort in the Bill and the Government would do it. If they did not, before they gave that clearance, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is a bit rough on us several weeks later, when the Home Office has had about a month or six weeks, or something, to talk to the gun trade and the police, for the noble Lord to come along and say that we should have done it.
The Home Office said at Committee stage that this amendment was quite all right and the Government would do it. I know the Home Office have since had second thoughts, but I do not think that your Lordships' House has had second thoughts. I hope we will now get these amendments, which do not go nearly as far as my noble friends and I would have liked but nevertheless are an agreed compromise which all of us who have taken an interest in this feel that we can support. I hope we shall now put them in the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when my noble friend on the Front Bench said that consideration would be given to an inquiry, does that mean consideration will be given and then nothing will happen, or does it mean that consideration will be given and the inquiry will then be actively pursued? If that second one is the case, one would be very happy to support my noble friend. If it is what my relations call the "bug letter", which is an excuse for doing absolutely nothing, then my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett, have much more string to their bow, if I am excused mixing metaphors appallingly.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, to accept what the Government have said this afternoon is to hand a ready-made excuse to those who already misuse air weapons. I cannot believe that the police in any police force in the country would not welcome the amendment as it stands. One of their difficulties is in identifying the misuse, and in explaining the misuse, of air weapons to people who are misusing them. It is clear here that everybody who is interested in wildlife, and the question of conservation, control and management, is for this amendment.
20
I cannot see why the Government should go on resisting this amendment when clearly it is in the interests of the welfare of animals, the conservation of wildlife, and the safety of everybody, to make this point clear and not to leave a vague area of excuse, "Oh, I was only shooting at a few birds" for those who misuse air weapons. I support the noble Lords whose names are down to this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I add my support from this remote Bench? I hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I sum up I wonder whether my noble friend could answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow?
3.35 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may briefly reply. May I also say that the onus of replying to amendments on this difficult Bill seems to have been too much for me, and I attempted to move Amendment No. 72 which has in fact got nothing to do with this clutch of amendments under the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness and other noble Lords. Amendment No. 72 we come to in a moment, and is in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellwin.
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should have talked about winning something. It is a pity when country pursuits, and indeed the use of weapons, is put into the context of thinking that in Parliament people are going to win something or lose something. I have lived in the country all my life and have always been brought up to believe that sport in the country is something for responsibility, for bringing young people up to realise what are the joys and the dangers, and is not set in the context of winning or losing points concerning discussions upon those subjects.
May I say in all friendliness to the noble Lord who referred to the strange case of the cat which was shot between the eyes, and indeed thereby encouraged the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with all his experience of this Bill, none the less to take the same line about general safety, that this amendment, with respect, has nothing to do with general safety. The misuse of an air weapon in nearly every case at the moment involves the commission of one or more offences under the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, fairly said, the effect of this particular clutch of amendments is limited in its scope.
The problem with which the amendments are trying to deal, I have been suggesting to your Lordships, is better dealt with by two ways: one by the enforcement of existing legislation, and the other by a voluntary campaign to try to heighten public awareness and to increase public responsibility. I therefore end by answering my noble friend Lord Onslow that it would be the intention of the Government, if your Lordships agreed that that would be the way forward, to run a public campaign to bring home to members of the public the dangers of the use of air weapons, part of which would be the subject-matter of these amendments, namely, shooting at birds which, arguably, should not be shot at by airguns. Then, as a result of that campaign,

21
it would be perfectly possible for the Government to bring into effect by order under subsection (3) subordinate legislation in order to do what it was deemed right to do. It seems a great pity to move into the Bill legislation which people may misinterpret, and not, first of all, try to carry people along in a voluntary way.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has persuaded me, but only on one point, and that is that I will lend support to his proposed advertising campaign. He of course slightly misinformed the House about the intention of the amendments. These amendments draw the net a little closer as to what species may be shot. That is the point that he has not put over to your Lordships. It reduces the species that may be shot to the pest species. Under present law you may shoot at many more species, and I think it is wrong.
It would be much easier for the police to know that there are ten birds in Schedule 2 Part II that may be shot. As for any other bird that somebody shoots at, that creates an immediate offence. That is not the case under the present law. My noble friend did not give a satisfactory answer to my noble friend Lord Onslow. In fact, we have been waiting since the Green Paper in 1973 for something to be done about airguns and nothing has been done. A recommendation of that paper was that there should be further restriction on the use of airguns. This is a small step in the right direction. I beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Gaitskell, B.

Adeane, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Amulree, L.

Gosford, E.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Banks, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hayter, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Henley, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hooson, L.

Burton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.—(Teller.)

Byers, L.

Caithness, E.—(Teller.)

Hunt, L.

Caradon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clancarty, E.

Ilchester, E.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Craigton, L.

Janner, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Loudoun, C.

Dulverton, L.

Melchett, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mersey, V.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

22

Northfield, L.

Spens, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stone, L.

Pargiter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurso, V.

Richardson, L.

Underhill, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wheatley, L.

Sandford, L.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wigg, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sligo, M.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Allerton, L.

Ironside, L.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Killearn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Barnby, L.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelwood, L.

Mansfield, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Margadale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.—(Teller.)

Penrhyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Portland, D.

Digby, L.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Effingham, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.—(Teller.)

Enniskillen, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Soames, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Swansea, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Hawke, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wynford, L.

Hood, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Council of Ministers (Fisheries)
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr, Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27th March, which was attended by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State

23
for Scotland, my honourable friend the Minister of State in my department, and myself.
"As the House will know, this meeting was called following the discussions on fish at the European Council at the beginning of last week. However, it quickly became apparent that one delegation was not able to negotiate on the crucial question of access and that therefore there was no possibility of agreement on a comprehensive, revised common fisheries policy. In these circumstances, the president decided that it would be wrong to prolong the meeting, which ended shortly after lunch. Ministers from all member countries committed their Governments to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement this spring, and invited the presidency to reconvene the Council as soon as the necessary preparations allow.
"The Government consider that it is vital to retain the strength of the British fishing industry. It will be known that for this purpose during the past year the Government have already provided £37 million worth of aid to the industry, and it was originally envisaged that this aid was for the period ending on 31st March.
"The House will know that the Government made the decision to bring forward the review of the financial position of the industry, and the results of this review show quite clearly that markets are weak and increasing costs and continuing uncertainty are hitting the fleet hard.
"The Government have therefore decided to make further aid available to the industry to help it through the continuing uncertainty and difficulty. £25 million will be made available for distribution through a scheme on broadly similar lines to the fishing vessel temporary support scheme introduced last August.
"By taking this action, the Government will therefore again have confirmed their determination to see that the British fishing industry continues to make an important contribution to our economy and continues in readiness for taking full advantage of a common fishing policy when negotiations are completed".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Peart: My Lords, the whole House will basically support what the Government have sought to do in Brussels. I know of the difficulties that arise there, but I believe that our Minister, though his political point of view is different from mine, has tried very hard, and I am certain that at some time we shall achieve success. Unfortunately not all Governments act in the same way, and during discussions at the European Council meeting last week it quickly became apparent, as the Minister said, that one delegation was not able to negotiate on the question of access. I assume that that was the French delegation. Of course, we must recognise that they face problems, but I believe that our stance has been right, and I hope that we shall be able this spring to secure an agreement on a common policy. There has been much controversy in the press regarding this matter, and I hope that we can achieve success. I think that the president was quite right in deciding that it would be wrong to prolong the meeting,
24
which ended shortly after lunch. I know what negotiations are like in Europe, even though I never undertook any fisheries negotiations, despite being a fisheries Minister. I believe that Ministers from all member countries committed their Governments to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement this spring.
It is important that we have a common fisheries policy. I am glad that the Government have stressed the fact that it is vital to retain the strength of the fishing industry until such time as they are able to take full advantage of a common fisheries policy. Some of these very important matters could be raised in the Bill that we are to debate tomorrow.
I am grateful for what the Government have done; they have done well for the industry. They have already provided £37 million worth of aid to the industry; it was originally estimated that the aid was for the period ending on 31st March. Again, £25 million will be made available for distribution through a scheme on broadly similar lines to the fishing vessel temporary support scheme, which was introduced last August. I think that this will be welcomed by the industry. I believe that in taking this action the Government will have confirmed their determination to ensure that the British fishing industry continues to make an important contribution to our economy. This is not a party matter. I strongly support the Minister on this issue, and hope that after a further meeting at some later stage we shall go on from success to success.
3.53 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for the Statement he has repeated. We support the Government in the stand that they are taking for the British fishing industry. We urge them to continue to seek a proper comprehensive policy for the EEC on fisheries and to ensure that that policy provides for the proper conservation of our fish stocks within our own waters and ensures that the fishing industry continues as one of the great industries of this country. We welcome the fact that the Government are to give aid to our hard-pressed fishing industry. We hope that the aid might also contain a measure of protection against the dumping of cheap fish within our markets. On these Benches we notice that that point has not been mentioned in this context, and perhaps the Minister would care to say a word or two on it. However, we certainly support the stand that has been taken, and we sympathise with the Government in the difficulties which obviously they have been experiencing.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their support of the Government's stance on the negotiations for a common fisheries policy. It is of no little comfort to my right honourable friend when he goes to Brussels or Luxembourg month after month to know that broadly speaking there is a united front so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. I must also thank the noble Lord and the noble Viscount for their welcome of the very large injection of cash into the industry. Not for one moment do I say that the injection of cash is other than thoroughly deserved, but it is a large amount of money, and we hope that it will continue to keep the fishing industry in a position

25
where it will be able to take advantage of a common fisheries policy when negotiations are completed.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on the point about imports, I would say that one must take this in two stages. With regard to imports into the United Kingdom under the reference price, we have for some time been pressing the Commission to take action, and indeed it has prepared a regulation prohibiting imports into the United Kingdom under the reference price. While no decision has yet been taken on this question, we shall continue to press the matter.
With regard to illegal and unfair imports, as the noble Viscount might be aware, my right honourable friend has set up a small team, consisting of representatives from the catchers' organisations and officials, which is inquiring into these matters. I can tell the noble Viscount that it is making good progress and it hopes shortly to complete its work and report to Ministers.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, mention has been made of cheap fish dumped in this country, but any housewife will testify that we cannot get cheap fish anywhere, whether it be clumped or not dumped.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the question of the price of fish on the slab is rather outside the content of the Statement that I have repeated.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl how the aid is being distributed to the men who go out to win our food and who sometimes pay with their lives. What help will the smallest enterprises receive, and how will the vessels be subsidised? In asking these questions I am not criticising; I think that the Government have done a good job of work here.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, the aid will be distributed on lines broadly similar to those in what is known as the fishing vessel temporary support scheme, which we introduced last summer. I can tell the noble Lord, very briefly, that a cash sum will be paid for each vessel that can be shown to have been fishing on a regular basis. The cash sum is determined approximately by the length of the vessel in the water. Though the scheme is slightly arbitrary, it has commended itself to us as being the fairest that can be devised, but, above all, it is easy to administer, quick to pay out, and seems to be effective in getting the money as quickly as possible out of the hands of the Treasury into the pockets of the fishermen.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I should like to join in welcoming the Statement repeated by my noble friend, and indeed the stand that has been taken by his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I also have in mind those Members of the European Parliament who represent fishing constituencies and who have been battling very hard in support of our claims. May I take it that the grants are a measure of the Government's determination to ensure that we really can sustain an adequate fishing industry?—which is one of our most traditional industries. May I ask my noble friend whether the
26
negotiations will in any way deal with the much higher fuel prices which our fishermen are having to pay? Will they deal with the measures of control that have been forecast relating to quota catches in the interests of conservation? While we know that the controls are ruthlessly imposed here, will the negotiations ensure that they are adequately imposed by some of our colleagues on the Continent? Also, will they in any way deal with the factory ships, which deprive our fishing ports of most valuable landing charges when those factory ships are from non-EEC countries?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think, if I may say so, that most of the questions that my noble friend has directed to me this afternoon might be better directed to me tomorrow afternoon, when I hope to move the Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill, which in the legislation, so to speak, will answer a lot of her points. But taking the matter briefly, this scheme is designed to put money into the very hard-pressed fishing industry as quickly and as effectively as possible so that it can, as it were, continue in effective being until we work out a common fisheries policy and can fish fairly and profitably in the way that it always has in the past.
Matters of imports and the regulation of fishing are really quite apart from this support scheme which my right honourable friend has announced today, but I should like merely to reflect my noble friend's opinion that the Government take the plight of the fishing industry very seriously indeed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it plain from a very early stage in the Government's life that she regards the fishing industry as being crucial to the economy of some of the most hard-pressed and vulnerable parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, to the rural economy as a whole, and the Government are determined that they should support the fishing industry until such times as we get a fair, just and equitable common fisheries policy to enable it to pursue its traditional calling in its traditional way.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
Third Reading resumed.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 40 and insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part, if the owner or occupier of any land causes or permits to be done on that land any act which is made unlawful by subsection (1), he").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which are consequential. When, at Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved his amendment, which was agreed by a small majority, he allowed that there might be some shortcomings in its drafting. While the Government, as the House knows, did not agree with the amendment, we have nevertheless undertaken the redrafting. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although this amendment and the others that go with it are necessary as drafting amendments, may I express the hope that the Government

27
will in due course revert to their original and correct view of this matter? Under the present law, anyone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence is guilty. Those words are clear, adequate and well understood. But the words "causes or permits" are imprecise, confusing and can lead to injustice. Therefore, while accepting this drafting amendment now, I do so in the hope that the Government will try to persuade another place to do better than we have done.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton? I think that this amendment rewords something which the House accepted at the last stage considerably better than the attempt that we made at it, and I would hope that, now that the Government have put down an amendment to this effect, it will be accepted. It does not go nearly as far as I wanted and it does not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wanted—he moved an amendment on this matter both at Committee and at Report stage—but it seems to me to be a useful step. I think it is possibly to the credit of your Lordships' House, which must contain more landowners and farmers than certainly another place and possibly any other similar gathering of the same number of people, that the House has agreed to make an amendment which recognises the responsibilities of landowners and farmers. I think it is an excellent thing, and I am grateful to the Government for moving this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, and I am grateful to the Government for having taken this on board. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, while it does not go quite far enough, it was an important thing, I think, to try to close what was quite clearly a real gap in the law, or what could in practice turn out to be a real gap in the law, and we are grateful to the Government for going quite a long way to meet us.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to disagree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Renton, although on several of these points in this Bill we have been in agreement. I think this is a good amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for making the original amendment better. Furthermore, I should like to suggest to your Lordships' House that the position under the health and safety at work regulations is, I think, that if somebody does something—for instance, lifts somebody up on the front of a fork-lift tractor to enable him to do something which the health and safety at work people would get very cross about—then even if I am in your Lordships' House "rabbiting" on about something I could still be in serious trouble if it was done behind my back or even if it was done when I was at home and even though I may have given instructions that it should not be done. I think this particular amendment is a good thing, and I hope that my noble friend will disregard what my noble friend Lord Renton has suggested to him.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Onslow. I certainly agree with
28
what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. "Permits" could mean "has not prevented". The amendment is clearly intended to make the employer liable for the acts of his employee. This would be tolerable, but as the amendment is at the moment drafted an owner of land could well be liable to blackmail. Anyone finding any chemical-impregnated bait which could have been set for the taking of a bird could have the owner and the occupier taken to court as they did not prevent the bait being set. Under these proposals, owners or occupiers could be placed, and are likely to be placed, in a most invidious position. Indeed, I believe there has already been a case of attempted blackmail, where a poisoned bird has been left near a keeper's house. Furthermore, not all employees are angels, and even employers who are completely innocent could be placed in an extremely invidious position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 42, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and would speak to Amendment No. 72 at the same time. If I may repeat what I said earlier, I think there is a typing mistake in the Marshalled List and that these should be Amendments Nos. 15 and 15A. I think it is fair to say that the Bill is designed primarily to conserve and protect wildlife. It is not intended to be a means of introducing controls on fire-arms for other reasons. There is also the need to ensure greater consistency with the provisions which are to be found in Clause 11(3). As your Lordships are aware, the powers in Clause 11(3) limit the adding or omitting of methods of killing or taking of mammals to those for the purpose of compliance with an international obligation.
With these considerations in mind, the Government feel that it is right similarly to limit additions of firearms to the list of proscribed weapons in Clause 5 to those required under international obligations. This would still provide the necessary safeguard against new or improved firearms, and would not of course prevent the addition of other methods of killing or taking, such as chemicals, to which birds are particularly vulnerable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 6, line 46, at end insert—
("(3A) The power conferred by subsection (3) shall not be exercisable, except for the purpose of complying with an international obligation, in relation to any method of killing or taking wild birds which involves the use of a firearm.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 7, line 1, at end insert ("or subsection (2)")
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("by the accused").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I beg to move them both together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("mammals") and insert ("animals")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 65 and 168. This is a series of amendments to replace references to mammals by references to animals. This meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised at Committee stage, and which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook pursued at Report stage, that at some stage in the future we might incur an international obligation to protect various wild animals such as reptiles or amphibia, in addition to the birds and mammals for which the Bill presently provides, against the use of indiscriminate methods of killing. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(d) the use of any air weapon by an authorised person for the purpose of taking a bird included in Part II of Schedule 2;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Sale etc. of live or dead wild birds, eggs etc.]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("things falling within paragraph (a)" and insert ("any of those things").
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("things falling within paragraph (a)") and insert ("any of those things").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission I will speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 48.
These are drafting amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Protection of certain wild animals]:
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 11, line 17, after ("dead") insert ("wild").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 59, 60 and 74. The principal amendment is in Clause 27 and the others are consequential. These are drafting amendments to clarify the distinction between birds and animals for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not have any worries about the later amendments to which the noble Earl has spoken. But could he perhaps write to me at some stage and reassure me about this amendment which might be introducing a loophole, in that somebody could claim that the animal concerned was not a wild animal, although it was an animal to which it would otherwise be illegal to do what they were going to do. Because they could claim that it was bred in captivity,
30
they would not be committing an offence. There is a similar problem in the part of the Bill dealing with birds and it has been met in some way. I saw this amendment only late this morning. I may not have made myself clear and I may be barking up the wrong tree in any case. My worry is that somebody will be able to say that this is not a wild animal, that it was bred in captivity, and that that would provide a loophole. It is not a major point. If the noble Earl does not know the answer now, perhaps he will write me.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I cannot find anything in Schedule 5 which would need this exemption or which would benefit from being subject to this extra qualification. If the noble Earl is not able to answer now, it would be good to receive an explanation by letter; but I should have thought that we ought to have a verbal explanation now. On the face of it, it looks as though it is modifying something which not only does not need to be modified but which ought not to be modified.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is in a quandary. I will try to help him. If he looks at Amendment No. 22 on its own, it appears to imply that there are some animals in Schedule 5 which are wild and some which are not. If the noble Lord addresses himself to Clause 27, which is Amendment No. 74, that is the definition clause and the point of the whole amendment is to define "animal" as meaning an animal other than a bird. It therefore excludes wild birds. That is the reason why the word "wild" is put in the place where it is. I think that that covers Lord Beaumont's problem. I think that also covers Lord Melchett's problem. He wags his head in dissent—which is not an unfamiliar posture for the noble Lord. If he is worrried about it, I will look into it and write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("things falling within paragraph (a)") and insert ("any of those things").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10. [Exceptions to s. 9]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 12, line 3, leave out second ("or")
Page 12, line 7, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these two amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("bats") and insert ("a bat").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to make this subsection consistent with the rest of the Bill, where the singular is used. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may bend the rules a little, may I take the opportunity to point out two printing errors in Clause 10? In page 11, line 39, I think that the words, "subsection (2) of Section 9" should read: "subsection (3) of Section 9". On page l2, line 19, "Section 15" should read "Section 16". I do not know whether these are errors which can be corrected when the Bill is reprinted. Perhaps the Government can look at them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to bend the rules then perhaps I may be permitted to do so by saying that I will see whether the points he makes are valid.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 37:
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 12, line 33, leave out ("or")
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal").
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 13, line 5, leave out second ("or")
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("or")
Page 13, line 11, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 13, line 18, leave out ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these are consequential amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, would it be your Lordships' wish that I move Amendments Nos. 28 to 37 en bloc?
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert—
("(v) any air weapon; or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 20, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
4.20 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 48:
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("mammal") and insert ("animal")
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("mammals") and insert ("animals")
Page 13, line 35, after ("wild") insert ("birds or wild")
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("mammals") and insert ("animals").
Page 14, line 17, leave out ("things falling within paragraph (a)") and insert ("any of those things").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 43 to 48 are all consequential. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, leave out lines 20 to 24.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like, with permission, to speak also to Amendment No. 50. At Report stage your Lordships' House accepted an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady David, to require a person charged with selling a protected plant on Schedule 8 to show that it was not taken from the wild. The amendment as drafted was defective; I hope the noble Baroness will find the redraft acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask this question? Does the new amendment really put the onus on the vendor of the plant to show that the plant was not taken from the wild?
The Earl of Avon: That is certainly our intention, yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert—
("(5) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (2)(a), the plant in question shall be presumed to have been a wild plant unless the contrary is shown.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Endangered species (import and export)]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 15, line 25, at end insert—
("(2) The functions of the Nature Conservancy Council shall include the provision of advice and assistance to persons enforcing or seeking to enforce the provisions of the said Act of 1976 or any order made under it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall, with your permission, also speak to Amendment No. 67. I said on Report that the Government accepted the principle of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton which provided that the Nature Conservancy Council could appoint persons to advise and assist those engaged in enforcement of the Endangered Species Act 1976 and Part I of this Bill, and undertook to table suitable amendments. Your Lordships will remember that there was a general reference to the police who in fact act as individuals. This amendment is framed to cover both police and H.M. Customs and Excise. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am very grateful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is very properly saying that the Nature Conservancy Council shall give advice and assistance to people seeking to enforce the provisions of the Act of 1976. Under Amendment No. 67 it is said that it shall be their function to give advice and assistance to people enforcing or seeking to enforce the provisions of Part I. But the advice of the council will undoubtedly be required—perhaps in a big way—under Part II as well. I wonder why it is that Amendement No. 67 is confined to advice and assistance under Part I only.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, without getting technical advice I shall endeavour to answer my noble friend in this way. I imagine it refers to Part I because that is where the birds and mammals are considered. It really only refers to Part I.
Baroness David: My Lords, I moved an amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill trying to strengthen the enforcement clauses because we did not think they went far enough. This amendment has gone some way. It shows that the Government have ack-knowledged the need for enforcement and this is to be given by the advice and assistance of the Nature Conservancy Council. We wanted them to have officers who could enforce it because they are the people who have the actual knowledge. We have gone some way but I do not think that this amendment gives them the means to enforce the Act. I hope that in the other place there will be further amendments which will definitely strengthen this clause. We still think that it does not go far enough as it is.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have a suspicion that the Nature Conservancy Council itself is somewhat worried about going much further on the enforcement levels.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power to grant licences]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
Page 15, line 27, leave out ("3")
Page 15, line 27, after ("8") insert ("and orders under section 3").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I shall move Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. These are simple drafting amendments. I beg to move the amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 15, leave lines 35 and 36.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your permission, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 63, which are consequential. The noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Donaldson, suggested on Report that Clause 16(1)(f)—for the purpose of human consumption—might be misinterpreted in Europe and that it would be better to state in the Bill exactly what we are prepared to allow to be taken for human consumption. The amendments are designed to
34
achieve that end. The practices listed are traditional and harmless to conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, also suggested on Report that taking for human consumption was not allowed by the directive. Provision is in fact made in Article 9(1)(c).
We have had a lot of goes at this particular clause. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on his higher perch. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 16, line 3, after ("livestock") insert ("foodstuffs for livestock").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 6, at end insert—
("(1A) Sections 1 and 3 do not apply to anything done for the purpose of providing food for human consumption in relation to—

(a) a gannet on the island of Sula Sgeir; or

(b) a gull's egg or, at any time before 15th April in any year, a lapwing's egg,

if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted by the appropriate authority.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 17, line 5, after ("(1)") insert ("(1A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 17, line 6, leave out ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 17, leave out lines 12 to 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 16(6) was originally included to allow for the sale where appropriate of birds and other animals taken under licence. It has been made superfluous by the amendments making wider provision for sale which were accepted by your Lordship's House on Report. This amendment removes subsection (6). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 17, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I shall speak to this amendment and Amendment No. 70 together. These are drafting amendments to include the definition of "Agriculture Minister" in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 18, line 2, after ("(1)") insert ("subsection (1A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I also spoke to this amendment, which is consequential, when moving Amendment No. 54.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power to vary Schedule 5]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 21, line 10, leave out ("wild").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 21, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert ("or Schedule 6; and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Advisory bodies and their functions]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 22, line 31, after first ("may") insert ("out of moneys provided by Parliament and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another drafting amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Functions of Nature Conservancy Council]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("(4) The functions of the Council shall include the provision of advice and assistance to persons enforcing or seeking to enforce the provisions of this Part or any order or regulations made under it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations, orders, notices etc.]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 23, line 34, at beginning insert ("except in the case of an order under section 2(6)").
Page 23, line 36, leave out ("2(6) or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to move Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 together.
36
Clause 26(4)(b) as presently drafted requires in the case of orders made under Clause 2(6), the protection of Schedule 2, Part I birds in the open season, that local authorities shall be given an opportunity to make representations. This is clearly inappropriate and any order has to be made very quickly in order to give protection when it is needed and will usually be for the whole country. The amendments remove that requirement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Interpretation of Part I]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 24, line 12, at end insert—
(""agriculture Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 62.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 24, line 29, at end insert—
(""air weapon" means any air rifle, air gun or air pistol not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968 to be specially dangerous;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 24, line 41, at end insert—
(""firearm" has the same meaning as in the Firearms Act 1968;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 25, line 22, after second ("animal") insert ("(other than a bird)").
Page 25, line 22, leave out lines 30 to 32.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. I have spoken to them before and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Maritime nature conservation]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 76:
Transpose Clause 30 to after Clause 33.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to re-order the clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Restoration where order under s. 29 is contravened
.—(1) Where the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of an offence under section 29 has destroyed or damaged any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land on which it was carried out is of special interest, the court by which he is convicted, in addition to dealing with him in any other way, may make an

37
order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the land to its former condition as may be so specified.
(2) In determining whether to make an order under this section against any person, the court shall have regard to his means so far as they appear or are known to the court.
(3) An order under this section made on conviction on indictment shall be treated for the purposes of section 30 and 42(1) and (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (effect of appeals on orders for the restitution of property) as an order for the restitution of property; and where by reason of the quashing by the Court of Appeal of a person's conviction any such order does not take effect, and appeal to the House of Lords the conviction is restored by that House, the House may make any order under this section which could be made on his conviction by the Court which convicted him.
(4) In the case of an order under this section made by a magistrates' court the period specified in the order shall not begin to run—

(a) in any case until the expiration of the period for the time being prescribed by law for the giving of notice of appeal against a decision of a magistrates' court;

(b) where notice of appeal is given within the period so prescribed, until determination of the appeal.

(5) At any time before an order under this section has been complied with or fully complied with, the court by which it was made may, on the application of the person against whom it was made, discharge or vary the order if it appears to the court that a change in circumstances has made compliance or full compliance with the order impracticable or unnecessary.
(6) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order under this section within the period specified in the order shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) to a fine not exceeding £500; and

(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction.

(7) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) subsections (3) and (4) shall not apply; and

(b) for the purposes of any appeal or review, an order under this section is a sentence.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77, but I feel I should point out to your Lordships that there is in fact an omission on the Marshalled List. The fourth line from the end of subsection (3) should have the word "on" appearing before the words "appeal to the House of Lords". It should read as follows:
"the quashing by the Court of Appeal of a person's conviction any such order does not take effect, and on appeal to the House of Lords the conviction".
I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 108, if I may.
When your Lordships discussed at an earlier stage Amendment No. 167C, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and which referred to the restoring of certain Clause 29 sites which might have been destroyed, I was somewhat pessimistic about the time which might be taken to resolve some of the problems that seemed to be posed by the amendment. Your Lordships will recall that the amendment sought to give the courts a power to require a person to restore so far as was practicable the special interest of land which had been made subject to an order made by the Secretary of State and which had been destroyed. It appeared to be the wish of your Lordships that something on the lines of this amendment, which could be seen as making the penalty fit the crime, should appear in the Bill before it left here for another place.
I feel I should make a special mention of Parliamentary Counsel's efforts, because I believe that we have here an amendment which meets your Lordships'
38
wishes. It will empower the court, in addition to any other way in which it decides to deal with an offender, to make an order requiring him to make good, in whole or in part, so far as practicable and reasonable, the damage which has been done to the scientific interests of the land covered by a Section 29 order. I must point out, though, that the clause is not loaded against the owner or the occupier but is against the potential offender. It provides that the court shall have regard to his means, for it would do no good if a restoration order were made and the result were ruinous to the offender. Provision is also made for an appeal against the order and for the order to be rescinded or varied by the court as the circumstances change. But the court would have a power to impose a penalty for non-compliance with its order. We think this penalty should be a fine of up to £500 and we have provided, where the offender continues to be in breach of the order, for a further fine not exceeding £50 a day while the offence continues.
I should perhaps refer to subsection (7). This is merely a technical provision to ensure that a restoration order made in Scotland is subject to appeal under Scottish jurisdiction and Scottish procedures. Therefore it expressly disapplies subsections (3) and (4), which are relevant only to England and Wales, and then provides that as regards Scotland a restoration order is a sentence to which the normal Scottish appeal procedures automatically apply.
I am glad that we have been able to respond to your Lordships' wishes in a way which caters for both the principles and the technicalities involved in such a measure, and I hope it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend in saying that the draftsman has done a good job on a rather difficult matter. However, I should like to ask my noble friend just one question which could well arise in the courts and I think we ought to be clear about it. It may call for a further amendment in another place. At the end of subsection (1), we find:
"the court … may make an Order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the land to its former condition as may be so specified."
I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend: is that intended to refer only to geographical condition of the land or would it be held that he should so far as possible restore it to its biological condition as well?
That would very often be impossible, because if a very rare plant, for example, has been uprooted—it may have been the last known specimen of it—nothing can be done. If, on the other hand, rare plants have been taken up or, for example, fauna which previously inhabited the land have been excluded from it but could, by finding them elsewhere, be reintroduced, that would be as far as possible restoring the land to its biological condition. Therefore, the word "condition" may very well need further explanation.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I very briefly thank the noble Earl very much indeed for this amendment, and echo what he said about the work of the parliamentary

39
draftsmen in dealing with a very difficult point, which I apologise for originally introducing. But I am sure that the provision that will now be in the Bill will be very much welcomed by a number of noble Lords. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others spoke strongly in favour of this at previous stages of this Bill.
Maybe I could take this opportunity of praising not only parliamentary counsel, but all those officials who are working for noble Lords opposite and who have done so much work between the Report stage and this stage of the Bill, not only for producing all these amendments but also for writing a number of very helpful letters. I hope they will feel that their hard work has been rewarded by the fact that there are no amendments down in my name, or in that of my noble friend Lady David, except for one occasion when I joined my name to an amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
I should have thought that the answer to the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was that the operations have to be specified by the court and the court will take into account, I imagine—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will agree with me—what it would be reasonable and practicable to ask an offender to do. It would not be reasonable or practicable to ask an offender to restore the land to the state it was in if it is an impossibility to reproduce wild flowers or to reintroduce fauna which have since left. Our previous discussions have made quite clear what was the intention behind this. I should have thought that the courts would be able to deal with it in a reasonable way, and there is plenty of provision for appeal if the offender in a particular case does not feel that that has been done. I myself very much welcome the amendment and I am grateful to the Government for it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for those kind words which I totally endorse. The work that has been done by officials of the department concerned and by parliamentary counsel has been quite extraordinary; in particular, in trying to meet many of the real and difficult points which have been raised. I thought—and it is a happy thought—that the reason why there were no amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was that the department had considered all of the points that he made and met them, as well as the noble Lord's total mental exhaustion over the Bill, with which I have some mild sympathy.
In fact, I think that he answered my noble friend Lord Renton, but I will see that his point is taken into account. Clearly, if a farmer has ploughed up the one and only unique pink flower that exists in the country, it is impossible for that to be restored. On the other hand, the amendment as drafted permits the court to give an instruction for such operations, for the purpose of restoring the land to the former conditions "as may be specified". It may well be that the court would specify that in certain circumstances the offending work could possibly be restored, but, obviously, where it could not be restored that would be an impossibility. But I will certainly make sure that it covers the biological point which my noble friend made, as well as the normal one relating to land.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Limestone pavement orders.]:
4.44 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
Page 31, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("would") in line 28 and insert—
("(1) Where the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission are of the opinion that any land in the countryside which consists substantially of limestone exposed on or lying near the surface of the ground is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, it shall be the duty of that Council or that Commission to notify that fact to the county and district planning authorities in whose areas the land is situated.
(1A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or the county planning authority that the character or appearance of any land notified under subsection (1).").
Page 31, line 36, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the Council and the Commission").
Page 31, line 38, after ("may") insert ("after such consultation as aforesaid").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80, as these stem from Amendments Nos. 170 and 170ZA, the principles of which the Government were pleased to accept at Report stage. The effect of Amendment No. 78 is to meet the general wish of your Lordships' House that the county planning authorities or the Secretary of State should be able to make orders protecting the limestone pavements, where either the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission had notified both the county planning authorities and the district planning authorities that the land was of special interest. Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 meet the wish that orders made by the county planning authorities or the Secretary of State should not be amended or revoked by them, until both the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission have been consulted. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not consider that the Government have carried out their obligations and the assurances which they gave at the Report stage. When the clause dealing with limestone pavements was dealt with in Committee, one point which was made was that the Countryside Commission should have a say. But the second, and most important, point was that the landscape value of the pavements should be recognised in the clause. This was stressed over and over again.
It was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who said at the Committee stage—if I may quote from column 379 of Hansard of 12th February—
"… they are also areas of great beauty which are a delight to many. It might seem reasonable that the Countryside Commission should be able to act positively to ensure that the contribution which the limestone pavements make in the landscape is not in any way debased".
This was stressed by, I think, everybody who spoke, and at the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said at column 380:
"We are sure the Countryside Commission and the local planning authorities will want to work closely together to preserve these areas of limestone where there is risk of exploitation that would cause irreparable damage to the landscape.".
That was followed up at Report stage, when we had hoped that the Government would put down an amendment. They did not do so, and an all-party

41
amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today. I am sure that if he were here he would be backing this amendment or speaking himself. At Report stage, the noble Lord said:
"They aimed to achieve that the landscape value of these limestone pavements should be one of the reasons which should weigh with the Minister when it came to making an order." [Official Report, 12/3/81; col. 549.]
That was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me to say, if he was not back by the time this amendment was called, that he, too, is dissatisfied with it. The noble Lord, Lord James, also spoke of the landscape value and hoped that something would be put in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I withdrew the amendment because we had those assurances. Owing to the lateness of the time when the amendment was put down by the Government—and, of course, we cannot put down amendments on the day of Third Reading—we have been unable to do anything about it. But I feel that we have been let down by the Government, and I should like to ask that they now commit themselves to putting down a further amendment in another place to meet the assurances which we had earlier.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should have thought that the word "physiographical" was a long and rather pompous lawyer's word for "landscape". It seems to me that my noble friend on the Front Bench has done what he said he would do.
Baroness David: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I just answer that? The word "physiographical" has been in the clause right from the beginning, and I understand that it means the scientific study of land form and does not actually refer to the landscape. The NCC were there to consider the scientific features of the pavements and we hoped that the Countryside Commission would be there to look after the landscape side. The Countryside Commission is in, but the landscape is not particularly mentioned.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, may I raise one point on limestone pavements? I tried to put down a manuscript amendment, but under Standing Orders was not allowed to do so. At the Report stage the Government promised to include the words "a limestone pavement order". They have not put down such an amendment. Perhaps they could just confirm that it is their intention to do so.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may first answer the noble Baroness, Lady David, we do, indeed, recognise that the word "physiographical" includes landscape value. I will, of course, look through all that the noble Baroness has said and, if I find that we are in default, we will take appropriate action to meet her point. On my noble friend's point about limestone pavements and the problems of definition, we have tried to do what my noble friend suggested but, as has been said already, we have been under considerable pressure. At the moment we have not found a
42
satisfactory solution to meet his point. However, we are still considering it. If we can come up with something, of course we shall certainly ensure that the Bill is so amended.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Suitable assurances, my Lords, have been given about the landscape value. I think, however, that without the words of the noble Earl, people would not necessarily take the word "physiographical" as meaning anything to do with beauty as such. We welcome his assurance that it does include it and that, if he receives advice that there is any doubt about it, the Government will do something about it in another place. Having said that, I am under instructions from my noble friend Lord Winstanley also to thank the Government for having put down this amendment. Unfortunately, my noble friend has a major engagement in the North of England. He will be here as soon as possible He had hoped to be here in order to give thanks himself but, as I say, he is not able to be here yet.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Grants and loans by Nature Conservancy Council]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 33, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("ensure") in line 9 and insert ("The Council shall so exercise their powers under subsection (3) as to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak also to Amendment No. 87. The House accepted on Report amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady David, to make sure that when grants are given in national parks and other areas proper provision should be made for disabled people who might go there for recreation. Parliamentary counsel have done some tidying up of the drafting and I hope the noble Baroness will find this acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness David: Yes, my Lords, this is quite acceptable. I thank the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 82:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
(" Duties of water authorities etc
.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (areas of special scientific interest) the words "not being land managed as a nature reserve" shall be omitted.
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
" (4) Where any land has been notified to a water authority under subsection (3) above, the authority shall consult with the Council before executing or carrying out any works or operations appearing to them to be likely to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest.
(5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) are notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.
(6) References in this section to water authorities shall include references to internal drainage boards and the reference in subsection (3) above to the water authority in

43
whose area the land is situated shall include a reference to the internal drainage board in whose district the land is situated.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will be brief. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 105 which is consequential.
This amendment meets the undertaking given to the House during the Report stage that consideration would be given to the Amendment numbered there 177A. That amendment, it will be recalled, sought to place upon water authorities and internal drainage boards the obligation to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before undertaking or giving permission to others to undertake any schemes, operations or activities which might affect the special interest of any land which had been notified to the water authorities or the internal drainage boards as being of special scientific interest.
The effect of this amendment will be to require water authorities and internal drainage boards to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before carrying out any work or operations when it appears to them that those works or operations might be likely to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features which were of special interest and which led to the notification of an area by the Nature Conservancy Council as being of special scientific interest. May I digress slightly to tell the noble Baroness that I had a nice physiographical feature up my sleeve to illustrate this point. It was of course the Avon Gorge.
The amendment also recognises, as did the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that such consultations may not be possible where emergency operations are involved. It relieves the water authorities and internal drainage boards from the prior consultation requirement but does place upon them the obligation to notify the Nature Conservancy Council as soon as is practicable after the work has started.
Thus I think it will be seen that we are not placing any unreasonable barriers in the way of the water authorities or the internal drainage boards in the discharge of their functions. We are ensuring however that where there is a need for consultation it shall take place and the Nature Conservancy Council will be fully aware of the operations which could affect areas of scientific interest.
In moving this amendment I must make clear to your Lordships that unlike water authorities, internal drainage boards are relatively small organisations lacking the administrative facilities of the former. Fears have been expressed that subsection (6) may impose quite considerable problems on internal drainage boards and I wish to make it clear to your Lordships that the intention is that the boards will do their best to discharge this new responsibility. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment which has been moved by my noble friend. I am familiar with this part of the world; namely, Huntingdonshire, both the Fens and the clay-land there. We have a great mixture of water authorities: internal drainage boards, the Middle Level, the Great Ouse Water Authority and so on—which are now to be superseded by the Anglian Water Authority.
44
There have been some most unfortunate cases of the water table being lowered, sometimes for good agricultural reasons and sometimes merely to stop flooding, which have had very bad effects on the flora and fauna. Indeed, the swallowtail butterfly was completely excluded from one of its favourite reserves in the Fens simply because the water table was lowered rather carelessly and has never been restored. The vegetation upon which the swallowtail butterfly there depended was destroyed. It has never returned. So these things can matter very much. I am sure that what my noble friend has said will be borne in mind. Let us hope that this new clause will produce the results which he hopes.
Baroness White: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having had time to consult about this proposed new clause. In general one welcomes it but, with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one cannot help having some apprehensions about the internal drainage boards in particular. As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, rightly said, sometimes they are not particularly strongly staffed. I am concerned about some of the things which happen at the instance of internal drainage boards who, for reasons which seem to them to be right and proper, straighten out, canalise banks, cut down trees and shrubs, and so on.
I am assuming that in line 2 on page 10 of the Marshalled List the word "them" is the water authority or the drainage board. If one has to rely upon the drainage board to know what damage they might be doing, it seems to me to be a rather shaky safeguard. I may be wrong about this, and I see that my noble friend Lord Melchett is getting impatient. It is just that I have had brought to my notice in the last few days some quite appallingly damaging things which have been done by certain internal drainage boards. I should like to be reassured that this new clause will do all that is required of it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right: that it will not do all that is required. Despite the new clause, we shall still see sites of special scientific interest being destroyed by water authorities and internal drainage boards. What we need is better protection for those sites in Part II of the Bill. Having said that, I think that the Government's new clause goes as far as it can in laying duties on water authorities and internal drainage boards to take account of the sites. As I was the one who introduced the amendment, I think first at Committee stage, I am very grateful to the Government for what they have done.
The answer to the worry expressed both by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and by my noble friend and others about the capacity of internal drainage boards is that this provision in legislation will give an opportunity to local interests to make representations to internal drainage boards about their activities and sites which they should be careful of. The cases which were brought to my attention and why I first put down the amendment were in the Broads and in the Broads area. The Norfolk Naturalist Trust and the regional office of the Nature Conservancy Council have been very closely involved in a number of cases where internal drainage boards have done things to the detriment of farmers and tenant farmers—on the Norfolk Naturalist Trust's own reserves in one instance.

45
The problem at the moment is that there is nothing in legislation which says that an internal drainage board needs to take any notice of or even listen to the representations which those sorts of other local interests will make to them. This new clause certainly puts that right.
It will be very warmly welcomed by people working on the ground locally, whether they are staff of the Nature Conservancy Council or of voluntary organisations. It will not protect all sites of special scientific interest but it does go a long way towards meeting a particularly acute problem, which had led to some very serious cases of destruction, really, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton said, through ignorance, or because people were not thinking about it, which is all the more upsetting, I suppose. I hope that this will at least make sure that such cases will not occur in the future. I should like to thank the noble Earl and the Government for tabling this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I made very long opening remarks and I do not intend to take it any further. I think the noble Baroness will have been satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. We had a delicate balance to strike here, and we hope that we have done so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Schemes under Agriculture Act 1970]:
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 83:
Transpose Clause 35 to after Clause 37.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another technical amendment to re-order the clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Notification of agricultural operations on moor and heath in National Parks]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 35, line 32, leave out ("or forestry operation appearing") and insert ("operation or any forestry operation which (in either case) appears").
Page 35, line 34, after ("and") insert ("is").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 together. These are drafting amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 36, line 30, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Grants and loans for purposes of National Parks]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 37, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 6
46
and insert ("A county planning authority shall so exercise their powers under subsection (2) as to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 81. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Extension of power to appoint wardens]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Transpose Clause 41 to after Clause 43.
Clause 42 [Amendment of Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944]:
Transpose Clause 42 to after Clause 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these again are technical amendments to re-order the clauses. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Duty to keep definitive map and statement under continuous review]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 40, line 38, at end insert ("except that during a period of seven years beginning with the commencement date nothing shall require a surveying authority to show as a right of way, or a highway of particular description, any right of way in regard to which evidence has been discovered under sub-paragraphs (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection such that an alteration has been made to the definitive map, and the authority are convinced that such enjoyment by the public of the right of way was in consequence of the inclusion of the right of way in the definitive map").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return here to the complex question of footpaths. The simple aim of this amendment is to give an owner a period of seven years' grace to appeal to the appropriate authority where a right of way is wrongly mapped and has been so used for a period of more than 20 years.
To summarise, as I understand it, the view of the Government is that where there is good evidence that an error was made either by wrongly mapping a path or by giving it too high a status, then, first, the individual prejudiced in title can protect himself from use giving rise to a presumption of dedication by undertaking two actions. He should erect a sign inconsistent with dedication and submit his evidence to the surveying authority. At this point, the existence of the public right is "called into question" and future use does not prejudice the position.
Secondly, no statement has been made on whether an authority may open up or demand to be opened up a path or way for use—breaches of walls, replacing of stiles with gates, et cetera. It is the Government's view that if good evidence is available then authorities will stay their hand and make a new style Definitive Map (Amendment) Order instead.
Thirdly, there is a clear distinction between the evidential provisions of the map and the common law position. The mapping of a path is conclusive only that there was a public right of way at the "relevant date", that is when the map gained force. For that to be translated into a common law presumption of dedication, there must be use. Without use, the new

47
good evidence of error will override the map. The Government have argued previously that it would be too difficult to determine whether such use began with the definitive map or not, or continued because of the map, or would have occurred in any case.
I am sorry to have gone back on the history, but I thought it was important to set our amendment in context. The amendment moved at this stage is directed to the last point that I mentioned. We have argued that inspectors could sort out such evidence, which would generally be fairly recent in date, with witnesses available. It is no more difficult, it seems, than decisions that they at present face on older paths. In any case, we have once again limited it to a seven-year period of grace.
The aim of the amendment at this stage is, first, to have the above summary of the Government's position read into the record and confirmed, so to speak. It is, secondly, to clarify beyond doubt the position in certain potential cases and to seek assurances that the Government will look at the position afresh (and act expeditiously) if the law turns out to be, or many cases come to light, of the expiration of 20-year periods causing prejudice.
The final questions I wish to ask are these: Where a county comes under the new proposals for individual map orders, it can readily respond to a conflict of, say, bridleway status, mapped with stiles. Does the same Government view that features should not be considered obstructions while status was under discussion hold where old-style reviews continue? Secondly, if the courts should hold, say, that the evidential provisions do prejudice against correction of errors in any way, will the Government reconsider their position, as this breaches their principle of evidence being decisive? Thirdly, will the Government issue circular advice, as many difficult conflicts are awaiting the outcome of this Bill? It would be very helpful to the countryside if farmers were not to be faced with "28 days to remove obstruction" letters from local authorities who, understandably, fail to grasp the rather complex situation.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time at this stage, but I should be grateful if the Government could answer the points I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I will not attempt to answer the noble Earl's questions on this amendment, but maybe I could say a word about the amendment itself. I was not able to go along with similar, or although I think rather wider, amendments which the noble Earl moved at, I believe, Committee stage, and certainly at Report stage, and I still have some major worries about this amendment. I certainly agree with him when he says, as I understood him to say, that the inclusion of a path on a definitive map by mistake should not, by itself, be a good reason for its remaining on definitive maps in the future. But I do think that 20 years of use of a path by the public should be something which can be taken into account and should not be automatically dismissed in the way that I think the noble Earl's amendment would do. That seems to me to be a rather different matter from having an automatic presumption that, just because something was on a definitive map in the past, it
48
will continue to be so. For example, I would suggest that if a landowner or occupier has resisted the use of a path on a definitive map by complaining about it and objecting, then that resistance would be capable of being taken into account in evidence when the matter was being decided.
I think I am right in saving that the noble Earl and his noble friends objected when I attempted to move an amendment at a previous stage to put some restriction on the evidence which could be brought forward when something was going to be added to a map, as opposed to deletion. That did not find very much favour with noble Lords opposite, and indeed I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, reiterating the argument quite strongly, and I have not put down an amendment on that point. I think that at least as a quid pro quo the noble Earl should accept the fact that the 20 years' use must be able to be taken into account even though something has been entered into a map in error. The existing provisions of the Bill really are reasonably fair to all parties. I hope the noble Earl, if he gets satisfactory answers to his questions, or even if he does not, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I believe I dealt with the issues raised by this amendment in my response to the amendment moved in Committee. I said on that occasion that I did not want to appear unsympathetic to the problems of the farmers and landowners whose interests may have been prejudiced through the inclusion of a way on the definitive map in error. However, this amendment would curtail the application of the common and statute law regarding the implied or presumed dedication of public rights of passage overland following a long period of uninterrupted use.
I said then, and repeat now, that the curtailment of this long established principle that the public can acquire a right of way over land whatever the origins of the initial use is not a matter to be taken lightly. I therefore cannot support the amendment. Authorities would also be faced with the additional difficulty of ascertaining with any degree of certainty that the use of the way stemmed from its inclusion in the definitive map and statement.
However, perhaps I can help my noble friend if I try to answer specifically the points he made by saying this. He wanted some assurance that the Government will look at the position afresh in the event of many cases of prejudice coming to light, and I say to him gladly, yes, that will be so. Then he said that features should not be considered obstructions if there are status reviews. To that I would say that the existence of features as obstructions would be for the courts to decide, but I would hope that no action would be taken by highway authorities until the status of a path was decided.
Then my noble friend asked whether, if the courts decide that evidential provisions do prejudice correction of errors, the Government will reconsider the position, and to that I say, Yes. Finally he asked whether we would give circular advice, and to that also I say, Yes. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will agree that at least we are trying to be helpful, and perhaps will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to that I say, yes; but before I do so may I mention a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett? A point I did not mention today but which I did mention at Report stage was that some farmers have waited for well over 20 years for a definitive map review without putting forward their case. Now I think you will find that they will put forward their case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 41, line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) Any person may apply to the authority for an order under subsection (2) which makes such modifications as appear to the authority to be requisite in consequence of the occurrence of one or more events falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (3); and the provisions of Schedule (Applications for certain orders under Part III) shall have effect as to the making and determination of applications under this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 127. Your Lordships will recollect the undertaking that I gave on Report to reconsider, in the light of the decision on transfer of jurisdiction to local authorities, the whole question of a right of appeal to the Secretary of State on the refusal of an authority to entertain a claim for a definitive map order. We accept that the public should be enabled to apply for an order and enjoy a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State against the refusal to make an order. Our proposals are embodied in these two amendments. A few words of explanation on certain features of the proposals will, I am sure, be welcome.
An obvious problem with giving to the public a statutory right to apply for an order, without a formal procedure for doing so, is that it could lead to frivolous and unsubstantiated applications. We concluded therefore that to protect authorities from frivolous applications a formal procedure such as is provided for in the amendment was essential. That a person takes the time and trouble to produce the necessary evidence and plan is a clear indication that the claim is not frivolous, and that his application merits serious consideration. The requirement to inform the landowner has been included to enable the authority to be notified of any relevant information he has available that would assist them in coming to the right decision.
The arrangement does not apply to orders for the reclassification of roads used as public paths. These have been excluded for the simple reason that authorities have a duty under the provisions of Clause 47 to review their roads used as public paths and produce orders to reclassify them as either byways open to all traffic, bridleways or footpaths. This does not mean that persons will be prevented from bringing to the notice of the authority relevant evidence, merely that they will be unable to apply for an order. They will in any event be able to object to the order if dissatisfied with a particular proposal. Similarly there is no specific need for the arrangement to encompass the map and statement that authorities will be obliged to prepare under Clause 48(2) for former county borough areas, since the modification of that map and statement will take place under Clause 46(2).
The last point I should like to mention concerns the right of an applicant, if after 12 months the authority has failed to reach a decision on his application, to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to intervene on his behalf by directing the authority to determine the application by a certain date. The provision has been included in the hope that it will assist the smooth transition from the present procedure. I think it is generally recognised that, in the early years of the new system at least, a backlog of applications could build up.
That the conclusive evidential effect of definitive maps and statements is without prejudice to the existence of higher rights will help to alleviate the situation, since there will no longer be the same pressure to submit applications. None the less, authorities could easily be inundated with applications to the extent that they will need extra time to enable them to cope. This provision would give them that time and thus prevent authorities, conscious of the pressures upon them, from giving insufficiently careful consideration to applications. Obviously we are hopeful that the vast majority of applications will be determined within the 12 months and that, where they are not, the applicant will only come to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as a last resort after exhausting all other avenues with the authority. My Lords, I felt that it was proper that I should give some explanation in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that basically these are two amendments which we should want to welcome and thank the Government for, but there are two points of concern. The first one, which the noble Lord mentioned very briefly in describing some of the new things that would be introduced, is in Amendment No. 127, in paragraph 2, on page 16 of the Marshalled List. It is the requirement for members of the public to give notice of an application to all owners and occupiers of land affected. That does seem to me to be an impossible burden to place on members of the public. First of all, as I understand it, they have no way of finding out who all the owners and occupiers would be. It may be that in some cases it would be an extraordinarily onerous burden. It is not one which is placed on landowners who are wanting to delete a path on a map; there is no requirement for them to inform all members of the public who use the path, or even all representatives of the public or users' groups in the area. I should have thought that the interests of landowners or occupiers would be adequately served by the requirement to serve notice of an order on them; they will be given notice before an order is made, and I should have thought that also to require notice of an application would really be an impossible burden. It may be that this simply means that paragraph 2(2) will always operate, and that, after reasonable enquiry has been made, it will be found not to be practicable to ascertain the name and address of every owner and occupier and this requirement simply will not operate. In that case there does not seem to be much point in having it in. I would not necessarily expect the Government to give an answer now, but they may like to look at the point before the Bill goes to another place.

51
The other point of concern—and I simply mention it because again I think that it is something which another place will have to look at—is that the form of application, the scale of map, the notice to be given to the landowner and the certificate of this having been done will all be prescribed by regulations. But, if the authority concerned subsequently decides to make an order or is told to make an order by the Secretary of State, that order and the associated notices will not have to be in the prescribed form. It seems to me that, if the form of application and all the other things will have to be in a prescribed form, then the making of the order should really be in the same form. It would be simpler for everybody, including, presumably, the authority.
I simply raise those two points and leave them with the noble Lord. If he wants to write to me about them I would be interested, but I am sure that this is something which people in another place will want to continue to discuss. Having made those two points, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for producing this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is one of the most important matters in the Bill and it is indeed a matter of gratification that the Government have seen fit to meet the wishes of your Lordships' House on this matter. We are very grateful to them for the trouble that they have taken and for including this provision. I am sure that it is an enormous improvement and that if it had not been put in there would have been a very real sense of justified grievance on the part of a great many people in the countryside. This amendment has gone a long way to rectify that situation and we are very grateful indeed.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would just like to say that we shall consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I shall write to the noble Lord. If anything is to be done, it will obviously have to be done in another place. However, I can tell him that the matter will be considered very carefully. I should like to thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for welcoming the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Orders creating, extinguishing or diverting public rights of way]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92:
Transpose Clause 52 to after Clause 55.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 92. This amendment and Amendment No. 98 are further technical amendments to re-order the clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 93 to 97 are printed in the wrong place on the Marshalled List and will be called later. Therefore, I call Amendment No. 98.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 98:
Transpose Clause 53 to after Clause 56.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98. We have just spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Prevention of Sheep Worrying
.—(1) If, in a case not falling within subsection (2), any person without lawful authority permits a dog to be present in a field or enclosure not exceeding 25 hectares containing sheep or lambs, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(2) Subsection (2) shall not apply to

(a) any person acting with the permission of the owner or occupier of the field or enclosure;

(b) any person acting in the belief that he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it;

(c) any person on a right of way so long as the dog is—

(i) on a lead of reasonable length; or

(ii) under close control;

(d) any blind person; or

(e) any constable acting in the exercise of his duty.

(3) In any proceedings under subsection (1) it shall be a defence to show that the defendant had made every effort to follow the line of the right of way but had been unable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99. I apologise to your Lordships for putting this amendment down yet again when I had led the House to believe that I was going to press it on Report. I shall, therefore, not weary your Lordships by explaining the purpose of the amendment, but I hope your Lordships will agree that I have now got a tidier, and, I hope, better amendment by redrafting it. In particular, I have put a limit of 25 hectares on the enclosure and altered the word "allow" to "permit".
At Report I think that I found myself in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who had to amend his Deer Bill because it would have had unforeseen repercussions on country sports. Like the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, it was not and, indeed, is not my intention for this amendment to have such an effect. I have, therefore, used the same words as your Lordships' and parliamentary draftsmen approved in the Deer Bill to solve this problem. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, reads this he will have some quiet amusement at my discomfiture.
My last point is to reply to the criticism of my noble friend Lord Renton and, I think, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, who stated at Report that my amendment was unnecessary. As I said then and repeat now I would much prefer complete legislation on dogs as suggested in Dogs in Society. I cannot get such legislation and I do not think that your Lordships can either, so I must continue with this piecemeal approach which, despite what my noble friends say, will, and indeed has, drawn the public's attention and I hope the Government's attention to the terrible things that dogs do to sheep particularly when two months in lamb. If my amendment does only that, I shall be, for the moment, content. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because I supported my noble friend's last amendment on this

53
question at the Report stage. The only slight criticism that I have is that it might be hard for the dog owner to know whether he was in a field under or indeed over 25 hectares. He could hardly go round with a tape measure! However, I support the basis of the amendment and especially at this time of year when a great number of lambs are being aborted through the presence of dogs not necessarily chasing sheep but frightening them.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the amendment I should like to say that although I normally support the amendments which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley proposes, on this occasion I am not entirely happy about the amendment. I say that to him as somebody who has had a long experience of living in a sheep breeding area and who breeds sheep himself.
I think that the situation is probably more difficult in areas where there are large numbers of footpaths and areas which are near big cities where there are more dogs. I fully accept that there is a problem there. However, in the type of outlying district where I live when we have damage to sheep the person who owns the dog is always found. We had a case last year. A lady had a dog which killed about six of our sheep. We found out whose dog it was, we went and saw the lady and said, "Would you be kind enough to remove this dog because if you do not we shall take you to court". The lady took the dog away to areas where there were no sheep and we have not had any trouble since that time.
There is no doubt about it, in some areas the problem is very much worse than in others. I do not know what the Government's answer will be to this question. I think that this Bill is a Bill of balances of interests and I think that throughout Government Ministers have acted in an admirable way in trying to balance the very many interests in the countryside and the interests of the many users of it. I am only saying to my noble friend that I think that on this occasion he is taking the weight rather too far on one side. I always speak for the farmers and I fully understand and sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, but I am not entirely happy with its scope.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, am opposed to the amendment and in spite of what my noble friend Lord Stanley has said I still maintain that the present law provides adequate protection. It is very effective and heavy penalties can be imposed—indeed, dogs which have caused trouble can be destroyed if the court so orders. In any event let us suppose that my noble friend has a case for further legislation on this matter. I could not advise him—if it falls upon me to advise him—that this particular method of legislation would do. For example, if we look at subsection (2)(b) we find that it says:
"any person acting in the belief that he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it".
In those circumstances he would be all right. But this is a strange hypothetical question. One does not know whether the test which the court would have to apply is the subjective test, so far as it could be
54
ascertained, as to what was in the person's mind, or the objective test of what a reasonable person might be thought to have had in his mind in those particular circumstances. I can imagine this kind of issue going right up to the House of Lords. It is a very difficult and a very unusual provision.
I join with my noble friend Lord Massereene when he drew attention to the possible difficulty over 25 hectares. I am afraid that in East Anglia we are still using the expression "acre" more frequently, and those of us who were not very recently at school might easily have quite a mental problem converting acres into hectares. However, that is something which in the course of time and which as generations come along may well be overcome, but I must confess that it would be a difficulty that faces me.
I do not know whether it has occurred to my noble friend Lord Stanley that there would, for example, be a problem as regards gun dogs, unless they were on a lead. Speaking for myself, I have never yet seen a gundog molest sheep or lambs. There may be rare cases of it, but from long experience I have never seen it happen. There is also the question of whether or not a dog is under close control. That may prove to be very difficult. Let us take, for example, the case of a farmer who is trying out a new sheepdog and that sheepdog strays on to a neighbour's land where there happen to be sheep; however experienced the shepherd or the farmer concerned may be, is he said to be not exercising close control if, when training his dog, he finds for a moment that the young sheepdog gets out of hand? All kinds of problems arise; one's experience and imagination would lead one to others. Therefore, with deep respect for my noble friend's motives, I do not think that this amendment will do.
Earl Peel: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as I do, I am curious to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, why we have a restriction of 25 hectares in this amendment. Do sheep not go into fields of more than 25 hectares?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to raise one or two matters. I have seen sheep being worried on moorland areas. Why should this protection just extend to areas of under 25 hectares? The other point worth mentioning is the field sports' point of view. If hounds, which are normally extremely well-disciplined, go across the corner of a person's field, this amendment will allow people of evil intent to bring prosecutions which probably would not normally be brought by the owner. It seems to me to be too widespread.
A further point worth raising is that if you are out shooting and you shoot a bird into a neighbour's field, I believe that you are entitled to pick up that bird, provided that you leave your gun behind. If you send a runner into a field where there are sheep, you will be committing an offence. I do not think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. I certainly agree with your Lordships that in certain areas there is a major problem of sheep-worrying. Only the other day I heard of a responsible person whose pet lurcher was caught worrying sheep and he was put down that very afternoon. The majority of responsible people have their dogs put down if they are caught worrying

55
sheep. I do not have sheep, but if I had sheep and I saw a dog worrying sheep on my land, I would not hesitate to shoot the dog there and then if I could do so. As it stands, I think that the law is adequate and satisfactory.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I could reply to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Onslow. They both referred to the position of gundogs. I think that they both omitted to take into account subsection (2)(a) and (b), which both refer to the consent of the owner. If a gundog is there without the consent of the owner or the occupier, I would suggest that it is as bad a vandal as any other dog. This would also apply to the sheepdog situation.
Noble Lords have said that they think that the protection is adequate. I think I am right in saying that 6,000 sheep are killed by dogs every year. On that basis I do not think that the law is adequate. Even if this amendment is not adequate, I am sorry to see 25 hectares in the amendment; I would rather it had been more. In spite of that, the amendment is a step in the right direction and I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will at least support it.
Lord de Clifford: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord who has moved this amendment. I think that it is eminently reasonable. When you live in the country, with rights of way crossing your land, it is very difficult to make quite sure that dogs do not worry sheep: they do. The noble Lord who said that he lives in the country and does not get dogs belonging to people from the towns worrying sheep amazes me, because in my area we do. I do not think that there is very much wrong with this amendment. Your Lordships wholeheartedly supported a similar amendment when it was last moved, and I think that my noble friend has done exactly what was wanted and has tried to meet the points raised on that occasion. I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when we debated this subject previously I made it quite clear on behalf of the Government that we were entirely sympathetic to the intention of protecting sheep and lambs from dog-worrying. That remains the case, but I should like to reiterate it at the start of my remarks.
Briefly I should like to explain—as I have done in the past, although I do not think that noble Lords have taken the point—that we believe there is enough legislation to cover this measure. The Interdepartmental Working Party on Dogs, which looked into this matter between 1974 and 1976, considered whether the existing law should be altered so as to help the farmer faced with a problem of livestock-worrying. It considered the effects of various Acts, including the Dog (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which already makes it an offence for persons to allow dogs to worry livestock, and in particular Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, which enables farmers to defend their livestock against dogs which worry or which are about to worry livestock. The working party concluded that that section gave farmers adequate powers to defend livestock against dog attacks. I have those two pieces
56
of legislation before me, and I hope that noble Lords who are in doubt will study them.
Although the noble Lord's previous amendment on dogs attracted a fair amount of support in the debate during the Report stage, both my noble friends Lord Renton, who has already spoken this time, and Lord Waldegrave added that they had lately seen prosecutions against dogs under this legislation, and I think that my noble friend Lord Renton used the words, "it was pretty effective". That is the situation as it stands at the moment. Frankly, that is where the Government would prefer it to rest.
My noble friend Lord Stanley has worked very hard to get an amendment which is satisfactory to everyone, but from listening to the debate just now, it seems that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I also had one or two points for clarification, but needless to say my noble friend Lord Renton pre-empted me. One was whether subsection (2)(b) is too subjective an interpretation; the other was whether in paragraph (c) the terms "of reasonable length" and "under close control" beg too many questions and have no precise meaning. I say to my noble friend Lord Stanley that obviously this piece of legislation will be subject to very close scrutiny in the other place should it be passed in this House tonight, and I am sure that it will not come back to us exactly as we send it to them. Therefore, I wonder whether he would wish to press it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, that seems to me to be a strong argument in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, pressing his amendment. It obviously needs some further expert attention in drafting. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will not feel that that is rude of me, but I have accepted all my amendments that have needed redrafting by the Government when they have been put in the Bill. Obviously this amendment would need redrafting too, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and his advisers have done a good job of it.
I am astonished at the opposition to it. At Committee stage when this amendment was moved I was the only person in your Lordships' House who had any objection to it at all. No one else raised a single point against it at Committee stage. I apologise, except the Government. I was assuming that all of us would accept that the Government were opposed to sensible Back-Bench amendments whether from their own side or this one. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, made a passionate speech about the problems of dogs attacking and worrying sheep. I felt embarrassed in getting up and making one or two minor points against the amendment. There was absolute unanimity, apart from the Government Front Bench and myself, in favour of the amendment. Now it appears that people have got less enthusiastic.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, said that it was a question of striking a balance. Between what? He did not tell us. He simply said that he had had some worries about the amendment. It seems to me that the amendment strikes a perfectly reasonable balance between the rights of people walking in the countryside, with which much of Part III of the Bill is rightly concerned, the rights of people to maintain public rights of way and to have them signposted, and so on, which are all covered in the Bill, and here we

57
talk about the rights of people who have sheep not to have them worried by dogs, and not to have the fear that those using public rights of way will not control their dogs and will have dogs in the countryside that will worry sheep. That seems to me to be striking a reasonable balance between the people using rights of way and their rights, and the rights of farmers.
My original worry was that the amendment placed unreasonable restrictions on people using public rights of way. The noble Lord has gone all the way he possibly could have done to meet my point. I am probably responsible, among others, for the 25 hectares creeping in. There needed to be some definition of field or enclosure. Twenty-five hectares may well not be the right thing, but at least we have the principle that there should be some definition there. I am quite happy with it.
Noble Lords have mentioned gundogs and hounds. First, gundogs should be under close control. A properly trained gundog, whether it is on somebody else's land retrieving a dead bird or the land where the person was shooting, should be under close control. If it is chasing sheep and lambs, then clearly the owner should be liable to prosecution. It would be monstrous if there was some exclusion for people with gundogs.
The noble Earl is saying to me that they are. I do not accept that. There is an area which is not covered by existing law and which needs to be. May I finish the point about gundogs or hounds. The amendment says that where somebody is acting with the permission of the owner or occupier then they are all right. That would surely cover any legitimate shoot or hunt. As I understand the practice in the countryside certainly nobody around me would dream of retrieving birds on my land, and where people were shooting on my land I would not have them retrieve on my neighbour's land without clearing it with the keeper, or owner, or farmer. I should have thought that that was standard practice in the countryside.
To go on to what the existing law does not cover, the amendment says that people have to keep dogs under close control or on a lead of reasonable length when walking down a public footpath. If you do not do that at the moment, you are not necessarily committing an offence. The dog has actually to be worrying sheep, or about to worry sheep. I, as a walker and dog-owner, see no objection to people using public rights of way in the country in a reasonably sized enclosure where there are sheep or lambs, but having an obligation on them to keep their dog under close control, or on a lead. That is a higher duty than to stop it worrying sheep, and would make prosecutions easier to bring.
I am a farmer as well as a walker and dog owner. I know that this is a problem that particularly concerns farmers. I do not keep sheep, and to that extent I do not have an interest in the amendment, but nobody could be a Minister in Northern Ireland for 2½ years without knowing that there are farmers in areas like that who find the problems of the worrying by dogs of sheep one of the most annoying, aggravating and concerning of all of the agricultural problems they have to put up with. It would greatly strengthen the position of walkers in the countryside as well as sheep farmers if a reasonable amendment of this sort was put in the Bill. If it needs tidying up in the drafting, that
58
can be done in another place with Government advice. I hope that the noble Lord will press his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, mention has been made of my speech. The problems are very difficult and very bad. I supported the last amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, moved and I intend to support this one. Gundogs are not a problem because as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, they are under control, or should be. They nearly always are. I have never lost any lambs or sheep with retrievers. It is the dogs that are excited and enjoying themselves rushing about in the open without any control that are the danger. They really are a danger.
I am surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench says that there is legislation which covers all this. All I can say is that it cannot be used very much since we have been told, and I have been told too, that 6,000 sheep are killed each year. It is far too many. If the legislation that we have today allows that to happen, then surely there ought to be something more powerful to stop this. I do not know whether this particular amendment is exactly right, but it is the only amendment down that deals with this matter, and I shall support it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. It does something useful and strengthens the law. The Government have said that the law is satisfactory as it is. It is not quite satisfactory enough in the situation of what I might call dogs loitering with intent. There is a need for strengthening the law there, and this is a reasonable amendment. I just have one major reservation. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, I do not think that this in fact covers the case of hounds. In fact there was one moment when I thought this was probably an amendment secretly backed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
It seems to me that 22 couple of the Beaufort could well lead the noble Duke, the Duke of Beaufort, in for a fine of some £8,800 at any given moment, and this is a point which ought to be looked at. It may be that subsection (2)(b) covers the situation, but it does not always happen these days that the master of a pack of hounds can ensure that his hounds only run over the land where he believes that he would have the consent of the owner or occupier. He can, of course, keep his own followers and horses off it, but he cannot necessarily stop hounds in time. There would seem to be a serious point here which should be looked at before such a clause went into legislation. Nevertheless, it is a good amendment and in principle it should be supported.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, although this Bill permits dogs to pursue otters as long as they do not kill them, I am nevertheless not in favour of dogs being allowed to pursue sheep. That inconsistency between the wild animal and the farmer's pet I leave with your Lordships to ponder. This problem arises because two successive Governments have not really grasped the nettle on the problem of dogs in society. This is part of it.

59
I always feel from long experience that, when Governments say that something is not necessary and the lawyers say that it is unworkable, that is the time seriously to consider putting it in the Bill. The reason is that if the Government are stuck with amendments they do not want, they have great difficulty in getting them out again. They have to give very plausible reasons for taking amendments out of a Bill that have been put there by the will of the House. I believe the Bill would be stronger with the amendment. Obviously it would not cover all the problems associated with dogs worrying sheep, and those who live in moorland areas know well that the main problem arises from stray dogs or gangs of dogs going around in groups doing enormous damage, and it is extremely difficult to identify the owners. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, feels in a stubborn frame of mind, I will certainly support him.
Lord Middleton: The trouble, my Lords, is that it is not the existing legislation that is at fault but its enforcement, and in my view the existing legislation is adequate. I am a farmer, I have had sheep worried and I have been desperately worried about it, but the amendment is too complicated and I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley that legislation should be passed simply to bring something to the attention of the public. If every time we wanted to bring something to the notice of the public we legislated about it, we should be legislating eternally, even more than we are at present.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, it would be a mistake to let this debate pass without making clear the one real point here, and that is that you do not have to have a case of worrying to have a case of damage to sheep. If you have a field full of heavily pregnant ewes and people are regularly going for walks through that field with their dogs, the dogs need run only a short distance towards the sheep to make the sheep run. If the dogs are then called back and return to their owners, those dogs have in no way attempted to worry the sheep. But if heavily pregnant ewes are constantly being made to run, eventually some of them will abort, and that is distressing to the sheep and damaging to the farmer. Therefore, it seems only reasonable that people walking through fields should be enjoined to take the precaution of having their dogs closely under control. To worry a sheep, a dog must lay a fang on it or attempt to do so. The amendment would cope with the situation where a dog was not attempting to lay a fang on sheep but was merely rushing around in play and was not under proper control.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I support the amendment but there seem to be problems with subsection (2)(b), which does not seem to have any point. The point of the first provision, roughly speaking, is that if you walk across a farm with a dog without permission, you are liable to be fined £200 if, over the edge of the hill, there are some sheep. That is severe but I am in favour of it; people should not walk about farms with dogs not under control. However, subsection (2)(b) seems pointless because I could say, "I did not think the farmer would mind. I have often
60
been through that field". One can visualise the sort of argument that is likely to be adduced under that provision, which spoils the strength of the amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, on balance I believe my noble friend Lord Renton got it right when he said that the legislation of the land is reasonably adequate. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a sensible point; subsection (2)(b) is the nub of the amendment and we must remember that we are here not talking about moorland but about people walking across farmland and fields, and when we are discussing farmland, as we are in this case, the law is moderately adequate. We are relying in the Bill on voluntary effort more than compulsion and I believe the Bill as drafted covers what is here concerning us. In the country, generally speaking, one knows the people with dogs, and we are not speaking of the situation on the edges of towns where there might live hundreds of thousands of people.
Several noble Lords: Yes, we are.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I do not think we are, my Lords. We ate legislating basically for the countryside. In any case, on the edges of towns sheep are not necessarily the best form of stock.
Several noble Lords: Oh?
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I do not think they are, my Lords, and in my view the Bill is adequate as it is.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may have permission to take up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. If sheep were chased, the owner of the dog would be liable. The dog does not have to bite the sheep. If it were proven that they were aborting because the dog went off course, the owner would be liable.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, my point was that a dog need only gambol around in a field full of sheep and the sheep will run, because that is their natural reaction.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in answering some of the points that have been made, I should like to make it clear first that this is obviously a nonparty matter, and even the agricultural lobby—the "mafia", as I believe we are called by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—are somewhat divided on it, which I am sure will please him. To answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Avon, probably on this occasion he needs driving mirrors. If he thinks the law is working correctly, then I would support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Eliot of Harwood; 6,000 dead is not a very good record. Added to that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, damage is not in death but in abortion and malpresentation at birth. I have experienced a great deal of that, and it is heartbreaking.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked how we should know it was, and my noble friend Lord Peel wondered why it should be 25 hectares. I am afraid that figure was taken out of the hat. It could not be larger because one would not

61
want to stop a dog walking in a national park, and that could happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pointed out. My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt—I am always fearful of talking about him because he was my first company commander and I felt I was getting one of those dressing-downs I got rather a long time ago—should note that the outlying areas such as those in which he lives are not really covered because I suspect they would be over 25 hectares. I would add—perhaps I should not say this—that sometimes magistrates do not take the same view as his obviously enlightened magistrates did.
My noble friend Lord Renton thought the amendment was weak or unnecessary. Others felt it was too strong. If that is the case, it must be about right. My noble friend then pulled my drafting to bits, particularly the drafting of subsection (2)(b), and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made the same complaint. I can only tell the House that that provision was taken from the Deer Act. I hate to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but if the drafting is wrong in the Deer Act, then I suggest we haul that measure back to the House for the sixth or seventh time and redraft it; I am sure Lord Northfield would be delighted to do that. I could not do any better than Lord Northfield, who I think will confirm that the Parliamentary draftsman was responsible for the provision in his measure.
As for gundogs, my noble friend Lord Onslow was right to say that they would be covered by subsection (2)(b) or (2)(c)(ii). We must remember, as several noble Lords have pointed out, that this is a preventive measure. It is really the first time we have introduced preventive provisions and, after all, it is no good shooting the dog after it has been responsible for half the ewes aborting. As for hounds, if hounds do harm to my sheep or my neighbour's sheep they must be liable, no "ifs" or "buts". I do not stop hounds coming over my land and I do not wish to do so, but if they injure my sheep, they must suffer the penalty, just like someone's poodle. If hounds do no harm, having gone into the field of a very objectionable farmer—I do not know whether such a farmer exists; but let us suppose that he does—the farmer can take the owner of the hounds to court, and then it is up to the bench. Have we no trust in the bench? If the hounds have done no harm, nothing will happen to them. The owner might be fined three quid. At the moment, if hounds go through a field that is owned by a farmer who does not want them, it is up to the farmer to prosecute the hunt under existing law.
I shall not delay the House any further. I make no bones about it, I have to admit that I have blinkers on so far as sheep are concerned. I think that anyone who is a shepherd and who likes sheep becomes obsessed with them. Perhaps I am obsessed, but I make no apology for that. I would say to your Lordships that this is an instance where your Lordships' spirit is willing, but your flesh today is very weak.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: Order, Order!
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 99) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Jacques, L.

Airedale, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Killearn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Avebury, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Loudoun, C.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Caithness, E.

Melchett, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mersey, V.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

St. Davids, V.

de Clifford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Spens, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stamp, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.—[Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Hampton, L.

Terrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Teviot, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Henley, L.

Tryon, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.—[Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Auckland, L.

Avon, E.

Halifax, E.

Balerno, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Belstead, L.

Kemsley, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Kilmany, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Craigton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Morris, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Gainford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Portland, D.

Greenway, L.

Reigate, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

63

Romney, E.

Strathspey, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Swinfen, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

Salisbury, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Salmon, L.

Trenchard, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selsdon, L.

Vickers, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Soames, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Regulation of traffic on public rights of way
. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 shall have effect in relation to any footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic as if—

(a) any reference to traffic included a reference to foot passengers and persons driving, riding or leading horses or other animals of draught or burden; and

(b) any reference in section 1(3A) or 12 to foot passengers included a reference to such persons as aforesaid.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the possible control of equestrian traffic by means of traffic regulation orders has been debated on three previous occasions in this House during the past six months. Provisions were initially included in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 1) Bill. When the matter was debated at Report stage on Bill No. 2 on 30th October last, my noble friend Lord Bellwin said that we were inclined to the view that equestrian traffic ought to be brought within the scope of traffic regulations, but that we wished to hear any counter-arguments and to have the matter debated at greater length before bringing forward an alternative clause. We consider that debates have now taken place on this subject in both Committee and at Report on this Bill, and the extension of the traffic regulation order powers in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to cover equestrian traffic has the support of the Rights of Way Review Committee, chaired by Mr. Michael Spicer.
We have therefore decided to table this amendment to correct this long-standing anomaly. In view of the nature and scope of this Bill we have been obliged to restrict the application of this amendment to footpaths, bridleways and byways open to all traffic, and we have not included any amendments to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1972. A futher tidying up of the legislation, to put equestrian traffic fully on all fours (if noble Lords will excuse the pun) with pedestrians and vehicles, will be left to a more suitable legislative opportunity. Our amendment will have a similar effect to the proposed amendments to the 1967 Act which were included in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 1) Bill, and in Amendment No. 555C which was moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley during Committee.
I think it is generally accepted that public rights of way can become virtually impassable to path-users after very wet weather or excessive use, and the amendment will, among other things, enable highway authorities to prohibit or restrict horses for periods up to three months under Section 12(1) of the 1967 Act to
64
prevent further damage to the right of way and to enable it to recover. When considering making temporary orders highway authorities are required to have regard to the existence of alternative routes suitable for the traffic which would be affected by the order, and they are required to comply with the notification procedures laid down in Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act. There are no appeal procedures for temporary orders under Section 12, but there are such procedures for permanent orders made under Section 1. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment. I hope he will not think I am ungracious when I say that I am surprised he has changed his mind in view of the way he treated me earlier on in relation to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Ploughing of public rights of way]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 47, line 22, after ("(4))") insert ("after the words "A person" there shall be inserted the words "without reasonable excuse",").
The noble Lord said: This was a point raised on Report by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, and your Lordships will find the details in col. 633, on 16th March; but unfortunately we did not get an answer. The point here is that the addition of these words "without reasonable excuse" would allow a farmer latitude should he be prevented from restoring a footpath because of, say, illness or, perhaps, to quote a particularly unpleasant example which comes easily to mind today, the outbreak of disease, such as foot and mouth. I would remind your Lordships that the onus of proof is of course on the farmer to prove that he was unable to restore the path. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thought that we had a fairly good discussion on this and came to the conclusion that what we had come up with was in fact reasonable. This amendment would mean that a farmer would have a defence for failing to comply with the restoration requirements as set out in subsection (4) of Section 134 of the Highways Act, as amended by Clause 55(3) of this Bill, if he had a reasonable excuse for not complying with them. Clause 55(3)(b) provides one exception to the requirement to restore within three weeks; namely, exceptional weather conditions. This amendment would have the effect of broadening the exception to cover any "reasonable excuse".
The term "reasonable excuse" is obviously capable of a very wide interpretation. When we debated this issue during Report stage I think some noble Lords expressed doubt about even the term "exceptional weather conditions", and also other exceptions to the three-week restoration requirement. We considered that that exception was reasonable, but do not believe that it should be broadened any further. There would be no end to the excuses which a farmer might produce to justify his not restoring the path within three weeks, and it would mean that the restoration requirements would in effect be unenforceable.

65
However, if the farming and path-user interests can get together and reach agreement on a restoration formula which is acceptable to both sides and is likely to be enforceable, we would of course be willing to consider substituting it for what we have provided in Clause 55. This is a very sensitive subject, and I very much hope that my noble friend will not feel that he has to press this amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl in that last sentiment. The provision in the Bill for "exceptional weather conditions" is a completely new one. There has not been that sort of let-out from the obligations to restore a footpath up until now, and I really think that to go a great deal further and be a great deal vaguer, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said, and to put these words in, would make the position totally unenforceable. It seems to me that this is not quite right yet, and to that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. For myself, I hope the footpath-users, the NFU and the other interests—the local authorities—will have another look at this in Mr. Michael Spicer's committee or elsewhere. I really do think that the right approach is to have an obligation to restore the footpath the day it is ploughed, with, then, some exceptions allowing for weather or other exceptional circumstances, like the one that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, suggested, of the outbreak of disease.
I think that if the farming interests could agree to the reinstatement on the day of ploughing, then it would be possible to get a more sensible package of exceptions for exceptional weather or other exceptional circumstances; but while there is the "restoration within three weeks" provision, I think that is already on the verge of being unenforceable and this would make it totally so—and it is unacceptable to the local authorities, let alone to users of footpaths or bridleways. I would echo what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said, that the various interests might get together and have another look at this. I do not think there is very much between the different groups, and if they looked at it in a little more detail I think an acceptable formula could be hammered out. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will not press this amendment for the moment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am pleased to have had this discussion. There seems to be an agreement here that we have not quite got it right, and I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could give some assurance by nodding his head that it would be looked at again, perhaps in another place. We have tried to get the right words, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that they are not quite right, and I think it wants looking at again.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think my noble friend will see that I said, if I may paraphrase my own words, that if the farming and path-user interests could get together we would of course be willing to consider it again. I hope that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Decision by appointee of Secretary of State]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 102:
Leave out Clause 57.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on this occasion I should like to speak also to a series of amendments: Nos. 102, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 153A, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161 and 167.
The amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved on Report in relation to the transfer of jurisdiction to local authorities for the determination of disputed rights of way matters also significantly changed the procedure for the making and determination of the relevant orders. Because we were primarily concerned with matters of principle, the necessity for, and consequences of, these procedural changes in the context of the continued involvement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in rights of way matters were never debated.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendments and, for that matter, the Bill is such that in future both public path and definitive map orders would at the outset be "proposed to be made" and only made after the order, albeit in draft form, had been publicised and any objections or representations considered. We believe that this procedure is relevant only in the situation in which the same authority determines the proposal. That situation no longer prevails.
The associated procedure is, in our view, not appropriate in the circumstances where the responsibility for the determination of disputes resides with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and is also inconsistent with the procedure that applies across a wide range of Planning and Highways Act orders. The effect of the Government's amendments as far as public path orders are concerned is to restore the status quo and whereby the authority having first decided that a path should be created, diverted or extinguished make the necessary order to give effect to that decision. That order is subject to confirmation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on being challenged. They also apply a comparable procedure to definitive map orders.
In our view there is no apparent justification for departing in the case of public path orders from a procedure that has worked perfectly well for 30 years and is understood by the public. We have also taken the opportunity in the additional time available since Report to give further consideration to other aspects of the Spicer Committee's proposals for publicising orders. The particular proposals that we have been able to implement are embodied in the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Financial provisions]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 51, line 12, leave out ("or other").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. It is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): My Lords, we now return to Amendment No. 93, which is an amendment to Clause 64.
Clause 64 [Minor amendments]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 52, line I, after ("11") insert ("(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment to clarify the subsection of the 1949 Act to which this clause refers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 96:
Page 52, line 7, at end insert—
("(3A) In section 2(8) of the 1968 Act (publicity and information services) for the words from "encouraging" onwards there shall be substituted the words "informing persons resorting to the countryside of their rights and obligations.").
Page 52, line 8, leave out ("the 1968") and insert ("that")
Page 52, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these are drafting amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 52, line 13, leave out ("Parts II and III of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment meets the suggestion made at an earlier stage by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley that Ministers and public bodies should have regard to the economic and social needs of rural areas in all their actions under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend. He has given me two amendments and I am sure that he would be hurt if I did not thank him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 52, leave out lines 20 to 30.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential. I have already spoken to it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreeed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 52, leave out lines 31 to 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
6.26 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 53, line 12, leave out from ("the") to end of line 13 and insert ("Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think there has been a mistake in so far as the amendment should read "Countryside and Wildlife Act" and not "Wildlife and Countryside Act". I am sorry to stop the "rat race" for a minute, but I have a word to say on this. I would have tabled this amendment at the beginning of the Committee stage but, having listened to your Lordships since Christmas, I am now forced so to do because I have come to realise, far more than at the start of the Bill, that you cannot have wildlife without countryside. It is that point which has been brought home to me so forcefully in all these debates, and particularly those on habitat preservation, on moorland conservation and on sites of special scientific interest. It is for that reason that I should like to see the Title of the Bill changed to put "Countryside" first.
There is another reason. Although we all agree in what we want and where we want to go in the management of the countryside, we differ as to method. The Bill is leaving this House resting on voluntary methods—which, to my mind, is correct—with no hint of backup powers. This may sound an easy and platitudinous attitude; and your Lordships, particularly noble Lords opposite, may think that I am raising the victory flag; but I ask your Lordships not to take such a view; because it has been made clear to me by such of my noble friends as Lord Craigton and Lord Buxton (who is not here) and by noble Lords opposite—Lord Melchett, Lord Winstanley, Lord Donaldson and the noble Baroness, Lady David—that my voluntary approach, unfortunately for me, carries great responsibility. Farmers will have to behave with the utmost responsibility. To put it in agricultural words, "the buck stops with us".
I am prepared to accept this responsibility and to put my head on the block, on one condition. It is that when one of my fellow farmers ruins an SSSI or behaves irresponsibly, the media or the extreme conservationists or merely those who would like compulsory powers will consider quietly and fairly whether the alternative philosophy would have been any more effective. I know that your Lordships will take such an attitude; and that when we make mistakes, as inevitably we will—and I am talking about farmers—you will bear this in mind. I hope you will also bear in mind that we are privileged to start with a very substantial credit balance for living and working in the most beautiful countryside in the world, made by the Almighty but with very—and I repeat "very"—considerable help from farmers, not only in the past but also today and, I truly believe, tomorrow.
Therefore I hope that all Members of this House will be able to agree with the philosophy behind my amendment, although I am convinced that the spoilsports of the parliamentary draftsmen will advise my noble friend on the Front Bench not to accept it. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Stanley that he said that one cannot have any wildlife without the countryside. Of course there is an abundance of wildlife in the oceans of the world. I should like to make that point just to correct him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on this occasion, I most seriously and enthusiastically support my noble friend Lord Stanley. It is much more felicitous that the Bill should be known as the Countryside and Wildlife Act. Also, it will be abbreviated in due course, in the jargon of Whitehall. It will become known either as the WCA or the CWA. For myself, I prefer the latter.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that our parliamentary draftsmen could be in any way called spoilsports. They have worked very hard to make sure that we can have half the sport that we are having. I was interested in my noble friend's philosophical argument and, frankly, can find very little against it. I personally saw this amendment in one form this morning at 11.30; in another form at 1.30 and in its final form about half an hour before we began this afternoon. That is really my case. It is a little bit late.
After these prolonged debates it is tempting to start afresh with a new Title to the Bill. Perhaps a change of Title might serve as camouflage and reduce the number of amendments which the Bill might otherwise attract in another place. On balance, however, I should be reluctant to see the Title changed. The Bill has already become well-known in its present guise and I am sure that people are already aware of the importance of the Bill in relation to countryside matters. The Title also reflects the order of the clauses in the Bill and is consistent with the contents. At this late stage, I cannot ask my noble friend to do more than not press the amendment; but his suggestion will be on record, and it can be debated further.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Stanley that it was wrong drafting. I think it was wrong printing. It was drafted correctly. The list of amendments that I picked up on Friday showed that the amendment was put down in the form that we intended.
The second point is that it would be a great benefit in the countryside in trying to interpret and explain this piece of legislation when it becomes an Act if its Title was "Countryside and Wildlife". I have no doubt that it is a fine point that we are trying to get across. It would certainly benefit me—wearing my hat as a chartered surveyor—in going out and talking to owners, occupiers and farmers, in that the full meaning of the Act could be put across more easily if it were entitled "Countryside and Wildlife", rather than "Wildlife and Countryside".
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to say from this elevated position—and suffering as I am from altitude sickness, and lack of acclimatisation—that I entirely agree with both the logic and the spirit of this amendment.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I think this Bill is about wildlife living in the countryside and I prefer the "WCA".
Baroness David: My Lords, we are absolutely delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said and that really habitats as well as wildlife are at long last being recognised as important. We are delighted to hear the responsible attitude that he is going to take. We just hope that all the farmers do so. At this late stage of the Bill, it would cause great confusion if the Title were changed. Such a lot has been going on over the months and months during which we seem to have been dealing with it. I think that we will be against the change.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thought that I would get that reception. I hope that the Parliamentary draftsmen will not think ill of me if I call them spoilsports. I am sure that they would take it in the spirit that I meant it. By and large, I have achieved what I wanted to achieve: to point out that we as farmers realise our responsibilities in the countryside. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the point I made. The last matter that I shall raise on this Bill is one of agreement between us all about the philosophy behind it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 53, line 14, leave out ("This") and insert ("The following provisions of this Act, namely—
Part II, except sections 29, 30, 31, 35 and 43;
sections 53 to 56 and 58; and
Part IV, except section 64(1) and (3) and section 65(1) so far as relating to Part II of Schedule 15,
shall come into force on the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the passing of this Act.
(2A) The remaining provisions of this").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 158, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 165 to Schedule 15. These amendments meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton at an earlier stage that it would be convenient if as many as possible of the provisions in the Bill could be brought into effect without the need for commencement orders. It may prove possible to provide for even more provisions to be treated in the same way and, if so, the Government will take appropriate action in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment and accepting the principle that as much of the Bill and as many of the provisions as possible should be brought in together at an early stage. His amendments go further and are bolder than the one that I moved in the first place. For that also I am grateful. I only hope that his good example will be followed by other Ministers.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have looked at this amendment twice and each time thought it meant different things. Am I right in assuming that Part I—and Part III for that matter—will be brought in by order and that they are not going to come into effect within a month of the passing of the Act? If that interpretation is correct, why is not Part I being

71
brought into force immediately? Of all the provisions in the Bill, those in Part I—anyhow, almost all of them—are the obvious candidates for being brought in immediately. In a number of other parts of the Bill—in Part III—there are changes involving local authorities and order-making powers. Part II has voluntary codes of practice. I should have thought that Part I ought to have been brought into effect immediately, though maybe there are one or two aspects that could not be.
As I read the amendment, Part I—and, for that matter, Part III—will be brought into force by order-making power later. I could not understand why Part I had been omitted. I thought from memory, although I have not had the opportunity to check, that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, particularly wanted Part I in his amendment. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head. I remember saying that it seemed to me that Part I could be brought in to force straight away.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, that was not so. I picked out particular clauses, but I did not mention Part I, as such, for bringing into operation especially early.
Lord Melchett: Well, my Lords, I was wrong about that. I certainly thought that Part I should be brought into effect straight away. I cannot see any reason why it should not be so. I cannot see the reasons for delay on other parts of the Bill applying to Part I. I do not know whether the noble Earl is able to confirm that I am right and give me an explanation. If he is not, then maybe he would write to me.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am not able to satisfy the noble Lord, but I take his point. The amendment was produced at the very last minute; at one stage we did not think that we could get it through in time. I shall look into what he has said. I would remind him that I did say that it might be possible to provide for more provisions to be treated in the same way, and we shall look into this and see why Part I is not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 53, line 22, after ("31") insert ("(Restoration where order under s. 29 is contravened)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 77. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Birds which are protected by special penalties]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 54, leave out line 37 and insert—

("Harrier, Marsh

Circus aeruginosus

Harrier, Montagu's

Circus pypargus

Harrier, Pallid

Circus maerourus").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that when I moved this amendment on Report I must have been somewhat incoherent, for while I thought I had said "osprey's egg" I found in the Official Report
72
that I had said "ostrich egg". I withdrew the amendment on Report to give the Government a further chance of looking at this proposal. It has also given me an opportunity to look at what was said. I think we were perhaps somewhat misled, for we were told that licences would be issued for serious damage being done by this bird to game or other birds. But that is not the case, for as long as these birds remain on Schedule 1 it is extremely unlikely that one would get a licence. The hen harrier is increasing very rapidly, as we heard from all sides of the House. Twenty years ago it was perhaps a rare bird. But now it is steadily increasing its range, and though it may not yet be very numerous in all parts of England it is very numerous all over the likely parts of Scotland, and I believe it has established itself very strongly in Wales. In the North of England, too, it is also fairly prevalent. To leave this bird on Schedule 1 can only bring the whole of Schedule 1 into contempt. It is lowering the whole tone, where there are rare birds, to put this bird which, without having any protection, has been increasing rapidly, on to it. I cannot see why. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me why they have suddenly decided this bird not having been protected before, that it is now necessary to protect it.
This amendment does not in fact remove the harrier from protection. It only removes it from the sections which give it special protection. I therefore suggest that this amendment is not only for the good of the countryside but for the good of bird protection in itself. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like very much to support my noble friend on this. We have heard figures from both sides of the House on the hen harrier and I do not know which to believe. I can only speak from my own experience and, having spoken to people in Scotland, the North-West of England and Wales, there is no doubt at all that the hen harrier is on the increase. This is a problematical bird, particularly with game birds. I think at times that one tends to forget the importance of the commercialism of game shooting and the benefit thereof to the countryside. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that if the hen harrier savaged fish farms or livestock it would certainly not be on the Schedule 1, Part I, list. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to press this amendment, but I would sincerely hope the Government would watch this bird very carefully in the future, whether through binoculars or not, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, perhaps if the bird were shot it would keep it in the air more often! It is a destroyer, and I hope the Government will keep an eye on it in the future.
Lord Melchett: We have had, my Lords, debates on this during Committee and Report stages. There seemed to be a fair consensus, particularly at the Committee stage when we had a very full debate on it, that the Bill was right. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Burton, suggest that the Bill introduces some change in status; but as I understand it that is not the case. The hen harrier is a Schedule 1 bird at the moment and the Bill merely maintains its position as such. The population has been relatively low for

73
quite a long time—something between 500 and 800 pairs is the information that I have. It may be slightly on the increase, but it is a very slow increase and certainly not on anything like the scale of the sparrow hawk, which has been taken off Schedule 1 of the Bill, I think mistakenly, although of course it is still protected.
At the Committee stage, when I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was not here—he will correct me if I am wrong—I reported on the fact that a considerable amount of research was currently being done into the hen harrier and its effect on the grouse populations. I said that the sensible course, as I saw it, was to wait for the result of that research before coming to any different conclusion from the existing position.
I spent the weekend reading some information which had come my way about the diet of marsh harriers, which we have hunting over the land which I farm. I had assumed from watching them that their prey consisted entirely of pheasant chicks but it appears from people who have looked at the remains around the nests that that is not the case at all and the prey, as with many birds of prey, is very opportunistic. It includes a number of rats, mice and other small rodents. The bird species seem to be mainly starlings, with a number of other small birds. Undoubtedly the odd pheasant chick is taken, but this demonstrated to me how wrong my personal observation could be when set against a careful scientific inquiry.
The information which I have on hen harrier predation on grouse tends to show—this was from research conducted in the early 1970s—that the amount of grouse available to be hunted was not in fact affected by the harrier population and that the harrier predation was extremely small. A number of other species were taken as well as grouse, but some grouse—a very small number indeed—were taken and the population as a whole, in areas where there were hen harriers hunting and where there were not, clearly was not affected by their presence. That is what scientific research shows, and I suggest that your Lordships should take some note of it.
The research to which I have referred, which was published in 1978, also said that in the area where the research was conducted there had been complete stability of harrier populations. They had not fluctuated in the way that birds of prey who are dependent on small mammals very often do fluctuate. The explanation was that there are a number of other small birds—not grouse or grouse chicks—which seem to make up the bulk of the hen harriers' diet. There does not seem to me to be any justification whatsoever for removing this bird from Schedule 1, and that seems to have been the consensus of your Lordships on the two previous occasions when we have discussed it. I hope the Government will continue to resist it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I cannot support my noble friend on this: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said. T have hen harriers on my property in Scotland and the extraordinary thing is—I have a few grouse and plenty of golden eagles and peregrines—that the grouse population remains completely static, exactly the same. I have seen hen harriers kill oyster catchers, for instance,
74
and quite a lot of other birds. I agree that on a heavily-stocked grouse moor they can be a nuisance and they will kill grouse and it might actually even affect a grouse drive if the hen harrier suddenly appeared. If that happened, it might make the grouse go in divers directions.
Twenty years ago the hen harrier was an extremely rare bird on my estate. We certainly have more now but that has been due to the protection that they have had. I was rather surprised when my noble friend behind me said that he was surprised the hen harrier was on the protected list in Schedule 1. It always has been protected, or at least it has been protected for the last 20 years; so I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have listened carefully to my noble friend, but I am still of the opinion, I am afraid, that this amendment is not justified. Studies have estimated that the British population of the species to be in the region of 500 pairs. This figure was derived from a consideration of the distribution of hen harriers as shown in the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland, prepared by the British Trust for Ornithology from nationwide reports and on a detailed study of densities of hen harriers in a few study areas, which represented a sample of suitable habitat from optimum to poor. By combining these two types of research, the statisticians among your Lordships will recognise that extrapolation can provide estimates than can reasonably be relied on.
The species is listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive as there are only about 2,500 pairs in Western Europe. We have a special responsibility, as our population has partly recovered from particularly low levels and may be holding its own. Unfortunately, there is some evidence of further declines in the last few years. In Orkney, for example, there has been a 10 per cent. drop in females and a 33 per cent. drop in males. The species have disappeared from the Kielder Forest area and almost disappeared from Galloway. I also have some comments to make about research which has recently been carried out, but I shall not take up the time of the House as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has covered that ground.
The advisory committees and the NCC have considered this species very carefully and several times. I hope that by my remarks your Lordships will realise that the Government have looked at the position very carefully. They remain adamant that it more than justifies the special protection which has been given. So far as my noble friend Lord Peel is concerned, I do not think it is necessary for me to say that I will undertake to keep the position under review, because it is quite apparent that it is being kept very closely under review. I hope that my noble friend will take that in the spirit in which it is meant, and I trust that my noble friend Lord Burton will not wish to press this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I may have been wrong about the schedule. I am not so good at the papers; perhaps I may be in the field. It is not the case that there has been only a slow increase; there has been a very rapid increase in these birds. If they were to continue like this, I should be very concerned about

75
the few remaining partridges that we have. To say that predation is not very large on grouse leads only to further incredulity of what is alleged to be scientific research. We see it happening all the time. We know that they are predators and we also know what damage they do.
My noble friend who has property in Mull says that they do not do any harm, but one would have great difficulty in finding them in Mull. There are very few grouse. These birds terrify the other birds and there is nothing which will clear a hill of grouse more quickly. They scare the grouse even quicker than an eagle. If the wind is in a certain direction, the whole lot will disappear for miles downwind. The Government say that there are only 500 pairs, but we discussed this on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, told us that there could be no counting without someone coming round and telling you that he was going to count on your ground. We have already had it. But there are large areas where there has been no counting, and the allegation of 500 pairs gives rise to even more incredulity about what we have been told.
We were told that they have disappeared from Kielder and Galloway. Why is that? It is because the trees are now too big and they cannot scavenge across the old ploughed ground where they were getting birds before. I know that the noble Lord lives in London and has to take advice from these people, but he should be very careful about the advice that he is getting. This is what frightens a number of us on this side. A lot of this advice is quite inaccurate and we are not at all happy with it. That is why we are frightened that we will get not licences to do what we know is necessary for protection. I know that the Government have cohorts outside and, if I am not getting any support from the other side, there is not much point in pressing the amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Birds which may be killed or taken]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
6.54 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 56, line 30, at end insert—

("Goosander

Mergus merganzer").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 112. These amendments deal with goosanders and merganzers. On Report, I had support from all sides of the House and I withdrew the amendment because I thought that the Government ought to have a further investigation into this matter. Unfortunately, I believe that my noble friend went to Edinburgh University where he had a fairly restricted report. Had he gone to Stirling University, he would probably have had a very different answer.
These birds are hosts to various kinds of worm. Apart from the eye-fluke worm, they are also hosts to the tapeworm and the red or spiruid worm, as well as others. If your Lordships look at the map, you will find that throughout Scotland there are a number of
76
loch na mealls—"beasties" or parasites of the loch—my Gaelic is not very good. Apparently, there are a number of lochs which are already polluted with these worms and parasites. What happens is that these birds are hosts to these worms and they pass the eggs through their droppings, which are then eaten by snails or small plankton—type little "beasties", which are in turn eaten by the fish.
The eye-fluke worm works on the eyes of the fish. It works through its body after it has been eaten, till it gets to the eyes and, when the eyes are damaged and the fish is swimming near the surface, it is very easy for the birds to re-catch these fish so that the cycle goes on increasingly. These red worms are very nasty if they get into human beings. Smoking a fish does not cook it and, by taking from the wild a fish that has been smoked, human beings can very readily pick up these worms.
These birds, also, were rare in the 1940s, but they have steadily increased and I think I am right in saying—I may have made a mistake the last time—that they have not been on the protected list up till now. So we are getting a change this time and I do not know why, because they, too, have increased enormously. They are now very common in Scotland. Off the island of Gigha, you can see as many as 2,000 on one raft. This is quite an amazing sight, but it is not the total population. It just shows the density that we are getting. They are steadily increasing, and I therefore feel that there is no need to put them on the protected list.
My noble friend on the Front Bench may say that we can get licences, but the licensing situation is most unsatisfactory. It is increasing bureaucracy and it seems quite unnecessary. The fishing interests—the Association of District Fishery Boards and so on—felt quite secure and happy about the licensing situation, but after listening to various debates on Report I am most unhappy about it. I think my noble friend told us that it is very unlikely that a whole watershed would get a licence. These birds fly up and down the river and, if you want to control them properly, you must have a large section of the river under control at one time. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Burton. I think that the Government Front Bench have made a mistake over the goosander. The goosander is a pest. In fact, it is a greater pest in Scotland than it is in my part of the world. One of the things to remember about the goosander is that it is a very prolific breeder. Last year, I saw a brood of over 20. Therefore, the size of the population will grow very much if this bird is protected. I believe that the Government have taken this step with the goosander as a result of the EEC directive. If I am wrong, I should like to be corrected; but I very much support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Burton.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the goosander is undoubtedly fond of salmon, but there is no confusion in the Government's mind on this. If I may echo the words of the my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt: Yes, it is because of the European Community. In terms of Europe, it is a rare bird. There are estimated to

77
be 1,000 to 1,500 pairs in Britain, which is about 85 per cent. of the total population. We are therefore under a duty to ensure that any killing is strictly controlled and only allowed to protect fisheries and fish farms from severe damage. It is not a nationwide species, as my noble friend Lord Burton said when he moved the amendment, and it does not do damage in many areas where it is found. That is why we have decided that the proper method of control under the Bill is by issuing licences and not, as the amendment would provide, by listing it as a national pest.
The merganzer is mainly a salt water bird. It, like the goosander, is partial to young salmon but, except at certain short periods as the smelts are waiting in the estuaries before going out to sea, it does not take many. It is not quite so rare as the goosander but we still have about 2,000 breeding pairs, and in European terms we have a duty to protect and conserve it.
We are clear therefore that with our new licensing arrangements the proper course is to take this species off the national pest list and provide that fisheries should take control measures under a specific licence. As with the goosander, the policies to be adopted will be referred to the advisory body under the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council.
With this explanation, I hope that my noble friend will not wish to press the amendment to have them put down as a pest but will realise that the situation of the birds, as he has emphasised very clearly in his own speech this evening, will enable the Nature Conservancy Council to keep the matter closely under review.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, perhaps I may say from this side of the House—I do not want to say very much because I do not think that anything new has emerged since we discussed this matter at Report—that now, as then, we entirely agree with what the Government have said about this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, once again I have to say that the Government's advisers are wrong. There are 2,000 goosanders on one raft, yet the Government say that the total population of Europe is only 2,000 pairs. I cannot believe that half of them are on that raft. My noble friend says that they are not nationwide. It depends which nation he is referring to. The whole of Scotland has merganzers and goosanders. They may not be found throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. This information is extremely "dicey". We want to look very carefully at the composition of these bird protection lists as drawn up by the Secretary of State's advisory committee. People are protecting injurious birds for no apparently good reason.
I am very loth to withdraw this amendment, but probably I would lose it in a Division. Therefore, I had better not waste the time of your Lordships' House.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that in Scotland there are apparently great numbers of merganzers and goosanders. I understood him to say that he saw a raft of 2,000 goosanders off the island of Gigha. It would be extremely interesting to know how my noble friend counted them. It must have taken a long time.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I, by leave, reply to my noble friend's question. The goosanders are on the island of Gigha, which is off the West Coast of Scotland. They were counted by bird experts, not by me. Some of the very people who are supposed to be giving figures counted them, so they cannot be right in all respects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Other animals which are protected]:
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 59, line 29, at end insert—

("Adder

Vipera berus

In respect of section 9(3) only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114. With it I should like to take Amendments Nos. 115 to 120. These amendments have the effect of giving a very limited degree of protection to all those native British reptiles and amphibians which are not already strictly protected under Clause 9, taken with Schedule 5. Therefore, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I am seeking to increase the degree of protection given to species under the Bill.
At the Report stage I moved a similar set of amendments, to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replied that he had asked the advisory body—that is to say, the Nature Conservancy Council—to review the species which had been listed in my amendment. I refer to the Official Report for 10th March, col. 215. I believe that adequate information is already available, particularly information which has been provided by the voluntary body, the British Herpetological Society. I believe that this information is sufficient to confirm a decline in the natural range and in the occurrence of these amphibians and reptiles within Great Britain. This is confirmed by a letter which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has very kindly written to me. He wrote on 27th March confirming that the Nature Conservancy Council, while examining the evidence that is presently available, is in fact satisfied that this evidence does indicate a decline in the distribution of these animal species.
Further research, such as the research which is carried out to establish the possibly controversial numbers and ranges of birds of prey in this country, is excessively expensive. It involves a large number of research students and research associates and undoubtedly would cost a lot of money. If the information that is available is already adequate and if this information has been provided at no cost by a voluntary body, I believe that in general this information should be considered to be adequate to act upon.
To a great extent the decline which has been documented must be attributed to loss of habitat. It is of course this loss of habitat which a great many of the provisions of the Bill seek to remedy. However, as I have stressed on previous occasions during the progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House, amphibians and reptiles also suffer from direct exploitation by man. Amphibians and reptiles are being collected for sale, largely for the educational market and to a lesser extent for the pet trade. There is no doubt that the

79
commercial trade in these species also involves importation. It is because a large proportion of these animals which come into trade in this country are imported that a situation of imponderables arises.
I have been informed, and I have as a result stated in this House, that most Council of Europe states already protect most of their amphibians and reptiles. I find it somewhat difficult myself to conduct the research to support this in detail because in the different member States of the Council of Europe there is a variety of agencies and legislative bodies which are concerned with the protection of species or the protection of habitats. For instance, whereas in many States it may be of national concern—as it is in our own—in Italy conservation is regulated by provincial assemblies. There is therefore quite a range of provincial regulations which differ somewhat in their impact.
None the less, I am convinced that in failing to protect the great majority if not all of our amphibian and reptile species, the United Kingdom would be in a minority among the Council of Europe members. Moreover, in a number of instances—I would cite in particular the Republic of Ireland and France—more stringent regulations have quite recently been, or are about to be, introduced as a consequence of the ratification of the Berne Convention.
The effect of stricter protection in other European nations which are at present supplying the market in this country is not yet known. I consider that it is essential to be prepared for all eventualities, and in particular to be prepared for a reduction or a drying-up of the available supplies of these animals coming on to the commercial market from existing sources in Europe. I consider that there is a primary need to monitor the trade in those amphibians and reptiles which do occur in our own country. I consider that information on trade is also essential to anticipate future protective legislation which may need to be more strict.
It is this sort of information which the advisory body, the Nature Conservancy Council, will be required to seek at the request of the noble Earl. I believe that it will be a most important item in the evidence for the Nature Conservancy Council in drawing up their assessment of current threats to our native populations. Within the framework of the Bill before us my amendments imply in fact no immediate changes to present practices, except that commercial dealings will require a licence, which I imagine will be comparatively simple to give and will not involve great expense. In return, it will provide invaluable information. On present evidence I believe that the control of commercial transactions is an appropriate level of protection for the species listed and I believe that the incorporation of my amendments in this Bill would make a future assessment of the need for stricter protection that much easier to obtain.
I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel that the advice I have given is at least as useful in making up his mind as the advice that the Nature Conservancy Council would be able to give and I hope he will be able to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, with the exception of the adder, we would all welcome the presence of these little creatures in our gardens and on our land, if only because they are of true benefit to man in reducing the pest population. Where they are in danger of extinction it is because man or progress is destroying, or has destroyed, those features of the areas where they live that they must have if they are to survive and breed. Let us put these little reptiles and amphibians in the Bill now and if—which I doubt—later scientific advice is given to the Minister that we are wrong in relation to any of them, they can be taken out in Committee in another place. I support my noble friend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for raising this, which of course he did at Report stage as well, and I am grateful to him for the information which his unique knowledge has given the House. When he said that he hoped I would consider that his advice was as good as that of the Nature Conservancy Council, I would merely say, far be it from me to draw the comparison. All I would tell him is that of course the Nature Conservancy Council is the body which officially advises the Minister and not—possibly with regret—my noble friend. He seeks to afford a measure of control over the trade in those reptiles and amphibians which are found on the British mainland, and that of course is a thoroughly creditable intention. But I am told that the Nature Conservancy Council have examined such evidence as is at present available and, while they are satisfied, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook quite correctly says, that there appears to be a decline in the distribution of the species concerned, they are not yet in a position to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as to what conservation measures, if any, would be appropriate in relation to the species which are listed by my noble friend.
The fact is that the Government wished to have this advice before acting and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would, as Clause 26(4) obliges him to do, consult these people once the Bill is enacted. These are people who are not just scientists and conservationists; they are people who might be affected by the proposal to make the the trade in these species subject to licence.
The amendment is in fact technically defective in so far as it refers to subsection (3) of Clause 9 as opposed to subsection (4), but I would not rest my argument on that. I merely hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment because, if the advice is such that conservation measures are necessary, I feel quite certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will—if I may repeat the words that I used during Report stage—not hesitate to consider it favourably.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, we have supported the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook on these amendments, all the way through the passage of the Bill, and I should like to see this amendment in the Bill. Obviously if the subsection number is incorrect it could be changed in another place. My worry would be that, while the list does not appear all that long, it is a fairly significant change, in that it would be the first time that something had been added to the schedule in respect of a particular

81
section only. I thought that the noble Earl was very perceptive in seeing that that was a way of meeting the problem which he has brought up right through the passage of the Bill, and my worry would be that this might not be done in another place. I think it would be better to put this in while the Bill is in your Lordships' House and then, if it needed to be taken out or altered after the NCC had time to consider it, it could be altered in another place. Because it is something that has run right through our debates and we have spent a very long time on this Bill, it seems to me that at Third Reading it is fair for the House to come to a decision one way or another. It is not as if the NCC and a number of other people have not had time to consider all these points.
This is really all that remains of something that we saw as of fundamental importance but it was clear that we were not going to get the Government to agree to it, although I think they should have done. That was the reverse listing of mammals, reptiles and amphibians so that those groups would have been in the same position as birds; all of them would have been automatically protected except for the ones that needed to be listed either on a pest schedule or on a schedule which allowed people to kill them, for sporting or other reasons. That is what I think should have been done for reptiles and amphibians like these as well as for mammals, but it was not done. We have had to settle for second best in the case of mammals in the very valuable amendments to the Badgers Act but we have not managed to do anything for the species which the noble Earl has listed, and I think we should. There is a real problem, and the noble Earl has produced the evidence time and time again to demonstrate the nature of the problem. Personally, I should like to see these amendments in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should not wish to abuse the laws of procedure but, with permission, I should like to say just one thing. The whole way through this Bill we have relied upon the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. It has always been said that we should rely upon their advice. Here is the one case where the Nature Conservancy Council have in fact not said that this should be done and have said that they would wish for time before they give such advice. It really seems quite extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should nevertheless wish to disregard that decision so that we push the change into the Bill ourselves. If the Nature Conservancy Council give this advice then of course my right honourable friend will take it, but he is obliged to consult other people as well, and that he will do.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I would be happy to agree with what the noble Earl has just said if he would agree to take the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council about how sites of special scientific interest should be protected.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think the noble Earl the Minister is slightly mixing up two things. It is an entirely different case whether one follows, or does not follow, the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council by not going as far as they want
82
in protecting a species, and another matter entirely when it is a question of wanting to go further than the Nature Conservancy Council wants. I certainly would not want—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would not want—at any stage to go against the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council were they advising the protection of something. That is not to say that we do not sometimes want to go further than they do. The reason for that is a fairly good one. It is that the Nature Conservancy Council, in order to preserve their reputation have, quite rightly, got to be absolutely certain that the advice that they give in regard to protection is 100 per cent. justified. There are enough critics of the NCC about to ensure that the council cannot afford at any time to go out on a limb and say, "We recommend that this or that species should be conserved", when they do not have sufficient evidence. Parliament can, and should occasionally, go further than that, because it should be able to deal with a case like this while we are producing this important Bill. This is a case where not to put these species on a protected list would not give any benefit to anyone but to put them on would obviously do some good, even though we are not quite certain exactly how much good it would do. I suggest there is no good reason not to put them on such a list and that there are some quite good reasons to put them on; therefore we should do so.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, there is a technical point. The noble Earl has drawn my attention to the fact that I have failed to check the proofs of my amendments adequately. In fact, I was seeking to invoke the provisions of Clause 9(4) only. I think my noble friend on the Front Bench realised this and he spoke to the amendment as if I had been doing what I intended to do; there was very clearly no misunderstanding. Despite the slip, your Lordships' House understood very clearly, because I made it absolutely clear and I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, understood very clearly that I intended to invoke subsection (4); that is, only the control of sale. Following up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I stress the fact that by controlling the sale, by monitoring what is happening to these animals, not only do we anticipate a disadvantageous or even dangerous situation which renders them more vulnerable, which may occur through legislation in other countries over which we have no control; we protect them in advance of what may occur if the inflow of imported animals dries up. At the same time, by this very minor level of protection we provide the very information which the scientific authority will require in order to be able to make the assessment that it is required to make on the instructions of the noble Earl. Without adequate information on the trade in these animals, it is impossible to discover what pressure mankind is putting on the amphibians and the reptiles of this country.
The final point is that throughout this series of amendments I have been seeking to demonstrate as a fact what the Government have asserted; that is, that this Bill can invoke a degree of protection which is not total, which is not all-encompassing, which can accommodate both the needs of the species and also the needs of human kind in living with these animals. On the understanding that there is a misprint in the amendment

83
as proposed and that in all cases they refer to Clause 9(4), I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken to Amendments Nos. 115 to 120. Is the noble Earl pressing them?
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I am moving them all.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 120:
Page 59, line 43, at end insert—

("Frog, Common

Rana temporaria

In respect of section 9(3) only")

line 45, at end insert—

("Lizard, Viviparous

Lacerta vivipara

In respect of section 9(3) only")

Page 60, line 4, at end insert—

("Newt, Palmate

Triturus helveticus

In respect of section 9(3) only

Newt, Smooth

Triturus vulgaris

In respect of section 9(3) only")

line 8, at end insert—

("Slow-worm

Anguis fragilis

In respect of section 9(3) only")

line 12, at end insert—

("Snake, Grass

Natrix helvetica

In respect of section 9(3) only")

line 15, at end insert—

("Toad, Common

Bufo bufo

In respect of section 9(3) only").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of the 1963, 1970 and 1973 Acts]:
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 61, line 11, leave out ("was") and insert ("had been").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 121 which is wrongly attributed to Lord Mottistone and should be in my name. The first of these amendments, No. 121, I move on the grounds of clarity in drafting and consistency in drafting. We are here dealing with an exception, as is set out on page 61 at the top of Schedule 7. With regard to clarity, I submit to the Minister that it is proper to say that the mercy killing which is being provided for here should be allowed in the case where the animal—the deer, in this case—had been so seriously injured when he arrived on the scene to do this mercy killing that his act of mercy was laudable and could be allowed. In other words, it should be clearly stated that it was antecedent that the animal had been so injured.
With regard to consistency, I would refer the noble Earl to another part of the Bill, Clause 10, which also is dealing with exceptions exactly as the schedule is dealing with exceptions. In Clause 10(2)(b), at the top of page 12 at line 5, we read:
"the taking of any such animal if he shows that the animal had been disabled otherwise than by his unlawful act".
So we have need for clarity, and, I submit, need for consistency. This is the precise wording used in another part of the Bill in exactly similar circumstances.
84
Therefore, I feel sure the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has been a persistent person with regard to getting the wording of this right, and being, a helpful kind of fellow I will be happy to go along with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 62, line 45, leave out ("that land") and insert ("the land on which the action is taken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I would direct the noble Earl's attention to the possibility of confusion at the bottom of page 62. Here we are dealing with the definition of an authorised person. When one reaches sub-paragraph (d) there is a very great risk of confusion. I would read from the beginning of paragraph (6)(d)—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord because it might save him some time. I was going to say that I would agree to accept this amendment and the following one, if he would wish to put them, without explaining the details.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as I had not been warned of this happy change of circumstance I was about to explain, but I see I have no need to do so. I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 62, line 46, leave out ("such a person") and insert ("a person having that right").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 63, line 39, leave out ("a site") and insert ("an area").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I wonder whether this gives me an opportunity to ask the noble Earl or the Government if they have reached any conclusion about the terminology of sites of special scientific interest. I imagine they are now getting keener on "areas of special scientific interest", which somebody pointed out to me today will produce ASSIs. At Report stage the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that he would look at the point to see whether we could simplify the terminology. I wonder whether he or the Government collectively have come to any conclusion. If they have, it would be nice to hear it. I was hoping that when the Bill was reprinted it would have got rid of "sites of special scientific interest" in the side title, but it did not. I hope one of the noble Earls might be able to tell me about some happy conclusion to their deliberations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it certainly gives the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, the opportunity of asking the

85
question. It is not a particularly helpful question to ask, but I can tell him that we are still considering the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 63, line 40, after ("under") insert ("section 23 of the said Act of 1949 or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which will doubtless give the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, an opportunity to ask some other question. However, failing that, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 65, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State shall from time to time consult with the Nature Conservancy Council as to the exercise of their functions under subsection (1)(e) above; and neither of them shall grant a licence of any description unless he has been advised by the Council as to the circumstances in which, in the Council's opinion, licences of that description should be granted."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to achieve consistency between the Badgers Act as amended on Report and the other parts of the Bill relating to the issue of licences to kill or take protected animals. The effect will be to require that the Nature Conservancy Council be consulted before licences to take or kill badgers, to prevent serious damage to land, crops, poultry or other forms of property, are granted by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 127:
After Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule
("APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN ORDERS UNDER PART III
Form of applications
1. An application shall be made in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by—

(a) a map drawn to the prescribed scale and showing the way or ways to which the application relates; and

(b) copies of any documentary evidence (including statements of witnesses) which the applicant wishes to adduce in support of the application.

Notice of applications
2.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the applicant shall serve a notice stating that the application has been made on every owner and occupier of any land to which the application relates.
(2) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the authority are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land to which the application relates, the notice required to be served on him by sub-paragraph (1) may be served by addressing it to him by the description "owner" or "occupier" of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.
(3) When the requirements of this paragraph have been complied with, the applicant shall certify that fact to the authority.
(4) Every notice or certificate under this paragraph shall be in the prescribed form.
Determination by authority
3.—(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a certificate under paragraph 2(3), the authority shall—

(a) investigate the matters stated in the application; and

(b) after consulting with every local authority whose area includes the land to which the application relates, decide whether to make or not to make the orders to which the application relates.

(2) If the authority have not determined the application within twelve months of their receiving a certificate under paragraph 2(3), then, on the applicant making representations to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may, after consulting with the authority, direct the authority to determine the application before the expiration of such period as may be specified in the direction.
(3) As soon as practicable after determining the application, the authority shall give notice of their decision by serving a copy of it on the applicant and any person on whom notice of the application was required to be served under paragraph 2(1).
Appeal against a decision not to make an order
4.—(1) Where the authority decide not to make an order, the applicant may, at any time within 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision, serve notice of appeal against that decision on the Secretary of State and the authority.
(2) If on considering the appeal the Secretary of State considers that an order should be made, he shall give to the authority such directions as appear to him necessary for the purpose.
Interpretation
5.—(1) In this Schedule—
"application" means an application under section 46 (4A);
"local authority" means a district council, the Greater London Council, a parish or community council or the parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 127. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Procedure in connection with certain orders under Part III]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, the next amendment is No. 128. I think that is was spoken to with a series of amendments.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 157:
Page 92, line 26, at end insert—
("Coming into operation
1A. An order shall not take effect until confirmed either by the authority or the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 or by the Secretary of State under paragraph 6.").
Page 92, line 27, leave out ("draft").
Page 92, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert ("On making an order, the authority shall give notice—

(a) describing the general effect of the order and stating that it has been made and requires confirmation;

(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to the order relates is situated where a copy of the order may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours; and").

Page 92, line 39, leave out ("draft").
Page 92, line 43, leave out ("draft").
Page 93, line 10, leave out ("draft order; and") and insert ("order;
( ) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the order relates; and").
Page 93, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may, in any particular case, direct that it shall not be necessary to comply with sub-paragraph (2)(b)(i); but if he so directs in the case of any land, then in addition to publication the notice shall be addressed to "The owners and any occupiers" of the land (describing it) and a copy or copies of the notice shall be affixed to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.
(3A) The notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (2)(c)(i) at the ends of so much of any way as is affected by the order shall be accompanied by a plan showing the general effect of the order so far as it relates to that way.".
Page 93, line 24, leave out ("draft").
Page 93, line 43, leave out ("a draft") and insert ("an").
Page 94, line 5, leave out ("draft").
Page 94,line 8, leave out ("a draft") and insert ("an").
Page 94, line 9, leave out ("not one but two draft") and insert ("two separate").
Page 94, line 10, leave out ("prepared") and insert ("made").
Page 94, line 16, at beginning insert ("(1)").
Page 94, line 16, leave out from ("may") to end of line 17 and insert—
("(a) confirm the order without modification; or
(b) if they require any modification to be made, submit the order to the Secretary of State for confirmation by him.
(2) Where an order is submitted to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State may confirm the order with or without modifications.").
line 20, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 29 and insert ("submit the order to the Secretary of State for confirmation by him.
(2) Where an order is submitted to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall either—

(a) cause a local inquiry to be held; or

(b) afford any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3) On considering any representations or objections duly made and the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or hear representations or objections, the Secretary of State may confirm the order with or without modifications.").
Page 94, line 30, leave out ("make") and insert ("confirm")
Page 94, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("so") in line 32 and insert ("The Secretary of State shall not confirm an order with modifications")
Page 94, line 33, leave out ("draft")
Page 94, line 34, leave out ("draft")
Page 94, line 37, leave out ("draft")
Page 94, line 40, leave out ("authority") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 94, line 41, leave out ("them requisite of their") and insert ("him requisite of his")
Page 94, line 46, leave out from ("made") to end of line 3 on page 95 and insert—
("(b) hold a local inquiry or afford any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and
(c) consider the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections.")
Page 95, line 3, at end insert—
("Local inquiries
7A. The provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which relate to the giving of evidence at, and defraying the cost of, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any inquiry held under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.
Appointment of inspectors
7B.—(1) A decision under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 shall, except in such classes of case as may for the time being be prescribed or as may be specified in directions given by the Secretary of
88
State, be made by a person appointed by Secretary of State for the purpose instead of by the Secretary of State; and a decision made by a person so appointed shall be treated as a decision of the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct that a decision which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) and apart from this sub-paragraph, falls to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall instead be made by the Secretary of State; and a direction under this sub-paragraph shall state the reasons for which it is given and shall be served on the person, if any, so appointed the authority and any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn.
(3) Where the Secretary of State has appointed a person to make a decision under paragraph 5, 6 or 7 the Secretary of State may, at any time before the making of the decision, appoint another person to make it instead of the person first appointed to make it.
(4) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) a particular design falls to be made by the Secretary of State or any other person instead of the person first appointed to make it, anything done or in relation to the latter shall be treated as having been done by or in relation to the former.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph may provide for the giving of publicity to any directions given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph.")
Page 94, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 5 and insert—
("Notice of final decisions on orders
8.—(1) As soon as practicable after a decision to confirm an order is made or, in the case of a decision by the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable after receiving notice of his decision ").
Page 95, leave out lines 7 to 11 and insert—
("(a) describing the general effect of the order as confirmed and stating that it has been confirmed (with or without modification) and the date on which it took effect; and
(b) naming a place in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated where a copy of the order as confirmed may be inspected free of charge, and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge, at all reasonable hours.")
Page 94, line 12, leave out ("this paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (1)").
Page 94, line 20, at end insert—
("(3) As soon as practicable after a decision not to confirm an order or, in the case of a decision by the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable after receiving notice of his decision, the authority shall give notice of the decision by serving a copy of it on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 2(2)(b) or (3).").
Page 94, line 38, at end insert—
(""council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by the authority or by a local authority;").
Schedule 14 [Orders creating, extinguishing or diverting public rights of way]:
Leave out Schedule 14 and insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE 14

  ORDERS CREATING, EXTINGUISHING OR DIVERTING FOOTPATHS OR BRIDLEWAYS
  The Town and Country Planning Act 1971
  1.—(1) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 20 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways, after the word "charge" there shall be inserted the words "and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge".
  (2) In sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph—

  (a) in head (a) the words "in the London Gazette and" shall be omitted;

  (b) at the end of head (b) there shall be inserted the words—

  "(iv) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority may consider appropriate; and"; and
  (c) for head (c) there shall be substituted the following head—
  "(c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

  89

  (i) at the ends of so much of any footpath or bridle-way as is to be stopped up, diverted or extinguished by the order;

  (ii) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the order relates; and

  (iii) at such other places as the authority may consider appropriate".

  (3) At the end of sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and" 'council offices' means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a council".
  (4) After sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(5) The notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (2)(c)(i) of this paragraph at the ends of so much of any way as is affected by the order shall be accompanied by a plan showing the general effect of the order so far as it relates to that way."
  2. After paragraph 3 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "3A.—(1) A decision under paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall, except in such classes of case as may for the time being be prescribed or as may be specified in directions given by the Secretary of State, be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose instead of by the Secretary of State; and a decision made by a person so appointed shall be treated as a decision of the Secretary of State.
  (2) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct that a decision which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph and apart from this sub-paragraph, falls to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall instead be made by the Secretary of State; and a direction under this sub-paragraph shall state the reasons for which it is given and shall be served on the person, if any, so appointed, the authority and any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn.
  (3) Where the Secretary of State has appointed a person to make a decision under paragraph 3 of this Schedule the Secretary of State may, at any time before the making of the decision, appoint another person to make it instead of the person first appointed to make it.
  (4) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) of this paragraph a particular decision falls to be made by the Secretary of State or any other person instead of the person first appointed to make it, anything done by or in relation to the latter shall be treated as having been done by or in relation to the former.
  (5) Regulations under this Act may provide for the giving of publicity to any directions given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph."
  3. In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—

  (a) for the words "a copy thereof" there shall be substituted the words "a copy of the order";

  (b) after the words "free of charge" there shall be inserted the words "and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge"; and

  (c) in head (b) for the words "a like notice" there shall be substituted the words "like notices" and for the words "the notice" there shall be substituted the words "the notices".

  The Highways Act 1980
  4.—(1) In sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 (procedure as to certain orders relating to footpaths and bridleways) after the words "free of charge" there shall be inserted the words "and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge".
  (2) For sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(3) The notices to be given under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall be given—

  (a) by publication in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the land to which the order relates is situated;

  (b) by serving a like notice on—

  (i) every owner, occupier and lessee (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month and statutory tenants within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977) of any of that land;

  90

  (ii) every council, the council of every parish or community council, and the parish meeting of every parish not having a separate parish council, being a council, parish or community whose area includes any of that land;

  (iii) such other bodies as may be prescribed or as the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may consider appropriate; and

  (c) by causing a copy of the notice to be displayed in a prominent position—

  (i) at the ends of so much of any footpath or bridleway as is created, stopped up or diverted by the order;

  (ii) at council offices in the locality of the land to which the order relates; and

  (iii) in such other places as the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State may consider appropriate."

  (3) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—
  "(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) above "council" means a county council, a district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council and "council offices" means offices or buildings acquired or provided by a council.
  (3B) The Secretary of State may, in any particular case, direct that is shall not be necessary to comply with subparagraph (3)(b)(i) above; but if he so directs in the case of any land, then in addition to publication the notice shall be addressed to "The owners and occupiers" of the land (describing it) and a copy or copies of the notice shall be affixed to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.
  (3C) The notice required to be displayed by sub-paragraph (3)(c)(i) above at the ends of so much of any way as is affected by the order shall be accompanied by a plan showing the general effect of the order as made so far as it relates to that way.".
  5. After paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "2A.—(1) A decision under paragraph 2 above shall, except in such classes of case as may for the time being be prescribed or as may be specified in directions given by the Secretary of State, be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose instead of by the Secretary of State; and a decision made by a person so appointed shall be treated as a decision of the Secretary of State.
  (2) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct that a decision which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above and apart from this sub-paragraph, falls to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State shall instead be made by the Secretary of State; and a direction under this sub-paragraph shall state the reasons for which it is given and shall be served on the person, if any, so appointed, the authority and any person by whom a representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn.
  (3) Where the Secretary of State has appointed a person to make a decision under paragraph 2 above the Secretary of State may, at any time before the making of the decision, appoint another person to make it instead of the person first appointed to make it.
  (4) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above a particular decision falls to be made by the Secretary of State or any other person instead of the person first appointed to make it, anything done by or in relation to the latter shall be treated as having been done by or in relation to the former.
  (5) Provision may be made by regulations of the Secretary of State for the giving of publicity to any directions given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph."
  6. In paragraph 4 of that Schedule after the words "free of charge" there shall be inserted the words "and copies thereof may be obtained at a reasonable charge" and for heads (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following heads—

  "(a) service a like notice and a copy of the order as confirmed or made on any persons on whom notices were required to be served under paragraph 1(3), (3B) or (4) above; and

  (b) cause like notices to be displayed in the like manner as the notices caused to be displayed under paragraph 1(3) above;".

  Supplemental
  7.—(1) The amendments made by the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall not apply in relation to any order if it was made or a draft thereof was prepared, or a notice relating to it was given under paragraph 1 of the relevant Schedule, before the commencement date.
  (2) Any references in this paragraph to Schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 includes a reference to that Schedule as applied by paragraph 3 of the provisions of Part I of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act which relate to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bellwin spoke to Amendment No. 128. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 128 to 157 en bloc.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should point out that there is a slight difference in Amendment No. 143 which says:
  "Page 94, line 20, leave out from"
  and it should say, "first shall". The word "first" should be inserted. With that insertion, the Question is that Amendments Nos. 128 to 157 be agreed to.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Enactments repealed]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 158 to 165:
  Page 101, line 15, at end insert—

  PART I

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED ONE MONTH AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT
    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 97.

    The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

    Section 23.

    1968 c. 41.

    The Countryside Act 1968.

    Section 14.

    In section 15(1) the words "which is not for the time being managed as a nature reserve but".

    1971 c. 78.

    The Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

    In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(2)(a) the words "in the London Gazette and".

    1973 c. 37

    The Water Act 1973.

    In section 22(3) the words "not being land managed as a nature reserve".

    1973 c. 54.

    The Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.

    Section 3.

    1980 c. 66.

    The Highways Act 1980.

    In section 134, subsection (3) and in subsection (5) the words "(3) or".

    In section 135(1), the words "6 or" and "6 weeks or".

PART II

  ENACTMENTS REPEALED AS FROM A DAY TO BE APPOINTED")
  Page 101 lines 15, column 3, leave out line 18.
  Page 101 lines 15, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 39.
  Page 101, line 40, column 3, leave out from ("3") to ("Parts") in line 44.
  Page 102, line 4, column 3, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 6.
  Page 102, line 4, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 6.
  Page 102, line 4, column 3, leave out lines 9 to 12.
  Page 102, line 4, column 3, leave out line 13.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 158 to 160 with Amendment No. 107. Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 were spoken to with Amendment No. 102. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 163 to 165 with Amendment No. 107. With your Lordships' permission, I would like to move Amendments Nos. 158 to 165 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 166:
  Page 102, line 13, column 3, at end insert ("In section 5(3) the words from the beginning to "save as aforesaid."").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 167 and 168:
  Page 102, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 103.
  Page 102, line 5, leave out ("mammals") and insert ("animals").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 169:
  Line 6, leave out ("the Badgers Act 1973").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 169. This is a drafting amendment to remove a duplication in the title. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  An amendment (privilege) made.
  7.32 p.m.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass and. with your Lordships' indulgence, I will speak for just a few minutes. There had been expectations that the Bill would arouse considerable interest during its passage through this House but I do not think that anyone anticipated the records which it must have broken. Despite the lengthy consultations which preceded the introduction of the Bill, very many improvements have been made after much expert advice, couplied with first-hand knowledge from all sides.
  The Bill will make many desirable changes and extensions to the law on wildlife and the countryside, as well as providing the right framework for conservation for many years to come. We have often referred during the debates to the extent to which conservation can and must depend, not only on voluntary groups but even more on the goodwill of landowners and farmers. I should like now to thank noble Lords on all sides who took part in the debates, for the goodwill that they have shown in expressing their concern about these matters, always patiently and courteously. I should like to assure them that on those occasions when the Government seemed less amenable than

  93
  many noble Lords had hoped, that was not because their views were disregarded, but because we had already extensively considered similar points which were raised during consultation on the Bill. I say that especially in view of the many eloquent speeches which we have enjoyed, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has been untiring in his efforts and impressed the whole House by his grasp of every aspect of the Bill; he has been ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and also in the earlier stages, by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, until he withdrew to the higher reaches of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has led a persuasive team from the Liberal Benches; there has been expert advice on a variety of subjects from my noble friends behind me. As virtually all of them have spoken, I hope they will forgive me if I do not name them now individually.
  I should like, at this point, as I have been asked on a number of occasions whether Clause 3 of the Bill will affect existing bird sanctuaries, to make it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention whatever of disturbing the present status of existing sanctuaries by the provisions of this Bill. Our intention is simply to facilitate the creation of further areas of protection.
  The Government have made a major innovation in the Bill by empowering the Secretary of State to requite that landowners and farmers on selected very important and vulnerable areas of special scientific interest should no longer be allowed to carry out certain agricultural activities without giving notice of their intentions. We have, however, made it clear that we are not prepared to take sweeping measures to impose a statutory requirement on owners involved in the large areas of land covered by the nearly 4,000 sites of special scientific interest at present notified by the Nature Conservancy Council, which, of course, many noble Lords suggested. I hope that our reasons for that are now understood. We do not believe that such restrictions would assist the cause of conservation. We have, however, made improvements to the notification system by the NCC and provided for a Government code of practice. It is our believe that voluntary agreements, with payments as necessary, are the best means of obtaining the co-operation of farmers in carrying out the work which is needed to conserve areas of special interest.
  Our conviction that voluntary agreements are the surest way of conserving that which ought to be conserved, also led us to resist the various amendments which were put down to provide compulsory powers in respect of moorland in national parks.
  The Government in no way dispute that some areas, particularly in Exmoor, have been under threat, but we firmly believe that it would have been counter-productive to have written compulsory back-up powers into the Bill. The arrangements for moorland notification orders, coupled with the new powers of county planning authorities to enter into management agreements, should suffice to ensure that the critical areas of moorland are conserved, which is what we all want.
  The point has been made repeatedly that the success of conservation work will depend to a large extent on the funds which are available and, especially, on the amount of money which is available to the Nature Conservancy Council. The House will appreciate
  94
  the point that the Government are not able to provide more funds in the present economic circumstances. However, the Bill does allow for expansion when the climate is right.
  Another major cause of concern to some noble Lords has been the proposed licensing system. I believe the Bill now makes it clear that agricultural departments will issue licences speedily, whenever this is necessary, and that they will consult the Nature Conservancy Council about the circumstances in which licences might be issued. I hope that we have also laid to rest any fears that the defence that action is necessary in order to prevent serious damage, might be a loophole in the licensing system. It is our view that it will not.
  The Government are concerned that the law should be enforced and the Bill incorporates many provisions which will improve enforcement.
  The Bill includes provisions concerning registration and ringing of captive birds, search warrant powers and other powers of entry, and some increased penalties. During the Bill's passage through this House we have agreed to higher penalties and to a statutory role for the Nature Conservancy Council in assisting enforcement. The Government have indicated their intention to restrict ports of entry for some or all live specimens of endangered species. I do not think that we have overlooked any realistic means of improving enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
  Turning now to the public rights of way provision in Part III of the Bill, there have been three issues which have been the subject of particular controversy. On the major one, the proposal to transfer to local authorities powers to determine opposed definitive map and public path orders, the Government still do not believe that it represented an outrage to natural justice as has been alleged, and we do not feel that a lack of trust in local authorities is justified. However, we acknowledge that we were defeated on this issue and we accept the decision of this House.
  Our proposals on evidential provisions also attracted widespread opposition, but we gave careful consideration to all the representations, and our decision, which was warmly welcomed, to change them in Committee, does I think demonstrate that we do pay due regard to alternative proposals, and where we are convinced by the opposing arguments we are prepared to make the necessary change. There have been disagreements on points of detail concerning the new arrangements for definitive maps, but our proposals have been generally welcomed and we certainly hope that the new arrangements will work in practice much better than the present time-consuming procedure.
  The Bill has grown in scope during its passage. For instance, the Government have agreed to accept a package on badgers, seals and deer. There is, of course, a further opportunity for changes in another place. I have in mind the Government's continuing consultations regarding marine nature reserves and, perhaps, I should here commend the efforts of many noble Lords from all sides in this respect. I believe that the Bill is now ready to go to another place.
  We have been able to draw on a great fund of knowledge in this House and I especially recall contributions from my noble friend Lord Craigton, although I am sorry that we could not always agree on what should be done about bats! The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken,

  95
  who unfortunately cannot be here today, contributed greatly to our knowledge of birds and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook right up to the last minute provided ample information and advice about other wild creatures and plants. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Chelwood helped us greatly on matters concerning the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council and, of course, my noble friend Lord Sandford spoke with authority on the difficulties of conserving moorland in national parks.
  Here, too, we welcomed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, although I am sorry that we could not go along with his views. Throughout the debates we have been able to rely on my noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, to explain the interest of landowner and farmer alike. The contributions of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, have been invaluable in relation to rights of way matters. I hope that those other noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions will forgive me if I do not mention them by name, if only in the interests of time.
  Finally, I should also like to turn to my colleagues on the Front Bench who have so ably helped me in fielding the various questions, some of a very complicated and different nature. I believe that the Bill will promote the interests of all who are concerned with the countryside, including those who depend on the land for their living, as well as those who enjoy visiting the countryside. I am sure that it will prove its value for many years to come.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Avon.)
  7.44 p.m.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like very much to thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for what he said about me and to reciprocate by saying that I think at times I have been in a happier position than he has in that I have had some rather easier briefs to defend than he has had. However, his unfailing courtesy to all of us on this side of the House—in all parties, new and old—and to his noble friends behind him has enabled us to get through an extraordinarily heavy burden of work—with Chief Whips and others glaring or smiling, depending on how things were going—with, I think, remarkably good speed. We are very grateful indeed to him and to all the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who have helped him.
  I should also like to thank those behind me, particularly my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, who could not be here today, and my noble friends Lord Houghton, Lord Underhill, Lord Fletcher, and Lady White, who have spoken extremely briefly and concisely but always to the point and with great effect. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady David, without whom I could not have carried out my task on this Bill, and my noble friend Lord Donaldson who, as the noble Earl has said, halfway through went a long way behind us and has now disappeared, which I daresay is not altogether insignificant!
  Briefly, I think it would be useful to put on record some of the things that we have achieved in our long deliberations on the Bill. I start where the noble Earl
  96
  left off, at Part III: the ploughing provisions; the provisions in the Bill which reverse the case of Suffolk v. Mason; the provision for appeals when a claim is made that something should be added to or deleted from a definitive map and the authority refuses; and, of course, particularly the decision about the Secretary of State's jurisdiction, which the noble Earl himself mentioned—and I was delighted to hear the terms in which he mentioned it—which I am sure will be widely welcomed. Those were significant changes. Although we still hope that something on greenlanes will emerge from the Spicer Committee and that another place will deal rather more fairly in looking at the balance between path users and farmers with bulls on footpaths than did your Lordships' House, nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that Part III is now in a state which will receive a very wide welcome. I am only sorry that it did not manage to include something for those farmers with sheep who are worried about the actions of dogs in their areas.
  Turning to Part I of the Bill, I think that we have improved the Bill as far as the balance between bird conservation and aviculture is concerned. The plants clauses in the Bill now make sense and are enforceable, which I do not think was the case when the Bill was introduced. With support from all sides of the House, we have introduced minor restrictions on crossbows and air guns, very minor in the case of air guns where we are really restating the existing law. I was personally delighted with the Badgers Act amendments. Badgers are a hobby-horse of mine and my noble friend Lord Houghton, and the change is something that both of us warmly welcome. I hope that the Minister. Mr. Monro, will accept the credit which I think is due to him personally in the manner in which he pointed the way to those amendments, as well as my noble friend Lord Houghton, who has taken such an interest in this Bill.
  The restriction on ports of entry brought forth an extremely valuable assurance which the noble Earl was able to give us during the passage of the Bill. Probably most significantly in Part I we have managed to make clear that Clauses 4 and 10, which deal with the emergency action which farmers and landowners can take, are designed for that purpose. The wording now makes that clear. As the Bill was introduced, conservationists felt that Clause 15 made the whole of Part I of no value at all and would have represented a major step backwards, particularly as far as Protection of Birds Acts legislation is concerned since the 1950s. I think that we have now reached an acceptable compromise and the Ministry of Agriculture will receive advice from the Nature Conservancy Council. It does not mean that they have to act on that advice. I wish it did, but it does not. We were not able to go that far. At least we have some acknowledgement in the Bill that licences to kill creatures have to be rather more specific than licences to photograph newts, or something of that sort.
  In Part II we have included some recognition of the rights of the disabled in the countryside, which is appropriate in this year; the provisions for wardens have been included and there have been some important amendments concerning water authorities and internal drainage boards; the marine nature reserve amendments, which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, mentioned, which

  97
  I hope will not be altered too much in another place if the Government are able to complete their consultations in time, which frankly I would be surprised at, but maybe they will; and of course the amendments which relate, as it were, to trying to bring agricultural interests and conservation interest rather closer together in looking at the role of ADAS; and the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved, and which seemed to me to be important.
  Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding about the changes which have been made to the Bill, I should like to make the point that we on this side of the House have not seen very much point in pressing party points in this Bill. There are a number of points of party policy on this side of the House on which we have not put down amendments, particularly concerning animal welfare and field sports, all of which it clearly would have been in order to table in this House. We, my noble friend Lord Houghton, who feels very strongly and for many years has campaigned very strongly on these matters, and other noble friends involved, felt that the sensible thing to do in your Lordships' House (where there is a very large majority on the Government side in Divisions on party political points) was to pursue points where there was all-party support. Anybody looking at the Division Lists will see that on every single amendment that has been pressed there have been some votes from all parts of the House, even those we have lost and certainly all those that we have won.
  We have not, therefore, pursued party policy. In some respects that is a pity because there are a number of important issues that therefore have not been discussed. I daresay that noble Lords opposite, in particular some on the Front Bench, will say thank goodness for that. But I would not like people to feel that the Bill has left your Lordships' House with an exhaustive discussion of all the issues that could have been discussed. We have deliberately tried to concentrate on, and draft, amendments that would be acceptable to at least some noble Lords opposite and to other parties on this side of the House, and to Cross-Benchers.
  Finally, I should like to say a word about sites of special scientific interest—about habitat protection. The whole of Part I of the Bill is of not very much use without some effective protection of wildlife habitats. The question of compulsion keeps being raised here. We have not in this area, as in others, pursued the amendments which this party thinks would be sensible to protect wildlife habitats, such as extension of planning control over agriculture and forestry. We did not press that to a Division, for example. We again tried to support amendments moved by noble Lords opposite which we thought would gain support from all sides of the House. Those amendments did not do anything to compel farmers or landowners to protect such sites. All they were designed to do was to compel farmers and landowners to give notice before they destroyed those sites.
  The issue of compulsion versus voluntary procedures has got extremely confused, particularly as we now have a Government voluntary code of practice written into a statute, which seems at least one contradiction in terms if not about three in one. I do not believe that the voluntary code will work. I am convinced it is a recipe for disaster. It will be a disaster for farmers
  98
  because inevitably the code itself will be broken. Not everyone will give notice, and the people who will get the blame then will be farmers and landowners. It will be a disaster for farmers because SSSIs will continue to be damaged and destroyed.
  If 30 per cent. were damaged and destroyed in a single county last year, I cannot believe that anybody seriously expects a voluntary code to thwart that process next year, and again farmers and landowners will get the blame for that. Of course, this approach will be a disaster for sites of' special scientific interest, for wildlife habitats and for wildlife that depends on them, because they will not be protected at all. We shall not even be given any advance warning about their destruction. We do not have anything in the Bill which would protect them.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that we should pay more attention to what the Government's statutory advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, have to say. On the whole, we have paid very close attention to them. This is the one area where the Government have totally ignored their advice, and their advice is that without some adequate protection for these sites we shall see massive extinctions of British wild animals and insects and birds before the end of this century.
  That is what the Government's statutory advisers say about the Bill as it stands. I cannot believe that that is acceptable to anyone in this House when they think about it, and certainly not to the country as a whole where there is tremendous concern about this. I hope that that countrywide concern will be reflected in the steps another place take in looking at that part of the Bill. But I think that our work on it has been worthwhile, and I reiterate my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and his colleagues for the considerate way they have dealt with our amendments, and particularly to their staff and advisers who have had to deal with an enormous amount of work and in a relatively short space of time. We are very grateful indeed to all of them. I hope that, when the Bill comes back from another place, apart from the one or two improvements I have mentioned, we do not have to go through too long a string of amendments.
  7.55 p.m.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, your Lordships' House is much given to self-congratulation at all moments of the day or night on its progress through Bills, and how helpful everyone has been. It is not always justified, but with this Bill it really has been. This Bill has done a tremendous amount. What is more, it has not been the work of just a few people, but it has been the hard work of a large number of people in many parts of the House. Because there are so many I shall not weary your Lordships by going through a list, except that I am, in private affection as in duty, bound to thank my noble friends Lord Winstanley, Lord Foot and Lord Avebury, for their great help during the passage of this Bill, and I suppose to a certain extent my noble Scottish friends for stimulation, if nothing else.
  I should just like to mention two other Members of your Lordships' House. First, I think that Lord Melchett's knowledge and understanding of the Bill has impressed everybody. In fact there were times when he clearly knew more about it than the Government

  99
  Front Bench, and possibly even the civil servants' box. In addition to that, there has been the work of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. All the Members of the Government Bench who have dealt with it have been understanding and helpful and able, but the noble Earl, Lord Avon, joins my private pantheon of, I think it is now, five Ministers who in the course of my 13 years in your Lordships' House, I regard as models of what Ministers answering questions and dealing with Bills should be. It is a bit early. He may lose his place, but certainly on this Bill he has done wonders, not only for the Bill but also to help your Lordships' House to get the best out of itself and out of its speakers in dealing with it.
  As noble Lords have said, this has not been a party Bill. It has sometimes been a Lobby Bill. Lobbies oppose each other. There have been quite a lot of moments when we have come together, but I have always thought of that song in the musical, "The Farmers and the Cowboys should be Friends", where they all dance round in circles and then, if I remember rightly, the whole thing breaks up the next day and they all go back to shooting each other. The farmers and conservers have in fact worked quite well together during large parts of the passage of this Bill, and probably can do so even more in the future.
  Speaking as a conserver, of course one understands the farmers' point of view, particularly if one takes the view that certainly I take, that the pressure is far too much economically on farmers, and that there should be a different kind of agricultural set-up which would not put the pressure so much in their efforts on getting the last little bit of food out of the ground. I hope that they understand the conservers' point of view, which is the very strong one that what we are defending so often is irreparable. The things we are trying to stop being abolished, if they are abolished, will never come back again. That is the urgency on our side. If we have sometimes seemed to them to be a little too pressing, I hope that they will accept that that is the reason.
  I have only one point of substance to make, and that is very much the same as the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made. It is the back-up position of compulsion on sites of special scientific interest. That particular point of view has been defeated, but in its defeat there have been widespread discussions, and well reported discussions, of what is actually happening in the countryside. We take what the farmers have been saying very seriously, and we know that obviously as a result of this Bill there will be a large amount of improvement in the lamentable situation that has been occurring over the last few years.
  But we must say that it really is the last chance, or the last chance but one, for the conservation of British wildlife in a countryside and agriculture which is putting increasing pressures on the very existence of a great deal of wildlife. We hope that this is going to work. We hope that what the Government have said is right, and that the voluntary agreements will actually stand up, and the rate of decline will not only slow down but stop. This is the last opportunity for the voluntary agreements to work, and about that there is enough agreement in all parts of your Lordships' House, in all parties and in all interest groups. If it does not work
  100
  this time, another Government will have to do something much stronger, and I believe that many of your Lordships agree with that. In the meantime, we have done a job of which we can be proud and we are sending a better Bill to another place.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lord Craigton: My Lords, I wish briefly to add the thanks of CoEnCo and all conservationists for the help we have received on to the Bill, especially from the Government Front Bench; they have their own problems and I know they have their own colleagues to deal with and will have to get the Bill through another place: I have been very conscious of how far they have bent over backwards to meet us. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who, in co-ordinating his linked committee of CoEnCo, has been able to express not only his own views but those of all the conservation bodies in this country, and to that extent your Lordships have benefited.
  I have two regrets. One is about the SSSIs, and I shall not say anything about that, and the other is that, so far as bats are concerned, the Bill leaves this House in a faulty and unfinished state. Things have come to my notice that I did not know, even on Report. For instance, last week, 120 scientists representing 16 European countries held a symposium about bats and came down with exactly those arguments that we tried to put over as to why they should be further protected. In addition, the Dutch Nature Conservancy Act of 15th November 1967—I have just discovered this—carries out exactly what we wanted to do regarding bats in households, and carries it out in the way we proposed. I hope that when the Bill reaches another place something will be done to clear up the business of bats living in householders' roofs. Apart from that, I wish again to thank all concerned for the help that has been given.
  8.3 p.m.
  Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I welcomed the Second Reading and now I welcome the Third Reading even more, and I join the tributes that have been paid to both Front Benches. I recall my noble friend Lord Avon complaining at one point that he was being sniped at from behind as well as in front, and that was true at one stage. However, he came through it unscathed and smiling. Likewise, the Opposition Front Bench has been as well informed as it has been constructive.
  I have two major reservations, however, about the Bill, and I appreciate this opportunity to mention them briefly. The first is about habitat protection. Where Clauses 28 and 29 are concerned, I share the serious doubts that have been expressed about the effectiveness of the voluntary code, even with the back-up of designation orders, and I have two reasons for saying that. The first is that we do not yet know whether all owners or occupiers of all SSSIs will be expected under the code to inform the NCC if they wish to do something contrary to the advice they have received. That is absolutely essential if it is to work. It would rectify the absurd situation in which only those who want capital grants for improvements now have to inform the NCC or even ADAS of their plans. How can anyone justify that?

  101
  As for the wider countryside, which includes the SSSIs, the Government have still not fulfilled their clear promise to give ADAS definite responsibility for promoting nature conservation, as recommended in the Strutt Report and accepted by the Government and by the previous Administration, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to that. ADAS lost what responsibilities they had in this connection when the need for prior notification of applications for grant aid was ended last summer, and I hope my noble friend can reassure me on both those related points.
  My second reason for doubts about the habitat protection measures is related to the designation orders. I shall not join in the numbers game—it would not help to do so—but I would like an assurance from the Government that it is not intended to impose any arbitrary limits on the use of them. Will my noble friend confirm that where a valuable site is eligible for a designation order, there will be no hesitation in making one to counter a known or potential threat, even though, as we know, the ultimate safeguard must rest on whether there are sufficient resources or not? Given those assurances, the accelerating and wholly unacceptable rate of habitats loss, which really cannot be questioned, should be brought under control and we shall all be in the conservation business together, which is what everybody wants. If, however, in a year or two that can be shown not to be the case, the Government will be bound to amend the law and think again.
  A point which has not yet been touched on is the Nature Conservancy Council's resources. As noble Lords know, I am a member of the council; our vice-chairman would have liked to have been here to make this speech, but cannot be, and I shall be as brief as I can in summing this up. As legislators, we are sometimes fairly accused of passing laws without ensuring the resources to make them effective, and I fear that today we are falling into that very trap. The NCC is the principal agency responsible for making the Bill work. We have extended the protection of the law to more plants and animals and therefore the need for licensing and the necessary monitoring. We have given the NCC new responsibilities for the birds and animals advisory committees; we have given them new enforcement functions; we have given them the heavy task of advising all owners and occupiers of SSSIs anew about the scientific interest of their land and, an entirely new requirement, the activities which might damage that land, a suggestion which I made on Second Reading and which I am glad to see in the Bill; and—and this is by no means the whole list—we have given the NCC a brand new and major role in setting up marine nature reserves, something which I, like most noble Lords, warmly welcome.
  I know the NCC are happy to take on those extra statutory duties, but they are seriously and rightly worried, as our chairman has told the understanding Secretary of State, that their over-stretched resources simply cannot be stretched any further. I feel it right at this stage that Parliament should know that that is the case. In spite of the strictest economies we have been able to make, including cutting our staff by 13 per cent., we are in a position where we cannot see the future clearly. Out of our annual grant of under £10½ million—the equivalent of the cost of a pint of
  102
  milk per day per head of population—we can afford only 5p in the pound for the critically important need for land grants and agreements. More than half our grant has to go on salaries and superannuation. Under the Financial Memorandum it is suggested that the extra cost to the council of making management agreements and acquiring land for habitat protection
  "might be of the order of £600,000 to £700,000 on average per year".
  That will be a real help, but the figure can be only a guess and it takes no account, as I see it, of any of the other duties which I have described. Thus, the NCC is not sitting on its hands hoping to win the pools, or something like that; we are actively pursuing the idea of commercial sponsorship for nature conservation, for which we have high hopes. We are trying to eliminate any remaining duplication with the work of the voluntary bodies and anyone else, and so on, but I shall not go into further detail about that. Something is going to snap before long unless full account is taken of what I have said, and I have no doubt it will be. I do not expect an answer today from the Government Front Bench, but I ask my noble friend to take what I have said into careful account, and I thought that when introducing the Third Reading he dropped a strong hint that that would be the case.
  The Bill will set the framework for nature conservation for the next decade or so. It is not in any way party political. I should deplore it if the Government were to use their influence in another place to reject the carefully thought out and fully debated amendments that we have passed. The Bill also puts Britain firmly back again in the forefront of those countries that are determined to carry out their national and international obligations, a position from which we were definitely beginning to slip. It will give untold pleasure to millions of people who enjoy and care about the countryside and its wildlife.
  8.9 p.m.
  Lord Hunt: My Lords, I feel that everything that ought to be said has been said The only omission I feel it right for me to make good is the fact that nothing has been said from this single Back Bench, and I shall be very brief because, as I explained at an earlier stage, I am still unacclimatised to and suffering from lack of breath at this altitude. I think it should be said from this new Bench that we are as appreciative as all other noble Lords who have expressed themselves grateful for the absolutely magnificant work done by the Government Front Bench and indeed by the Opposition Front Benches in getting the Bill through its various stages, through its long, weary progress.
  However, I think it only right that once again I should voice my lack of confidence, my doubts about the future. If I am any prophet, I would say that in the next four or five years the Government of the day will be constrained to bring in reserve powers in regard to the protection of both SSSIs and moorland in certain critical areas. I am talking not of areas where there is a very great deal of moorland left, but areas where very little is left, where the moorlands have shrunk to a critical level. The whole pattern

  103
  of the past shows that what I fear is likely to be the pattern for the future. However, nothing that I have said should detract from my admiration of the way in which may people, leaving out myself, have worked to get the Bill into better shape before it goes to the other place.
  8.11 p.m.
  Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to back up the plea of my noble friend Lord Chelwood that the Government ensure that the NCC receive the financial resources necessary to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I also wish to raise a point about SSSIs on tracts of hill country, where there are a great deal of flora and fauna, especially fauna. Will the Government ensure that when they are designating an SSSE they do not force the landowner, or the farmer, to grant too much access? It is of course human disturbance that destroys the fauna in these wild areas. I should like to stress that point, and I hope that the Government will take note of it.
  I must not sit down before congratulating my noble friend Lord Avon on the most remarkable and absolutely adept way in which he has presented the Bill. His achievement is the more amazing because this is the first time that he has presented a Bill. He has really been thrown in at the deep end, since this is a major Bill, but he has done extraordinarily well. I must also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He is really amazing and I cannot understand how he has any voice left. He must have been burning the midnight oil. He has shown a remarkable knowledge of wildlife and the countryside in general that I never realised he possessed, and I am really lost in admiration of his performance.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Avon and all his colleagues for the time that they have spent in dealing with very difficult and complicated points. I feel that the Bill would have been a better one and a different one had more finance been available. The Bill has shown up the deficiencies of some farmers and of the NCC, but let us hope that they will work much more closely together from now on. I know that every effort will be made by the famers, who are aware of their responsibilities. I know, too, that the National Farmers' Union will make every endeavour to get across to the farmers the points about the care that they must take with the countryside, and I have no doubt that the NCC will reciprocate.
  8.14 p.m.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, first, I should like to thank all noble Lords for their kind comments about me and my colleagues on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said how lucky it was that party points had not been pursued, but once or twice during the course of the debate I rather wished that I had had a party whipped in behind me. All kinds of facetious thoughts have gone through my mind. Being an ignorant Londoner, I thought of my favourite Yorkshire grouse being invaded by capercaillie, and that
  104
  alone had me in shivers. But I have learnt a great deal as a result of our discussions on the Bill.
  I should like to take a minute or so to answer one or two points which my noble friend Lord Chelwood made. First, with regard to the Strutt Report, the Government have endorsed the central recommendation of the report that ADAS should devote more resources to advising farmers on conservation matters as they bear on the service's basic role of helping to improve agricultural efficiency. Training schemes have already been set up to achieve that end, and more will be done as resources allow. The new arrangements for the capital grants scheme—that is, the ending of prior approval—will allow ADAS officers to devote more time for the conservation role.
  The Government recognise that additional tasks will devolve upon the NCC as a result of the passage of the Bill through this House. Of course, one must add that in the present economic climate it is not possible for me to say that more money will be made available for the NCC's annual grant. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take these additional tasks into account when considering the NCC's future level of grant. I should like to add that my right honourable friend has shown himself very aware in the area of conservation, more specifically in a recent speech on building. I am sure that the NCC can look forward to a fair share of the monies available to the Secretary of State himself and that those moneys will in turn be as substantial as the Secretary of State is able to obtain.
  I was asked about arbitrary limits on SSSIs. The figure of 30 or 40 was plucked entirely out of the air at a press conference, and there is no such limit on the number of special sites that might be designated. I was asked about the voluntary code. It will clearly enjoin all landowners on SSSIs—not only those who have a MAFF grant—to inform the NCC of damaging
  operations.
  In closing I should like to pay my tribute to the staff and advisers who have backed us up during the passage of the Bill and who have worked very long hours. Most of them live in Bristol, and no doubt they are delighted to hear that I might continue speaking with the result that they will be unable to catch their last train. Much has been said about the SSSIs. I should like to close by saying: Give the voluntary code a good chance! I believe that the very fact it is so urgent that the habitat should be protected will enhance the prospects of the voluntary code's success.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
  British Railways Victoria Bill [H.L.]
  Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.