Sitting of 10 March 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LLOYDS BANK BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    O-Level Mathematics
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of pupils in secondary schools in England took O-level mathematics in 1980; and what percentage achieved a pass.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): From the latest available information it is estimated that 31 per cent. of all English school leavers in 1978–79 had attempted O-level in mathematics, and 21 per cent. were awarded grades A to C.
    Mr. Madel: Do those figures indicate the percentage increase in the number of pupils who passed O-level mathematics in the past 10 years? Is it the Government's view that in-service training must be improved so that the quality of teachers improves, which will lead to more pupils passing examinations?
    Dr. Boyson: The figures for O-level passes last year were only half a percentage point higher than they were 10 years ago—[HON. MEMBERS:"NO".] I am sure that hon. Members are interested, so I repeat that the figure is only half a percentage point higher than 10 years ago for the number of pupils gaining O-level mathematics, grades A to C. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a requirement for more good maths teachers, and also for the retraining of existing teachers so that they become better maths teachers.
    Mr. Dixon: Will the Minister give an estimate of how many youngsters will not be taking CSEs after the Easter term because of the Social Security Act 1980? What advice will he give to head teachers about advising youngsters to return to school after Easter to take examinations? Is he aware that if they do they will be denied social security benefit until the first week in September?
    Dr. Boyson: Any headmaster who has a pupil in his school likely to pass GCE O-level mathematics should
    740
    suggest that the pupil stays at school and passes his examination. That is the beginning of a good future education.

    School Standards (Reports)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now arrange for reports of Her Majesty's inspectors about standards in schools to be published annually.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind Her Majesty's inspectorate's reports on the effects on the education service of local authority expenditure policies. I shall consider the question of publication of any future years' reports at the time of their preparation.
    Mr. Price: Does the Secretary of State agree that it does not make sense to publish information one year and then to deny the public that information in future years? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman's forthcoming statement on the curriculum define the legal basis of the curriculum? Is music part of the curriculum.
    Mr. Carlisle: The first point made by the hon. Gentleman will be taken into consideration. He would not expect me, at this stage, to commit myself or any successor, to such publication. On his second point, the curriculum document does not attempt to alter any legal definition or provisions for education.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Did my right hon. and learned Friend need to take advice to answer that question? If so, what proportion of those who advised him were at work yesterday?
    Mr. Carlisle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I am glad to say that 66 per cent. of the civil servants in the Department of Education and Science at Elizabeth House were truly working yesterday. That is a commendation of their sense of responsibility and common sense.
    Mr. Kinnock: In furtherance of the question raised by my hon. Friend for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), will the Secretary of State ensure that future reports similar to the one that we recently received will be published so that there can be year-on-year accounting to the general public, the teaching profession, the interested community and parents, as well as hon. Members, of the way in which financial policies affect the standards of provision and performance in schools? In the event of next year's report being published and demostrating a further deterioration, what will he do? Will he remain inactive, as he has been this year?
    Mr. Carlisle: We shall consider at the appropriate time whether the future report should be published. I find it somewhat odd that the hon. Gentleman should attempt to tie any successors to the publication of the report when my predecessor chose never to publish it.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

    School Uniform Grants
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local authority education departments no longer provide school uniform grants.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): This information is not available within my Department.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that in areas in which clothing grants of this sort are not available the wearing of school uniform should not be compulsory, bearing in mind that it is a heavy additional burden upon poorer families, especially in areas such as Leicestershire where the burden is already growing because of the Tory councils' cuts in education allocation?
    Mr. Macfarlane: Yes, I accept the main thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I accept that it is a heavy burden on many families. For that reason, there is no statutory provision by the Government concerning the wearing of school uniform. The power to decide whether to prescribe uniform dress is usually placed with the governors or the head teacher at each school, and I think that that is right. The Leicester local education authority may have ceased giving assistance with school clothing some time ago, but the authority advised all its schools to be flexible on school uniform demands.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that local authorities should provide uniform grants in the light of the fact that he is bringing before the House regulations that will require schools taking part in the assisted places scheme to pay means-tested school uniform grants to every pupil eligible for them?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise because it is not the Government's intention to make a central imposition. Therefore, the rest of the supplementary question does not arise.

    Education Resources
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the volume of resources available for education at primary and secondary level in the light of the recent report of Her Majesty's inspectors.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: In 1980–81, the year to which the report relates, we had planned to spend more on our schools than in 1978–79, even though pupil numbers were expected to fall by nearly 5 per cent. Planned expenditure on schools in the immediate future years is again necessarily limited by what the country can afford but continues to allow for a higher cost per pupil in school than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Miller: As so many parents are concerned about the pupil-teacher ratio and as such a high proportion of resources goes into the payment of teachers, can my right hon. and learned Friend give us any good news about the pupil-teacher ratio in this year and the following year?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said in Thursday's debate, the pupil-teacher ratio in 1979–80 was the best ever at 18·7:1. The figures for this year will be better still at 18·6:1, which will be the lowest ever pupil-teacher ratio in this country.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the cuts in education are revealed clearly in the inspectorate's report which we debated last Thursday? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the cuts bear most heavily on the most needy section of the community, and that equipment,
    742
    books and all the other items that education needs are sinking lower and lower in the list of provisions? Is not that disgraceful when compared with the assisted places scheme, on which more money will go to provide education, when the majority of children will be made to suffer while a select minority benefit?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House a repeat of the speech that he made on Thursday. I am bound to say that it sounds no better the second time. I do not accept what he says. I have always accepted that reducing expenditure on education is bound to have some effect on the standard of provision, but I do not accept that we are unduly penalising one section of society.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, whenever his inspectors visit a school, a report of their visit is supplied to the governors.
    Mr. Carlisle: Whenever the inspectors report on anything that they find in a school the report is made available to the head teacher, the staff and, I think, to the governors.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will not the Government's plan to close 1,000 primary schools in the implementation of public spending cuts have an adverse effect on the pupil-teacher ratio?
    Mr. Carlisle: In January the pupil-teacher ratio was at its lowest ever at 18·6:1 compared with 18·9:1 when the previous Labour Government left office. We must make some reductions in the number of schools because of the enormous fall in the number of pupils of primary school age. If we can achieve that rationalisation, it will have a helpful effect on class sizes.

    Departmental Economies
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals have been made by Sir Derek Rayner for economies in his Department; what progress has been made; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Three scrutinies under the guidance of Sir Derek Rayner have been undertaken in my Department, on the administration of the teachers' pension scheme, the administration of student awards, and the Department's statistical service. An action document has been issued following the pensions scrutiny and the findings of the other two are under review.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply. Is he able to say what the result of the pension scrutiny—which will affect teachers in the private sector—is likely to be? Is he able to give the House any information on the result of the discussions that took place recently with the Minister of State?
    Mr. Carlisle: No. I cannot give that information without a specific question being tabled. I am prepared to send a copy of the action document to the hon. Lady. The document sets out a discussion between Sir Derek Rayner and the Minister of State on various aspects of the recommendations.

    Teachers (School Meals)
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the cost of providing free school meals to those teachers in schools in England and Wales who receive them.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The estimated cost to local education authorities in England is about £27 million. Questions about Wales are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to answer.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that although teachers who have responsibility for supervision at meal times have some legitimate claim for a free meal, the system is being abused and a great saving could be made by local authorities if they insisted that only those who supervise during meal times have a free meal?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Those engaged on supervisory duties are entitled to free school meals. The entitlement to a free meal was confirmed by an agreement in 1968 between representatives of local education authorities and of the teachers. If there are abuses, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will no doubt make them known to those responsible for administering the services in the local education authority.

    16 to 19-Year-Olds
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in his consultations on the report on education for 16 to 19-year-olds, he will pay special regard to the need to make provision for this age group to meet the needs of industrial training for the 1990s.
    Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are anxious that the education service should provide the vocational education required by the nation in the years ahead. The education service already makes a vital contribution and it is our intention to play a full part in further development.
    Mr. Wainwright: When will the Government act on the report? Is he aware that any cuts in education deal harshly with youths aged between 16 and 19 years? Does he accept that Britain has fewer youths entering further education than any other country in Western Europe? When will the Government do something about it?
    Mr. Macfarlane: First, the Government did not ask for formal comments on the 16–19 review, which I chaired for 22 months. I welcome the discussion which it has aroused among local education authorities. The review group acknowledged that it is vital that the views of those concerned are heard freely and clearly. Many local authorities have been engaged in this assessment over the past few years. Some aspects of it are now coming to fruition. No doubt other authorities will scale up their activity over the next few years. I have acknowledged that our record, when compared with that of other Western industrialised countries, leaves much to be desired. I hope that local education authorities will acknowledge the importance of post-16 training, as did our manifesto commitment. The Conservative Party said that a Conservative Government would review the relationship between schools, further education and training. That was a distinct manifesto commitment.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that in practice there is a close enough working relationship between the Manpower Services Commission and the individual local education authorities to ensure that the post-16 training given to our young people will equip them with real jobs in the next century?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The Government and the Manpower Services Commission, the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science, are considering possible new initiatives on vocational preparation for young people. A more flexible attitude to apprenticeships and adult retraining is included. I hope that the special programmes board will include a greater representation of those responsible for the education service.
    Mr. Whitehead: As we understand that the MSC will propose a 10-year course which will lead to an additional year of full-time educational training, what is the response of the Department to those proposals, particularly in view of the differential rewards now achieved by people on MSC courses as against those in full-time education?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not prepared to anticipate anything at the moment. The matter will have to be assessed over the next few months.

    School Meals
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children were in receipt of free school meals in England for the last date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Macfarlane: In October 1980, 724,257 pupils in England were receiving a free school meal, which represents a slightly higher proportion of pupils present than was the case in October 1976.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not the Minister agree that it is hardly surprising that that represents an increase, although a small one, in view of the large number of people who are unemployed and are now on social security? Does the Minister also accept that many local authorities have made it harder for people to qualify for free school meals by failing to increase the criteria in line with inflation?
    Mr. Macfarlane: We have discussed that problem before at Question Time. I tell the House once again that each local education authority is responsible for determining its own policy for entitlement to free school meals. I am happy to repeat that two-thirds of the authorities in England have adopted criteria of entitlement which are more generous than the statutory minimum.
    Mr. Mellor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large number of children currently receiving free school meals makes it clear that that service is as widely available as it needs to be? Does he not agree that, given the costs to the community of providing that concession, it makes nonsense of the proposals of some Labour local authorities, such as the Inner London Education Authority, arbitrarily to reduce the price of school meals, at enormous cost to the ratepayers?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend. Anything which increases the costs to the

    745
    ratepayers, as well as proposals such as those by the ILEA to reduce the price of school meals to 25p, is unreasonable and unrealistic in this day and age.
    Mr. Field: Is the Minister being straight with the House when he says that that is a local authority matter? Is he not aware that his Department issued guidelines for local authorities on eligibility for free school meals and that, now those have been implemented, there has been a fall of nearly 200,000 in the number of children who previously claimed free school dinners and who are not doing so now?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That figure has fluctuated over the past 10 or 11 years. The hon. Gentleman knows from the reply which I gave him on 20 February and from the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) gave him on 23 January, that the figures have fluctuated. However, the guidelines have been an integral part of the Department of Education and Science, following the passage of the Education (No. 2) Act 1980, which transferred to local authorities the responsibility for determining their policy.

    Research Scientists
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps, in conjunction with the University Grants Committee and the research councils, to ensure that research scientists on publicly funded projects are permitted and encouraged to share financially in the results of their work, both corporately and individually.
    Mr. Macfarlane: Employees of the research councils and the universities are covered by sections 39 to 41 of the Patents Act 1977, which entitles them to a fair share of the benefit their employer derives from inventions patented under that Act.
    Sir David Price: In the light of my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask if he is aware that I know of instances in public research establishments where a more fruitful partnership with private industry is being frustrated by the rigidity of the financial rules? Perhaps the responsibility is not that of my hon. Friend but of the Treasury.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The responsibilities overlap a number of Departments, including the NRDC, and universities and the research councils, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility. I am aware of some of the anomalies. That matter was considered by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in 1976, when it produced a report on patents and the commercial exploitation of research results. There is an ongoing discussion at the moment to see whether there could be any alterations to those procedures and regulations relating to inventions made by members of staff. That matter is under review.
    Mr. Nelson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that where no patents are taken out, or where the question of patents does not arise in funding, no undue restrictions are attached to funding made by either the University Grants Committee or the research councils?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. It takes several years to grant a patent. So far, no employees have benefited from that provision because
    746
    the Act came into force in June 1978. A number of exgratia awards have been made to inventors, but suffice it to say that my Department is keeping the matter closely under review.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend gently suggest to his officials that the Department of Education and Science could give a lead by deleting from parliamentary answers such words and phrases as"ongoing", and"this moment in time"?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I detect a note of acrimony from my hon. Friend. We shall make not a gentle observation, but a most robust suggestion.

    Education Standards
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in improving education standards since he took office.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Although expenditure on education is necessarily restricted to what the country can afford, the Government remain committed to the objective of maintaining and improving the quality of education.
    Mr. Evans: Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the growing feeling of hundreds of thousands of parents to the effect that, far from their children's education standards improving under the Tory Government, they are being savagely attacked?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. I accept what I said last Thursday, that clearly there is evidence that, whereas overall the situation is satisfactory, in certain areas there is evidence of weakness in school provision. I repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman on that occasion, that it does not benefit the case to exaggerate.
    Mr. William Shelton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend cast his mind back to the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate report on the Inner London Education Authority and the criticism in it? Does not he agree that there is far more to education standards than just the money involved?
    Mr. Carlisle: I certainly agree. As my hon. Friend says, the Her Majesty's Inspectorate report on ILEA highlighted that matter clearly.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State remains somewhat self-satisfied. Does he accept that the inspectorate's report was not exaggerating and that it specified adverse curriculum effects in science and maths as well as in the minority subjects? Does he think that the Government's commitment to maintaining and improving the standard of education can be taken seriously when that report says that in large areas of provision, the provision is unsatisfactory and that, even where it is satisfactory, further cuts are depressing standards of opportunity and provision, afflicting our children as a result?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have never suggested that the inspectorate's report was in any way exaggerated. I have always suggested that it was an objective report, and I published it on that basis. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is right. It pointed out certain areas where there were shortages in certain institutions, against the background of a generally satisfactory situation in the vast majority of institutions. The real difference between the hon.

    747
    Gentleman and myself, as he said in the debate last Thursday, is that he objected to my saying that we should only spend on education what we can afford as a country. To object to that is a recipe for higher rates, higher taxes, higher inflation and higher unemployment.
    Mrs. Knight: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted recent reports that certain ethnic groups in schools where an overwhelming majority of pupils is from another ethnic group are suffering as a result of falling standards'? Will he consider that matter and try to do something about it?
    Mr. Carlisle: I have seen those reports. The matter relates to the Schools Council report which was published yesterday. I shall study its implications. I have also received the interim report by the Rampton committee on the education of West Indian children. I shall also study that report.

    Examination Results (Publication)
    Mr. Butcherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will require subjects taken and grades achieved in public examinations to be published by secondary schools.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend is proposing to do so.
    Mr. Butcher: Is my hon. Friend aware that his unequivocal statement will be welcomed by the vast majority of parents and that the provision of the information will be of great benefit to the education service as a whole?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. It is the intention that each maintained school will provide annually the most recently available grading results obtained by pupils in GCE and CSE examinations and will also show the number of pupils in the relevant age groups.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that exam results are not the sole criterion of good education standards? Is he aware that, by adopting that policy, he is trying to turn maintained schools into the shoddy little private prep schools that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends so much favour?
    Dr. Boyson: I have never taught in or sent my children to these"little private prep schools", which must be found in the hon. Gentleman's area. I agree entirely that, as well as academic standards, sport, art, music and the relationship between staff and children are also important in schools. However, a pupil will not go to university unless he first gets O and A-levels.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend accept that under the comprehensive system there are good schools and poor schools? Does he also accept that the publication of examination results, together with our policies on parental choice, can only benefit the good schools?
    Dr Boyson: I agree entirely. There are good comprehensive schools, many of which will be glad to have their results known publicly. As my hon. Friend knows, I had the privilege to be the head of one such comprehensive school.
    Mr. Flannery: Why is the Minister so coy about private schools? Why is it only maintained schools that
    748
    will have to publish their results, when the Minister knows that such schools vary according to area, no matter how good the teaching? Is it not a fact that all except two members of the Cabinet went to private schools and that it intends to help those schools at the expense of maintained schools?
    Dr. Boyson: I never knew that I was coy, but perhaps compared with the hon. Gentleman I am. Private schools involved in the assisted places scheme will also have to publish their results. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know what is happening in such schools, he should support the assisted places scheme instead of complaining about it.

    School Materials (Parental Subscriptions)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has of schools issuing requests for parental subscriptions for essential school materials as a response to education cuts.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Many schools now invite parents and others to make voluntary contributions to school funds. It has, however, long been the practice in many schools to ask pupils to provide, or pay for, materials for such activities as craft and cookery, where the pupil may take home the finished product.
    Mr. Beith: Does not the Secretary of State recognise the legal obligation on education authorities to provide the basic essentials of education? Does he not in any case recognise that, if schools increasingly look to parents for a direct financial contribution, poorer parents will be frightened to send their children to the best schools?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I have said before, the fact that parents may or may not contribute money towards schools in no way absolves a local education authority from its statutory duty under section 8 of the 1944 Act. However, that is no reason for attempting to discourage parents from making additional contributions. Some schools receive greater parental contributions than others, but there is no reason why we should discourage that.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: With the pressure on resources, has my right hon. and learned Friend yet had time to consider whether he can do anything to counteract the effects of the High Court judgment against the county of Hereford and Worcester last week in respect of a parental contribution towards special music teaching?
    Mr. Carlisle: I cannot add to what I said last Thursday. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider the full transcript of the judgment of Mr. Justice Forbes, which is clearly important.
    Mr. Whitehead: When a headmaster writes to parents inviting them to pay for essential textbooks and states that the contributions are voluntary but that to be effective they must be made by all parents, is it not a levy and, as such, against the Act?
    Mr. Carlisle: The law is clear. An authority cannot charge a fee for education. However, there is nothing under this Act or the local government legislation that prevents parents from providing money if they choose.
    Mr. John Townend: In view of the continuous improvement in the teacher-pupil ratio, does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that in the areas where there is a shortage of resources for books and materials the local

    749
    authority should consider employing fewer teachers with an equivalent increase in expenditure on books and materials?
    Mr. Carlisle: That is a matter for the individual local education authority. There has been less expenditure on books than on certain other aspects of education. In our planning we have assumed an increase in expenditure in that area.

    Selective Education (Bristol)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking in consultation with the Avon education committee to bring about the end of selective education in the Bristol north central area by the combination of Cotham grammar school and Fairfield grammar school as one comprehensive school on a split site basis.
    Dr. Boyson: None, Sir. It is for the Avon local education authority to decide whether it wishes to retain or change the organisation of secondary education in the Bristol north central area and, if necessary, to make proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980.
    Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Bristol was a pioneer in comprehensive education, that the anomaly has existed or a long time, that it is greatly disliked by many parents in the area and that the old Bristol education authority would have done away with it long ago? Should not Avon take action?
    Dr. Boyson: Anomalies are part of a free society. The democratically elected education authority in Bristol is Avon. If the authority wished to change the system it could bring forward proposals. It clearly does not wish to do so.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in Bristol are of the opinion that the only thing worse than the present situation would be a botched-up, split site, comprehensive school?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. When I was privileged to visit my hon. Friend's constituency I consulted people in Bristol. It is clear that my hon. Friend knows exactly what is happening there.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from overseas are currently studying at United Kingdom universities and polytechnics on first degree courses; and what was the figure for the same time in 1980.
    Dr. Boyson: In October 1980 there were provisionally estimated to be 16,500 overseas students at undergraduate level studying at United Kingdom universities in the current education year. The corresponding figure for October 1979 was 17,500. In the polytechnic sector there were 9,900 such students in 1980–81, compared with 12,500 in the previous year.
    Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that I am grateful to him for that detailed and satisfactory response? Does he agree that higher education in the United Kingdom gives good value and that that has long been found to be so by overseas students? Does he accept that the figures that he has read out indicate that the scaremongering of the Opposition was groundless?
    Dr. Boyson: I, too, commend the value of British university and polytechnic education. It is among the best, if not the best, in the world. We are monitoring the number of overseas students coming here so that we are aware of changes from year to year.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is not the truth that wealthy students from overseas are able to come as before but that poor ones cannot?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that last week the Foreign and Commonwealth Office increased from £34 million to £42 million the money allocated next year for overseas students on Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships. I am sure that the whole House will commend the increase.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be special exemptions to the policy? Is he aware that the island of Sri Lanka, which has been under Communist rule for many years, has finally broken free and is emerging as one of our dependencies? Is it not possible to make an exemption for an island that is abysmally poor through bad government in the past?
    Dr. Boyson: Sri Lanka has its own universities. I was there for some time, and the Secretary of State was there last year. Also, if one makes special exceptions, there is then the question of Hong Kong, the dependencies, Cyprus, and so on. Through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we are helping all parts of the Commonwealth. The Department also has a scheme to help research scholars coming here, from wherever they come, who pay the home fees.
    Mr. Ennals: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that it is not just poor students who are suffering but poor countries? Is he aware that wherever one travels in the developing world, one of the things that is said first of all is how much students want to come to this country and how many are now being denied that opportunity, to the great disadvantage eventually of our own country and our own trade?
    Dr. Boyson: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the fall in numbers of undergraduate students at our universities this year as compared with last year is only 7 per cent. There were four applications for every place last year. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the previous scheme, which continued under the Labour Government, there were indiscriminate subsidies to people coming here. Those students had to pay for their travel here, their hospitality in this country and the home fee, which amounted to £3,000 or £4,000 in any case, so it was not a subsidy to the poor.

    Secondary Schools (Parental Assessment)
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied that the information required to be published by secondary schools is sufficient to enable parents and parents-to-be to assess the performance of the schools.
    Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend's intention is to prescribe by regulations to be made under section 8 of the Education Act 1980 the minimum information which parents need when they consider which school they wish their child to attend. He is at present

    751
    considering the content of these regulations in the light of reactions to a consultative document issued last year, and hopes to make the regulations by about Easter.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the maximum amount of information is of essential importance to parents if they are to exercise their choice properly under the Education Act 1980? Will he make certain that the maximum possible amount of information is provided with regard to examination results and that it is presented in such a way as to enable proper comparisons to be made?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. We believe that the information that we are planning to make available will enable parents to make an informed choice of school and also contributes to the development of good and mutually supportive relationships between parents and schools. We hope that the regulations will make those points abundantly clear when they are produced by Easter.

    Student Grants and Loans
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on his review of student grants and loans.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has now rejected proposals for loans rather than grants for the maintenance of first degree students.
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to bring his consideration of this matter to a conclusion in the near future.
    Mr. Taylor: Before making a decision on loans, will the Minister take account of the costs which would be involved in establishing a structure for considering cases of hardship? Will he also consider the very substantial problems which would arise if graduates moved abroad to take up employment in the EEC or elsewhere?
    Dr. Boyson: I take into consideration the points that have been made by my hon. Friend with regard both to hardship and to graduates moving abroad. Those matters form part of the many considerations that we are at present taking into account.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister do a little more of the thinking aloud for which he is so famous and tell us how the proposals for loans that he is now considering would increase the take-up of university places by poorer students who currently receive the full mandatory grant?
    Dr. Boyson: Compared with other countries in Europe, including countries such as Sweden which have a loan system, the percentage of working class children going to university is lower in this country. The present scheme, therefore, does not work. Clearly, this is a matter of concern to both sides of the House. Nobody can say that the present scheme is taking up poorer children now, because the percentage is dropping.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is there any truth in the assertion that the Department is contemplating treating students from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands as foreign students and not even extending to them advantages to be enjoyed by students from the EEC? If so, is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would
    752
    regard such treatment of British youngsters who have long enjoyed traditional rights in this country as wrong? Will he look at this matter again?
    Dr. Boyson: There are special arrangements on education funding between the mainland and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but I am sure that we shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I share his sentiments on this matter.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Despite the assurances that the Minister has given will he further support the provision for overseas students coming to the United Kingdom— [HON. MEMBERS:"Reading."] Yes, I will read the figures. Let us have them out.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has committed himself out of his own mouth. He must try to remember them.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that applications by overseas students to Lancaster university fell by 68 per cent. in the current year—in accounting by 42 per cent. and in economics by 56 per cent.? Does not this fall in support for overseas students coming to the United Kingdom totally undermine the possibility of good relations between this country and other Governments in the future?
    Dr. Boyson: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. But last year, in certain establishments such as the London School of Economics the numbers on some courses almost doubled, while at others the numbers fell. I shall be interested to find out at the end of the year whether the figures for other universities have risen and whether those for Lancaster have fallen.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. William Sheltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Shelton: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend turn her thoughts to Lambeth? Is she aware that NALGO—with, I fear, the tacit support of Lambeth council—is still totally blocking any action on council house sales? Does she agree that this is a denial of the rights of the tenants and citizens of Lambeth and indeed the tenants of all Socialist councils which are behaving in the same way, and a denial of the will of the electorate as expressed at the last general election?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that all responsible trade union officials and all responsible political parties will combine to see that tenants are able to have their legal rights and to purchase their council houses. Any other action would be a denial of democracy.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Prime Minister explain why one of her Ministers, the Secretary of State for Social Services, refuses to intervene when local authorities neglect their

    753
    mandatory responsibilities to disabled people, while another of her Ministers, the Secretary of State for the Environment, insists upon intervening when local authorities do not sell council houses quickly enough? Is this politics by paradox or by prejudice?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that all my Ministers are right in their respective spheres.
    Mr. Grieve: Will my right hon. Friend find time in a busy day to convey to those who have the privilege of serving in our security and monitoring services that the public expects of them a measure of loyalty, patriotism and devotion to duty and deplores the fact that, in pursuit of their sectional interests, some of them abandoned their posts yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously I join my hon. and learned Friend in deploring the strike which took place yesterday, but I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the vast numbers of people who stayed at their posts and carried out their duties to the Government and to the people.
    Mr. Hooley: When the Secretary of State for Defence said that Britain would contribute a company to the rapid deployment force, which company did the Government have in mind? Was it Lonrho, Vestey or what?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that the question is hardly worth answering—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman looks at the full quotation, he will find that my right hon. Friend started with a company, and went on to a battalion and various other things. There seemed to be a rather rapid multiplication.
    Mr. Hannamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Apart from the current 7 per cent. pay offer, will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past two years civil servants have received pay increases of over 48 per cent.? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the country as a whole there is widespread condemnation of yesterday's strike, which was both unjustified and unjustifiable?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that the figure is about that which my hon. Friend has given. Of course, those who work in the public sector, particularly in the Civil Service, would point out that the rigid incomes policies of the Labour Government meant that they were grossly underpaid. That situation has now been remedied. I share my hon. Friend's view that at present there is no need for a strike on grounds of pay or conditions of service in the Civil Service.
    Mr. loan Evans: Has the right hon. Lady read the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on monetarism? The chairman of the 1922 Committee is a prominent member of that Select Committee. Has the right hon. Lady also read the intemperate remarks made by the chairman of the Conservative Party, Lord Thorneycroft? When the right hon. Lady spoke to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the weekend, to whom did she advise him to listen?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the transcript of the broadcast
    754
    made by my right Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) who is the chairman of that Select Committee. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that it supported the Government admirably.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read a report in the Daily Mirror to the effect that certain officials of the Confederation Of Health Service Employees, including the general secretary, are secretly operating a private medical scheme for its members? Does not that show confidence in the fact that the private medical system does have a part to play in the overall provision of health care in the country?
    The Prime Minister: I saw that report. I should stress that in a free country, people should be able to use their own money to provide for their hospital or medical treatment. That will be ensured for as long as this Government continue in office.
    Mr. Pavitt: As the Prime Minister is having meetings with her ministerial colleagues today, will she have a special session with the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is she aware that her declared policy of helping voluntary bodies is being sabotaged by the rate support grant? Money is required to prime the pump of voluntary bodies. Is she aware that voluntary servcies are being cut?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot see my right hon. Friend because I regret to say that I believe he has flu. However, the Government give grants of about £86 million to voluntary bodies in order that they can carry out their activities. In my view, that is £86 million well spent.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when members of the First Division Association, who have immensely privileged jobs in terms of honour, security and pensions, take what they describe as"industrial action", standards in public life have reached a new all-time low?
    The Prime Minister: Like my hon. Friend, I very much regret that that should have happened. I hope that the strike will not continue. Over the past two years, pay increases in the public sector have amounted to about 50 per cent. Therefore, the Government have properly looked after those who are expected to serve each and every Government in their honoured and distinguished capacity.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wainwright: In her quieter moments today, will the right hon. Lady consider the letter that has been sent by President Brezhnev? Does she believe that the strong words uttered by President Reagan and herself had some bearing on those peace proposals? Does the right hon. Lady believe that those peace proposals have been made through fear of the strength of the United States of America and of NATO, or because those statements had been made? Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that it is time that the Governments of the world started to talk at greater length about multinational disarmament, in order to ensure that peace can be brought about throughout the world?
    The Prime Minister: All Governments are entitled to make strong statements about the need to defend the way of life in which they believe, particularly when the potential aggressor spends so much more on defence, as a proportion of its gross national product, than this country. Yesterday, the Soviet ambassador came to see me and delivered a further letter. We had a quiet, courteous and businesslike meeting. He speaks very good English— [Interruption]—for which I am profoundly grateful. We shall, of course, consider his letter. As I made perfectly clear, this country is anxious and willing to consider reductions in the total level of armaments and to strike the balance at a lower level. However, we must be absolutely certain that those reductions will be properly monitored and verified. It would be an earnest of Soviet Russia's good intentions if it were to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend yet had an opportunity to read the latest volume of the Crossman diaries? If so, does she agree that an apology is due to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal for the miscarriage of justice done to his organisation in connection with the libel case referred to in those diaries? Does she not agree that an explanation and an apology—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows, as I have said before, that the Prime Minister can be questioned only about those matters for which she is responsible. I also said that about the previous Prime Minister.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend take time today, to ask whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is taking adequate steps to prevent foot and mouth disease, which is now active in Brittany, from spreading to Britain, and in particular to the West Country?
    The Prime Minister: I saw my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, this morning, but I confess that we did not discuss that subject. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend makes every effort to look after the farming community and does so extremely well.
    Mr. Alton: Has the right hon. Lady had time to consider the seriousness of the implications of the speech made over the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the tragic deaths of 13 black people in South
    756
    London? Is she happy with the investigation that is being conducted? Is she prepared to have an independent inquiry into those tragic deaths?
    The Prime Minister: It would be totally wrong to jump to any conclusions about a matter which is still under investigation. In this country one is still innocent until proved guilty. It would be quite wrong to add any inflammatory language to anything that is said. There are about 50 police officers investigating that case. They have taken about 600 statements. They are doing everything to find out the cause of the fire, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. That fire had particularly tragic effects.
    Mr. Foot: May I say to the right hon. Lady and to the House that I certainly did not wish anything that I said on Sunday to prejudge in any way the investigation that is taking place. Most of those who heard what I said could not have come to that conclusion. However, if any did reach that conclusion, I am happy to apologise. I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is of the utmost importance that this investigation should be carried out speedily and fairly. That was my desire.
    The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Did my right hon. Friend watch the interesting Panorama programme last night in which Friedrich Hayek indicated that a constructive and meaningful reform of industrial relations was vital if the economic policies of this Government were to succeed? Will she assure the House that she will have discussions in the near future with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in order to outlaw the closed shop, which I believe is an evil and an infringement of personal freedom, to which my right hon. Friend has referred so often?
    The Prime Minister: I did not see the broadcast, as I was in my constituency, but I am a great admirer of Professor Hayek. Some of his books are absolutely supreme—"The Constitution of Liberty" and the three volumes on"Law, Legislation and Liberty"—and would be well read by almost every hon. Member.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has put out consultations in the Green Paper on the closed shop, and I hope that those such as my hon. Friend, who have particular views on the matter, will make their views known to my right hon. Friend.

WAY AND MEANS
  Budget Statement
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind them that at the end of the Chancellor's speech, as in past years, copies of the Budget Resolutions will not be handed around in the Chamber but will be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  INTRODUCTION
  3.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The annual presentation of the Budget is rightly regarded as the principal economic act of Government. But every Chancellor—indeed, every Member of the House—very well understands that the economic well-being of the nation owes more, at the end of the day, to the spirit and vitality of its people than to any single act of Government. I do not seek, in saying that, in any sense to undervalue the proper role of Government, but simply to set it in perspective. What is the essential duty of Government is to provide responsible management of the financial framework within which the nation has to live. That duty must start from a sober and realistic assessment of the nation's economic condition. It is with that that I begin.
  First, there is the fight against inflation. We have made real progress. Prices are now rising only about half as fast as they were last summer. In the last year we have had the most rapid fall in inflation of any major country. Living standards in the personal sector as a whole are estimated to have risen in 1980 by a further 2 per cent. There have been fewer industrial disputes than at any time in the last 40 years. In 1980 Britain's exports increased in value, and held up in volume, and we achieved a record current account surplus of £2¾ billion. Many British companies are clearly facing the challenge with much more success than might have been expected.
  However, there are sharp contrasts. In 1980 total output in the United Kingdom fell by about 2½ per cent. and that of manufacturing industry by no less than 9 per cent. Interest rates have remained high. Many parts of industry have been extremely hard pressed. Although the latest figures suggest that the rise in unemployment may be slowing down, there are almost 1 million more people out of work than there were a year ago. For individuals, families, and sometimes for entire communities, this can mean real hardship. The Government share the nation's deep concern.

  WORLD DEVELOPMENTS
  But Britain is not alone in facing these problems. In the spring and summer of last year, output fell sharply in six out of seven of the major economies. Unemployment rose by about 3 million in the OECD countries during 1980. In the American motor industry alone, almost 200,000 workers lost their jobs. The average OECD inflation rate remains in double figures. This year the output of the European Community as a whole is not expected to show any improvement over 1980.
  A major cause of this world-wide setback is the enormous rise in oil prices in the last two years. The oil-producing countries of OPEC last year collected about 150 billion dollars more in export receipts than they did in 1978. That huge increase, and the surpluses that it created, mean that the rest of the world has had less to spend on other goods and services. At the same time, Governments have had to act firmly to counter the inflationary spiral set in motion by higher oil prices.
  Those are the main reasons why the OECD has estimated that the national product of the industrial countries this year will be at least 6 per cent. lower than it would have been without the latest oil price increases. That represents a very large enforced reduction in sales and output. It has inevitably meant a big jump in unemployment. Because we are a trading nation, the fact that we have our own oil cannot protect us from the slowdown in many of the markets to which we sell around the world.

  THE UNITED KINGDOM ECONOMY
  There are still many businesses in Britain that lead the world. But the obstacles to recovery are none the less greater here than in other countries. Many parts of our industry have long been less dynamic than theirs. Years of high inflation, low productivity and delayed change have made our economy especially vulnerable, and reduced its ability to compete in both home and overseas markets. And so we are suffering more than others.
  Those firms which have lagged behind have often been encouraged to do so in the misguided belief that change can be postponed indefinitely. Eventually, the combined pressures of competition and recession have compelled long-overdue moves to tackle these deep-seated weaknesses. They have been essential to the creation or preservation of secure jobs for the longer term. But, of course, the immediate effect has been to add to unemployment. Thus, nearly 300,000 jobs have been lost in the motor industry, steel, textiles and shipbuilding over the past 18 months.
  As a nation we have carried the process of weakening our own economy a long stage further in the three years before the recession started. In each of the last three pay rounds, earnings in manufacturing industry rose by over 14 per cent. while the underlying improvement in productivity has been little more than 1 per cent. British unit labour costs have risen more than twice as fast as those of our foreign competitors.
  Industry has had to adapt to a second huge increase in the price of energy. The world oil price is now three times what it was three years ago. Because of that, the North Sea has had the consequence of contributing to the sharp rise in sterling since 1977. Various other factors have also influenced the position of sterling, including changes in the fortunes of other major economies. Although the

  759
  strong pound has conferred some benefit on British industry through cheaper imported materials, it has, of course, imposed real difficulty on businesses that sell against international competitors. That has been particularly true of those industries that were still seriously overmanned.
  So, as consumers, we have benefited greatly from the strong pound and very often from large pay increases as well, while many companies have been hard pressed. Between 1977 and 1980, the real after-tax income of individuals rose by about one-sixth. But the real disposable income of industrial and commercial companies fell by one-quarter. And output rose by only 2 per cent. This contrast between the fortunes of individuals and businesses marks a striking imbalance. There is also a sharp difference—within the business sector itself—between the fortunes of the oil and banking sectors, on the one hand, and most manufacturing companies on the other.
  In these circumstances, many manufacturing businesses have had to take drastic action in order to survive and they have sharply reduced the number of jobs that they were able to provide. Many factories had already gone a long way towards pricing themselves out of the market by earlier pay settlements. Many of those who secured big pay increases may have improved their own standard of living, but only at the cost of pushing their fellow workers out of a job.
  Recently, however, there has been an increasingly constructive approach to these problems, at least in the private sector. The level of pay settlements has been falling significantly. Pay bargainers have begun to face up to the harsh truth that excessive pay is a major cause of unemployment. Most settlements in manufacturing since November have been below 10 per cent. That is in sharp contrast to the years that went before. Management and work force are at last joining together to tackle the problems of overmanning, restrictive practices, and out-of-date working methods. They understand that cutting unit labour costs is the way to become competitive again and to price themselves back into markets and jobs.
  But the nationalised industries, many of them monopolies, are not subject to the same market disciplines as the private sector. They have often been slow to adapt. And when eventually they do adjust, the financial and social costs can be very heavy. But the cost of delaying change has often been even greater, in terms of markets lost and jobs destroyed. It is the need to make nationalised industries more responsive to market disciplines which lies behind the Government's vigorous programme to increase competition in, for example, transport and telecommunications, and wherever possible to return parts of the State-owned sector to private enterprise.
  Nor have other parts of the public sector learnt these lessons at all quickly. Thus, the overall cost of the public sector has continued to grow in relation to the rest of the economy. Total spending programmes in 1980–81 are now expected to cost approaching £94 billion, compared with last year's Budget forecast of about £91½ billion. In addition, debt interest has cost £1 billion more than expected. The increase in the overall total would have been still greater had it not been for the notable success of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in negotiating refunds from the European Communities of some £600 million. The burden of public expenditure will be a recurrent theme in my speech.

  BUDGET STRATEGY
  It is against this background that I turn to the central objectives of my Budget.
  Some have urged that I should abandon the battle against inflation as our top priority and look instead for ways of expanding the economy. If this were the way to sustained recovery for British Industry, and so to the creation of more long-term jobs, I should certainly be ready to consider a change of course, because the well-being of our people and the health of our economy are more important than any Government's commitment to a particular strategy.
  But to change course now would be fatal to the whole counter-inflation strategy. Our problem in recent years has not been a lack of final demand. Since 1977, spending in the whole economy, in money terms, has risen by no less than 50 per cent. Most of the impact of that increase has been dissipated in higher prices. In so far as the volume of spending has increased, a large share of the extra has gone on imports. In the end, there has been very little effect on United Kingdom output.
  Just boosting demand would do nothing to remedy that problem. Rather, it would risk throwing away the real achievements that we have secured, without winning any compensating gains. In the past, Governments have too often deprived themselves and the British people of the success that they deserved because they abandoned the policies when the going got rough—when the sacrifices, in fact, had largely been made, but before the long-term benefits had begun to arrive. It would, indeed be a tragedy to inflict on ourselves a further dose of crippling inflation just at the time when, with resolution, our industry can be helped to take advantage of the more stable conditions, which should follow the easing of the present recession.
  I am, therefore, determined to sustain the firm action that is necessary to maintain our success in the battle against inflation. It is also essential this year to respond to the two imbalances in our economy that I have described: the imbalance between consumers and industry and the imbalance between the public and the private sectors. Moving towards a better balance must be the central purpose of this Budget.

  THE MEDIUM-TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND 1981–82 MONETARY TARGET
  There is now world-wide recognition that inflation is the enemy of growth and employment. And it is just as widely recognised that sustained monetary restraint is necessary if inflation is to be kept permanently under control. Of course, there is not a rigid relationship between money and prices. Of course, there are other influences on inflation, particularly in the short run. We always made that absolutely clear. But monetary policy is of fundamental importance. These principles apply to this country just as much as to any other.

  THE MEDIUM-TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY
  It is time for us to start thinking ahead to the advantages that can accompany a permanent reduction in inflation, for to live once again in a world that has banished the spectre of accelerating inflation must be our objective. We reaffirmed our commitment to that objective last year when we published the medium-term financial strategy. I am reaffirming it again today by taking the measures necessary to strengthen and carry forward that strategy.
  I have no doubt that the House will expect me to spend a little time on monetary matters. As the recent report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has shown clearly, this is an absorbing area of policy.
  Thanks to the tight financial conditions of the past 18 months, including the effects of the strong pound, we are well ahead in the battle against inflation. We have achieved that while reducing controls rather than by imposing them. But for a number of reasons related to the special circumstances of last year, the growth of sterling M3—the measure of money used to express the strategy—has been well outside the first year target range of 7–11 per cent. I said in November that I expected it to slow down in the new year. Recent figures, including the preliminary figures for banking February, published today, are fully consistent with that.

  MONETARY GROWTH IN 1980–81
  The first reason for rapid monetary growth over the year is the abolition of the so-called corset. That was long overdue. All that the corset achieved was to make the published figures artificially low. since its removal last summer those distortions have been reversed, and the figures have been artificially high. By their very nature, such distortions are impossible to measure accurately. They are likely to have been substantial. But purely statistical changes have no implications for future inflation. The distortions have now largely worked their way out of the system. In that respect, sterling M3 will from now on be a better measure.
  Again, the growth of sterling M3 was increased last year by the special nature of the recession. Public borrowing increases in a recession, but that is normally offset by lower private sector borrowing. Over the past 12 months public borrowing has been exceptionally high. But on this occasion bank lending did not fall away as quickly as might have been expected.
  Because of the exceptional imbalance between business and personal incomes, both sectors, for different reasons, have borrowed heavily. Faced with an unexpectedly severe recession and the consequences of previous pay increases, businesses borrowed to tide them over while they reduced costs. Many people, on the other hand, have
  762
  seen their living standards rise to an extent unusual in a recession, and have been willing and able to borrow as well. The combined effect of that borrowing has been an important expansionary influence on sterling M3.
  At the same time, there has been a high level of private investment in financial assets. That can be seen as an attempt by the private sector to rebuild its holdings of such assets, whose purchasing power had been sharply eroded by inflation. It has included an increase in holdings of interest-bearing money. But to the extent that it merely involves returning towards a more normal level of financial assets it need not fuel inflation.
  Other indicators also suggest that the underlying financial conditions have, as the Government intended, been tight. Our Green Paper on monetary control, published a year ago, stressed the need to watch a range of measures of monetary conditions. Over the past 18 months the narrower measures of money have not grown at all rapidly. The pound has certainly been higher than would be expected from the behaviour of the money supply. That external pressure has reinforced the monetary squeeze and contributed to the fall in inflation. And inflation has fallen so much relative to interest rates that the real cost of borrowing has risen significantly.
  Financial behaviour should now revert to a more normal pattern. The private sector has been moderating its borrowing from the banks, and the exceptionally rapid build-up of personal sector liquidity should come to an end as the growth of prices and incomes continues to slow down.

  THE MEDIUM-TERM STRATEGY AND THE TARGET FOR 1981–82
  It is important to express the medium-term strategy in terms of a wide measure of money, because it has close links with public spending and borrowing. So I am maintaining continuity by keeping sterling M3 as the yardstick for medium-term policy. The aim remains to reduce monetary growth to 4–8 per cent. by 1983–84. The new target range for next year, based on the actual figure for sterling M3 in banking February, will be an annual rate of 6–10 per cent. over the 14 months to April 1982.
  The special factors at work last year are unlikely to be repeated. In any event, they should have no adverse implications for future inflation. But we cannot be certain that they were the only causes of the rapid growth in the money supply. So it may be desirable to recover some of the past year's high monetary growth in the form of lower growth over the medium term. But the most important requirement is a lower growth of the broad measures of money in the years ahead.
  However, the short-term response of sterling M3 to interest rate changes is particularly uncertain and the full effect can be spread over many months. The narrower measures, which we also monitor, include fewer interest-bearing types of money and are more sensitive to changes in interest rates. But because they are so sensitive they can overstate the effect of interest rate changes on underlying monetary conditions. Moreover, their relationship to other aspects of policy is less clear.
  I am taking steps, therefore, to improve the information available about the narrower measures. Publication of figures for monetary base will begin later this month.

  763
  Arrangements for a new statistical series for the retail deposits of the banking system, M2, are also well advanced. That will be publishted later this year.
  We shall continue to monitor Ml. In doing so, we shall take account of its normal tendency to grow quickly as nominal interest rates come down with inflation. For this reason we may now find Ml growing rather faster, for a time, than it did last year.

  PUBLIC SECTOR BORROWING
  I turn next to the public sector borrowing requirement, the PSBR. Some people, I know, are tempted to regard the PSBR as something mystical, of interest only to economists. How I wish that they were right. But, alas, that is not true. The size of public borrowing is, as it must be, a critically important constraint, for Governments are no different from individuals. The PSBR, in plain language, is broadly the difference between what the Government spend, or lend to others, and what they collect in revenue, mainly through taxation. It necessarily includes what the nationalised industries borrow. Most of that comes from the Government, and where they borrow from other sources the Government stand behind them. So the PSBR is the amount central and local government and the public corporations have to borrow. It is the experience of Governments around the world that if they try to borrow too much, either interest rates or inflation, or both, begin to soar.
  Britain's experience tells the same story. If we are to stay on course for lower inflation and lower interest rates, we must borrow less. Public borrowing, as a proportion of national income, must be brought down. This is why the medium-term financial strategy envisages a downward path for borrowing, as well as for the growth of the money supply. These remain two essential prerequisites for a lasting grip on inflation.
  Against that background, the House will understand my anxiety at the way in which borrowing has actually developed. For 1980–81, the year which is drawing to a close, the PSBR is now forecast to emerge at £13½ billion, or 6 per cent. of the gross domestic product. That compares with the 1980 Budget forecast of £8½ billion. The lion's share of the £5 billion excess in 1980–81 was accounted for by higher expenditure. There has also been a net shortfall of tax revenue of about £1 billion, with receipts from indirect taxes and North Sea oil below expectations—only partly offset by higher receipts from the other Inland Revenue taxes.
  For the year now approaching, 1981–82, our published strategy suggested an illustrative PSBR of some 3 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Translated into today's prices that would be about £7½ billion. In 1981–82 output is expected to be lower, and unemployment higher, than envisaged a year ago. The effect of the recession on the PSBR is likely to be even greater this year. It is therefore clear that a £7½ billion PSBR for next year would be unduly restrictive.
  Moreover, I must tell the House that this year's Budget-making exercise has started from the basis of a forecast for the PSBR in 1981–82 of no less than £14 billion. I am in no doubt that to begin the year with the intention of borrowing as much as £14 billion would be irresponsible in itself and unacceptable to the House.
  We must consider what should be the objective for next year's PSBR I have already ruled out £7½billion as
  764
  unduly restrictive. Taking everything into account, I have concluded that it would be right to provide for a PSBR in 1981–82 of some £10½ billion, which is a little more than 4 per cent. of the gross domestic product. This is still a high figure, but I believe it to be consistent with the monetary target that I have just announced. I also believe it to be a sum that can be financed without placing undue strains upon the capital markets.
  But, as the House will understand, if the figure is to be brought down to £ 10½ billion from £14 billion, some harsh decisions are inescapable. The figure of £14 billion which I have just quoted incorporates the spending plans for next year that have already been announced—but it is otherwise based on unchanged tax rates and unchanged allowances. It allows for the increases in national insurance contributions that I announced last November—which the House has now approved. That leaves a net sum of around £3½ billion to be secured in this Budget: £1 billion of that will come from the new North Sea taxation that I foreshadowed last November. I shall be outlining other proposals later in my speech.
  These tax changes should enable us to achieve our monetary objectives without having to face intolerably high interest rates. But we are determined to maintain the monetary and fiscal framework necessary for the reduction and defeat of inflation—even at the cost of departing, for the time being, from our commitment to lower personal taxes. The tax increases that I am announcing today are a measure of that determination. Equally, they reflect the bill that we as a nation must meet if we are to pay for the high level of public spending that we have chosen to support. I will return to the detailed proposals shortly.

  METHOD OF BORROWING AND MONETARY CONTROL
  Meanwhile, it is necessary not only to reduce Government borrowing but to finance it in a non-inflationary way. By drawing more efficiently on possible sources of savings it should be possible to control the growth of sterling M3 more effectively.

  NATIONAL SAVINGS
  Imaginative use of national savings can help to reduce pressure on the capital markets. Thanks to the initiative announced last autumn we have already achieved our national savings target of £2 billion for 1980–81.
  For 1981–82 we have set the still more ambitious target of £3 billion. New measures are needed for that. We therefore propose two important changes to the second issue of index-linked certificates or"granny" bonds. From the beginning of next month the age of eligibility for these certificates will be reduced from 60 to 50—[HON. MEMBERS:"Maggie bonds".] I am glad that the House is willing to join with me in recognising the declining age of grandmothers. From the beginning of next month the age of eligibility will be reduced from 60 to 50 and a minimum bonus of 4 per cent. will be provided for all holders, both new and existing.
  A reduction in the interest rate on the national savings investment account from 1 May will be announced later this month. That will be compatible with keeping interest rates on national savings instruments competitive enough to achieve our target.
  In October last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced plans for a bond which

  765
  would allow the public to share in the benefits of the nation's North Sea oil resources. The Government intend to issue such a bond later this year. It will be aimed at small savers and will be a non-marketable certificate, administered by the Department for National Savings. Its capital value will be fixed, but the return on the bond will be linked to the value of the British National Oil Corporation's North Sea oil.

  MARKETABLE SECURITIES
  We also propose an important extension of the structure of Government borrowing by introducing an indexed gilt-edged security. This will be sold to pension funds and to life insurance companies and friendly societies in respect of their United Kingdom pension business.
  Restricting the right to buy this indexed gilt will help to avoid the risk of attracting unwanted inflows of foreign funds. It will give those institutions that are eligible a new choice between indexed and conventional securities. The Bank of England is announcing this afternoon details of an issue of long-dated indexed stock worth £1 billion.
  This innovation demonstrates the confidence that we have in our strategy for bringing inflation down. It will also reduce uncertainty about future real rates of return, thus helping borrowers and lenders alike. Those are important advantages for monetary control. We will have more flexibility in the market place and thus greater assurance of meeting the Government's borrowing needs.
  We are also considering the introduction, later in the year, of new short-term marketable Government securities.

  SMOOTHING THE FLOW OF REVENUE
  I am proposing some new measures which will help short-term monetary management by smoothing the uneven flow of tax revenue. The most important area is that of North Sea oil taxation, to which I shall come later. Other proposals will be described by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State later in this debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

  MONETARY CONTROL
  These initiatives will be accompanied by other improvements in monetary control. Following extensive consultations based on last year's Green Paper, I outlined last November some changes that were desirable in their own right and would be consistent with a gradual evolution to monetary base control. These will come into effect during the coming financial year.
  The reserve asset ratio has complicated monetary control. The first step in phasing it out was made in January. In the next month or two, at the conclusion of talks now to be undertaken with the banks, the ratio will cease to be a minimum requirement. Thereafter it will be adapted to have a transitional role as a prudential norm round which there will be variation, until the detail of the new arrangements has been settled.
  The Bank of England has already made some useful changes in its money market operations. In its dealings with the discount houses it now relies mainly on buying and selling bills. Direct lending to the market has been greatly reduced. The interest rate on this lending is also now generally somewhat above comparable market rates,
  766
  while the rates at which the Bank conducts its open market operations have become more flexible. In conducting its operations in bills the Bank no longer quotes rates for more than one month ahead. Instead, it responds to bids and offers. This has the great advantage of allowing the market a greater role in determining the structure of short-term interest rates.
  Discussions are now to take place with the financial institutions about these and other changes, including the future of the cash ratio. When they are complete, the Bank will aim to keep very short-term interest rates within an unpublished band, and in due course suspend altogether the practice of having an announced MLR, which would by then have lost its operational significance.
  Decisions about short-term interests rates will continue to take account of the whole range of monetary indicators referred to earlier and other factors that affect the significance of the numbers, especially the progress of inflation. Modest reductions in interest rates were made in the second half of last year. Progress in reducing inflation, strongly positive real interest rates, a noticeable slackening in the growth of sterling M3 in recent months, and a marked fall-off in bank lending point towards a further reduction in rates. The increases in taxation that I am proposing in the Budget will make it possible to have an immediate reduction. Accordingly, the Bank of England is today, with my approval, reducing its minimum lending rate by two percentage points.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  Further progress towards lower inflation and lower interest rates does not depend primarily on improvements in funding techniques or in managing the money markets, important though these are. The overriding need is for more effective restraint of public spending. In the last year public expenditure has put a severe strain on the budget. Much of the increased spending has been caused by the effects of the recession being worse than expected. There has been an increase of £¾ billion in spending on unemployment benefit and on special employment measures, notably the temporary short-time working scheme. On many central Government programmes the expected shortfall in expenditure has not happened, and so the total has been higher than expected.
  The recession has also—inevitably—had an adverse effect on the financial situation of most nationalised industries. It has meant an increase in the total of these industries' external financing limits for 1980–81 of some £900 million, over half of which has been for the steel industry. Some of the nationalised industries are now taking steps to reduce the overmanning and inefficiency which have built up over the years. But that, too, can cost more money initially.
  These, however, have not been the only sources of upward pressure. On defence there has been substantial overspending—to the tune of £260 million—over and above a cash limit that had already been increased by £200 million. Local authorities' total cash spending appears to have been a good deal higher than allowed in my last Budget—and the position would have been much worse without the firm action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Because of all these developments we have not been able, in the course of 1980–81, to secure the full 5 per cent. cut at which we were aiming in our predecessors' planned

  767
  volume of expenditure. We have nevertheless achieved a reduction of about 3½ per cent.—or £3½ billion. Moreover, since the Government came into office numbers employed in the Civil Service have fallen by 35,000, and by the equivalent of about 40,000 lull-time staff in local government.

  THE COMING YEAR
  In the coming year, some of the upward pressures on public sector spending are bound to remain with us. I have in mind, for example, last November's decision to spend more on industrial support and on special employment measures to ease the effects of recession. Next year the cost of special employment measures will be no less than £1 billion. This will make it possible to offer every unemployed school leaver a place on the youth opportunites programme by Christmas. And we hope to offer other 16 and 17-year-olds, unemployed for three months, places within a further three months. In all, 440,000 opportunities will be offered—twice as many as in 1979–80. In addition, the temporary short-time working compensation scheme is currently supporting nearly 700,000 people.
  However, this need to spend more on some programmes cannot justify accepting the wrong fiscal balance. That is why we took the decisions that I announced last November to reduce most of the Government's other programmes by £1,400 million cash. Those substantial cuts will go a good deal of the way to offset the other increases that I have described. But they have not gone far enough to avoid the need for substantial increases in taxation.
  It is worth recalling that this Government have not been alone in having to cut planned and actual public expenditure. Our predecessors had repeatedly to do the same. Such reductions are necessary if the burdens on the rest of the economy are not to become intolerable. They are essential to the fight against inflation. That has been the recent experience of almost every other industrial democracy. The economic conditions that call for lower public spending are a world-wide phenomenon.
  Today's new public expenditure White Paper shows a planned volume of public expenditure next year that would be much the same as this year's expected outturn. Various developments since the White Paper went to print, including the withdrawal of the plans for accelerated pit closures, have made it prudent to increase the size of the contingency reserve. I shall also be announcing later in my speech additional expenditure to help with industrial fuel costs. Altogether, these will add about one-third of 1 per cent. to the volume of expenditure next year, 1981–82. The resultant planning total is more than 3 per cent. higher than we had intended. But despite the much larger claims of employment support and of social security it will still be nearly 5 per cent. less than our predecessors had planned.
  Our decisions for the future are designed to ensure that the volume of spending falls after 1981–82. The public expenditure White Paper shows a planned fall of 4 per cent. by 1983–84. Whether we can spend even on that scale must depend on how far we can afford to do so. During the annual review later this year we shall be looking hard at the possibilty of further reductions in those plans.
  The House will find that the sheer size of public spending becomes much easier to grasp if one thinks not just in terms of the so-called volume of spending but in terms of actual cash paid out. The difficulty of controlling it also becomes clearer.
  Last year—1979–80—we spent on programmes £77 billion in cash. This year—1980–81—the corresponding figure will be nearly £94 billion. Next year—1981–82—we will spend about £104 billion, cash. If debt interest is included, the rise is even greater.
  An important part of the rise in total expenditure between last year and this has been due to the increase in the public services pay bill resulting from the Clegg commission and similar catching-up exercises, many involving staged settlements. The Clegg awards and staged settlements alone accounted for an increase of £2½ billion between the two years.
  We have had to make provision for those consequences of the previous Government's incomes policies. But the significance of those consequences and the extent of the problem that they present have still not been widely recognised or understood. The pay bill for the public services in 1980–81 of about £30 billion is about 25 per cent. higher than in the previous year. This is twice as fast an increase as in the pay bill of the private sector. Much of the overall cost of pay settlements in the private sector has been offset by a reduction in numbers of people employed, or in hours worked. So the cash cost of Government has been growing much faster than the cash income of the rest of the economy that has to support it.
  The immediate lesson is simple, but vital. After the recent large increases it is now both fair and essential that public service pay should grow more slowly. Pay, after all, accounts for as much as 60 per cent. of the major public expenditure programmes, such as education and health. This is why it is so important to work out improved ways of settling public service pay. Any new system must take proper account of all the relevant factors; the balance of supply and demand for particular skills as well as comparisons with terms and conditions in outside employment and—inescapably—the limits of finance available. Due weight will also need to be given to the expectation and intention of a continuing decline in the rate of inflation.
  Experience over a number of years shows clearly the need for a system for the control of public expenditure generally which displays the consequences of spending decisions as plainly as possible. The present system certainly does not do that. This year, as for many years past, the figures in our White Paper are expressed mainly in volume terms at"constant" prices. But there is something inherently unreal in trying to plan and measure things in terms of what is rightly described as"funny money". Goods are not bought and people are not paid in the money of last year or the year before. They are paid in cash.
  When the community, acting through the Government, decides to buy goods and services, it has to pay in money of the day, just like any private individual. There is, of course, a case for planning in volume terms as well. There is a clear need to plan the number of hospitals or roads or frigates that we are aiming to have in future years. But there is great danger in planning in volume alone. For there is then an inevitable tendency to assume that a given quantity of goods or services will definitely be available,

  769
  however much their costs may have risen. For this reason, it is essential that the control and planning systems should focus much more closely on the money actually spent.
  I am accordingly making some important changes in the control and planning of public expenditure. These changes cannot be a substitute for the hard political decisions that have always to be taken. But they will enable those decisions to be taken with a much clearer appreciation of what is involved. They will help to displace the automatic assumption that what was once planned can always be afforded.
  We have decided to make a major shift in the planning and control of spending from volume to cash. The introduction of cash limits by the last Government paved the way for this change. We now need to go a great deal further down that road.
  In the first instance we shall, from the coming year onwards, change the way in which we operate the contingency reserve. This will now be a cash control. Previously, only decisions that increased the volume of spending during the year were charged to the reserve. Next year the control will be extended so that decisions to increase cash limits—in respect of pay or prices as well as in respect of volume—will be treated as a charge on the reserve. The reserve will be set at £2½ billion cash—about 2½ per cent. of the total of programmes. This allows both for the wider coverage resulting from the switch to a cash basis and for the increased provision, which I have already mentioned, to allow for developments since the White Paper.
  Even more fundamental is the change that we shall be making in the way we go about future annual reviews of public spending. In planning public spending for 1982–83 we shall, from the outset, conduct our examination and discussions in terms of the cash that will be available for that year. This will change the whole framework and spirit within which decisions are taken. In some ways, it will make things more difficult for those who have to manage spending programmes—harder, indeed, for the Government as a whole. Departments will be obliged from the outset to form a view as to what their money will buy. That is bound to be less easy than just deciding what they want and then simply looking forward to receiving all the money needed to pay for it.
  This is precisely the same problem as that which every family in the land has to face in planning their own spending. They may have to adjust plans, according to the way costs move and according to the availability of finance. For them, the focus must always be on how much cash is actually going to be available. It is high time for public spending to be subjected to similar discipline. This change to taking decisions in terms of cash will make a major contribution to improving financial management and will do much to support our other efforts to increase cost consciousness and accountability throughout the public sector.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  I turn now to my specific tax and spending proposals. Even in a lengthy speech they cannot all be covered in detail, and more information about a number of them will be found in a series of press notices issued by the Departments concerned, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
  I have stressed already the huge total of public expenditure. Far and away the biggest element within it is the social security programme. It accounts for more than one-quarter of the total. In the last decade it has grown very fast. Partly, this is because of the increasing number of beneficiaries and the replacement of child tax allowances by child benefit. But it also reflects real increases in rates of benefit. Thus, over the decade the retirement pension has gone up by about 30 per cent. in real terms. That is about twice as much as the increase in the national income as a whole.
  The cash cost of the social security programme in 1981–82 comes to a staggering £27 billion. This is about £1,000 per year for every worker in the country. We cannot, therefore, avoid considering this programme as closely as any other.
  I estimate that prices will rise by 10 per cent. in the year to next November. The increase in pensions and other benefits made in last year's uprating proved to be 1 per cent. more than required to keep pace with last years' inflation. This is because prices rose more slowly than expected between November 1979 and November 1980. State retirement pensions, public service pensions, and most other benefits, including supplementary, unemployment and sickness benefits will, therefore, be increased next November by about 9 per cent. This reflects the expected rise in prices and at the same time adjusts for the over-provision made last year. The increase in the benefits will be substantial. The retirement pension for a married couple will go up by £3·90, to £47·35 per week, and for a single person by £2·45, to £29·60 per week. Unemploment and sickness benefits will be increased to £36·40 and £22·50 per week respectively.
  Full details of the November increases will be announced tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We shall be giving further consideration to policy towards public service pensions in the light of the report of the Scott committee. I shall myself have something more to say about child benefit in a few moments.

  THE DISABLED
  There is one group to whom we should pay special attention this year, despite the economic constraints that we face. I refer to the disabled, for this is the International Year of Disabled People. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing tomorrow an increase in the mobility allowance. I shall mention some other measures now.
  The special income tax allowance for the blind has stood at its present level since 1975. I propose to double it to £360. I hope that this will be of some help to blind people in tackling the very real problems they have to face.
  Many representations have been made to me for relief from value added tax on all purchases made by charities. I have regretfully concluded that such relief would be impossible to administer fairly or economically and would, in any case, cost too much. However, I do propose

  771
  to extend existing value added tax reliefs for the disabled and the charities serving them. For example, the present zero rating for articles given to hospitals will, in future, cover ambulances and wheelchairs. The benefit of this zero rating will also be extended to institutions caring for the handicapped. Car adaptations for disabled drivers will also be relieved from VAT. The necessary Treasury order is being laid today.
  I am also proposing changes that will widen the scope of the reliefs from capital taxation for trusts for the disabled. To encourage unemployed people to work for voluntary bodies, the amount that a person can earn without affecting unemployment benefit will be increased from 75p per day to £2 per day.
  The total cost of these measures is relatively modest. But, if put alongside the tax reliefs that I announced last year in respect of covenanted gifts to charities, the overall amount is substantial. The House may like to be reminded that tax relief on covenants at the higher rates of tax becomes effective from 6 April this year at a revenue cost of £20 million. These reliefs should greatly improve the fund-raising ability of charities. I shall be arranging to publicise these reliefs, and the opportunities that they offer, much more widely.
  There is one other matter to which I should refer. I announced last year that we planned to bring into tax the invalidity, sickness and other incapacity benefits. We had expected that this might be from April 1982. In part because of pressures on civil service staff numbers, we propose to postpone this. I confirm however, that when invalidity benefit comes into tax the 5 per cent. deduction made from the November 1980 uprating will be restored.

RAISING THE REVENUE: BUSINESSES

  OIL COMPANIES
  I come now to the range of measures that are necesary to raise the extra revenue for this year. First, the North Sea. In deciding on particular measures I have had to take into account recent developments and future prospects for North Sea oil and the implications that these have for Government revenues. In 1980 production in the North Sea, at 80 million tonnes of oil, was less than predicted—only four-fifths what had been expected two years before. The production difficulties experienced in the past year have led to a major revision of output levels over the next few years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has just published reduced forecast ranges for North Sea production in the years to 1984.
  While oil production is likely to be lower than once expected, oil prices are much higher. Increases since 1978 in the real price of oil have brought substantial benefits to the oil companies, which face a very different prospect from that when the present tax regime was introduced. Such has been the rise in the oil price in recent years that I believe that the Exchequer should properly look to this area for additional revenue beyond what will accrue from existing taxes. However, even after the measures that I am about to announce, the increase over the medium term in Government revenues from the North Sea will be smaller than was once expected.
  In my statement last November I foreshadowed the measures that I had in mind for increasing the Government's share of these revenues while maintaining
  772
  incentives for further exploration and development. Consultations with the oil industry have taken place and I can now announce detailed proposals.
  I intend to introduce a new tax—the supplementary petroleum duty—broadly as outlined last November. The new tax will be at a rate of 20 per cent. on the total value of oil and gas produced, after deduction of an allowance of 1 million tonnes a year for each field. It will be deductible in computing liability to petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax. In response to representations by the industry, gas supplied to the British Gas Corporation from earlier North Sea fields will be exempted, and there will be provision for the new tax to be refunded where fields do not fully recover their initial development expenditure.
  The new tax will be payable in monthly instalments. This will make a useful contribution to achieving a smoother public sector cash flow through the year. I shall also invite the industry to consider with the Inland Revenue how a broadly similar pattern of payments may be introduced for PRT.
  I also announced in November last year that the special reliefs devised for PRT were under review. I now have proposals to make involving some restriction of these reliefs. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury will have the opportunity of covering them in more detail in the debate.
  There are a number of other minor changes to improve the oil taxation regime—partly made in response to the industry's own views.
  The new tax, together with changes to the PRT reliefs, will raise an extra £1 billion in 1981–82. There will be a substantial continuing yield in later years.
  The oil companies have urged that my objectives of more revenue and a more efficient and economical pattern of tax relief could be better secured by a thoroughgoing reform of PRT, which would make it unnecessary to introduce a permanent new tax. Officials have over several months given exhaustive consideration to that possibility, but without success, and no other proposals that I could regard as satisfactory have been put forward from any other source. But I do not close my mind to the possibility that modified proposals producing a broadly similar yield might be forthcoming. I propose, therefore, that the new tax, SPD, should in the first instance have legislative effect only for the 18 months ending on 30 June 1982. That will allow ample time for further study and consultation before permanent arrangements are introduced in next year's Finance Bill.

  BANKS
  Apart from oil, one other business sector has largely been protected from the effects of the recession, and that is banking. Indeed, bank profits in recent years have increased sharply, both absolutely and by contrast with the experience of most other businesses. A substantial part of these profits is the direct consequence of high interest rates in recent years: this applies in particular to the so-called"endowment profit" on current accounts on which no interest is paid.
  Recent levels of bank profits are partly, of course, a cyclical recovery from the low level to which they fell in the mid-1970s. Also, the banks have needed to make provision against the effects of inflation and to rebuild the

  773
  reserves needed to underpin the valuable support that they give to businesses in difficult times. That is why I took no action last year.
  However, I undertook to keep developments under review. The past year has seen further high banking profits, probably at a level not very different from the record profits of 1979. Certainly the contrast with the sharply reduced profits of industrial companies is, if anything, more striking. In present difficult circumstances, I cannot avoid the conclusion that I should require the banks to make a special fiscal contribution.
  This will take the form of a special once-for-all tax on deposits of banking businesses that are in operation today. The tax will be charged by reference to non-interest bearing sterling deposits in excess of £10 million, averaged over the final three months of 1980. The rate of tax will be 2½ per cent. It will not be deductible against corporation tax. I estimate that the clearing banks will be the source of about 90 per cent. of the revenue, but the tax will apply to banking businesses generally. Altogether, an estimated £400 million will be raised in three instalments over the second half of 1981–82. This revenue will make it possible for me to give some help to the rest of industry this year which otherwise I could not afford.

  RAISING THE REVENUE: INDIRECT TAXES
  Even so, for the reasons that I have already explained, it is necessary to look principally to the personal sector for the additional revenue needed. People in employment have in general had more money to spend. Extra tax will have to be levied on that expenditure.
  I do not propose any increase in the 15 per cent. rate of VAT. As last year, most of the extra revenue needed must come from the Excise duties. Increases would be necessary again this year simply to keep the rates of duty in line with the general movement of prices. Even when that had been done, however, many of the duties would be lower in real terms than they used to be. For example, since April 1975 the beer duty has risen by only about half as much as prices generally. I am proposing to increase the Excise duties to produce, in total, about twice as much additional revenue as would be required to compensate for one year's inflation.

  ALCOHOLIC DRINKS, TOBACCO, ETC.
  First, the duties on alcoholic drinks and tobacco. From midnight tonight I propose to increase the duties on drinks by amounts which, incuding VAT, represent about 4p on the price of a typical pint of beer, 12p on a bottle of table wine, 25p on a bottle of sherry, and 60p on a bottle of spirits.
  On tobacco, I propose from midnight on Friday to increase the duty by an amount which, including VAT, will represent 14p on a typical packet of 20 cigarettes.
  There will be consequential increases for other alcoholic drinks and tobacco products but a little less for pipe tobacco, which is used particularly by pensioners. I estimate that the increase on alcoholic drinks will yield £500 million in 1981–82 and £515 million in a full year. The increases on tobacco will raise almost exactly the same.
  The duties on matches and mechanical lighters, which have not been raised since 1949, will be increased substantially—to raise an extra £15 million a year.

  ROAD FUEL DUTIES
  Road fuel must also make a substantial contribution. The duties on petrol and derv will be increased from 6 pm tonight by the equivalent, including VAT, of 20p a gallon. These increases should yield an additional £910 million from petrol and £270 million from derv in 1981–82 and the same in a full year.
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY
  I propose to increase the vehicle excise duty on all vehicles by about 15 per cent. The annual duty on cars will thus increase by £10, to £70. As the duty on derv is being increased in line with that on petrol I do not propose any differential increase on heavy lorries. The VED increase should yield £225 million in 1981–82 and the same in a full year.
  CAR TAX
  Finally, I propose extending the car tax to motor cycles, scooters and mopeds. This tax is charged at 10 per cent. on the wholesale value and is in addition to VAT. There is no longer any reason why these machines should be treated any differently from motor cars. The change is estimated to raise about £10 million in 1981–82 and £15 million in a full year.

  SUMMARY
  In all, these changes to the indirect taxes should raise about £2,400 million in 1981–82 and about the same in a full year.
  With the partial exception of the road fuel and vehicle excise duties, the increases fall on those products which are bought by private consumers. Had all these excise duties simply been increased in line with inflation this would have added one percentage point to the RPI. The increases that I propose could add up to a further point. This is the maximum impact effect on prices. But in the longer run, by reducing public borrowing they will help to bring inflation down and ensure that it stays down.

  RAISING THE REVENUE—DIRECT PERSONAL TAXATION
  I come now to income tax. Once again I must have the main priority in mind—the need to contain public borrowing so as to make it possible to secure lower interests rates and ease the conditions in which the trading sector of the economy has to operate.
  Inflation raises the real burden of income tax. This is because allowances and rate bands are fixed in money terms. As the value of money falls so, too, does the value of these allowances and bands.
  It was in order to counteract this effect that the House in 1977 carried a measure that required Governments to raise the tax allowances by each year's inflation unless Parliament explicitly decided to the contrary.
  To implement this formula now would mean increasing allowances by about 15 per cent. In the circumstances of this year that simply is not possible. The incomes of most people have been rising in both money and real terms, but many companies have seen their profits virtually

  775
  disappear, with serious implications for jobs and investment. In these circumstances it will not be possible this year to make any increase in the income tax allowances or rate bands. As hon. Members will realise, the House will be asked to approve a resolution to this effect.
  A Treasury order is also being made today, following the procedure laid down in the 1980 Finance Act, setting out what the increases would have been in the thresholds and allowances if indexation had been possible. The House will wish to know that full indexation of the allowances and bands would have reduced the full year yield of income tax by £2½ billion.
  This decision has not been lightly taken, and I share the disappointment that everyone will feel. It enables us to avoid, as I am sure is right, the need for any change in the basic or other rates of income tax. And it enables me to tell the House, as I am glad to be able to do, that we propose that child benefit and one-parent family benefit will both be fully price-protected, in line with the forecast of inflation. Next November child benefit will, therefore, go up by 50p a week per child, to £5·25. The one-parent family benefit will go up by 3()p, to £3·30 per week.

  FRINGE BENEFITS
  At a time when the real burden of income tax has to be increased it is all the more important that it should be fairly shared.
  The benefit of a company car is already subject to tax but the tax scales fall well short of the true value. The amounts assessed to tax are less than half the AA's estimate of the annual costs of running a car. Last year we prescribed an increase of 20 per cent. in the scales from this April—just about enough to keep them rising in line with the costs of motoring. I now propose that they should be increased by a further 20 per cent. in April 1982. For company cars that have little or no business use there is a higher schedule of taxation. I propose to raise the business mileage below which this charge applies from 1,000 to 2,500 miles a year, with effect from this April.
  Last year I referred to the growing practice of employers providing free petrol and said that I should be bound to contemplate action if it continued to spread. This warning has largely been ignored. I propose, therefore, to take action that will ensure that tax is chargeable in all cases where petrol is provided for the private use of a higher-paid employee or director. The Inland Revenue will consult employers' organisations over the administrative implications of the various possible methods of achieving this.
  Most people have to pay for their own travel to work, whether by rail or by road. Some people have their travel costs met by their employers. Most of these pay tax on that benefit. There is, however, one small but growing group—not more than one commuter in 10—who get their travel costs tax-free. When an employer contracts with a transport authority for the provision of a season ticket to his employee the benefit is not, under the present law, within the general liability to tax. This is a clear anomaly. And it is plainly right to bring this group into line with everyone else.
  Similarly, a minority of employees are provided with credit cards, which they use to obtain a wide range of goods and services that are charged to the employer. The
  776
  employee may thus avoid paying tax on part of what is truly his income. This, too, is quite wrong. I shall ensure that all employees pay tax on benefits of this kind.
  Following consultations that took place last year, I have decided for now to leave in place the earnings threshold below which the taxation of fringe benefits does not, in the main, apply. Company cars and other such benefits will therefore continue not to be taxed in the hands of those earning less than £8,500 a year. Consistently with this approach, I propose to remove the charge to tax on medical insurance premiums paid by employers for the benefit of their employees earning less than this amount.
  One pre-war anti-avoidance measure needs to be brought up to date following the decision in the Vestey case. This has shown that, among other imperfections, the rules dealing with avoidance of tax by way of transfers of assets abroad do not affect an individual who benefits from such a transfer but did not make or procure it. I propose changes in these complex and technical rules, to take effect from today, which will ensure that the individual pays tax on any benefit he receives. I propose also to amend the rules governing the taxation of capital sums paid by trusts.
  Mr. J. Grimond Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland) rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not even for the right hon. Gentleman do I wish to break the tradition of an uninterrupted Budget Statement.

  HELPING BUSINESSES
  So far I have been dealing almost entirely with a group of measures that will have the disagreeable but necessary effect of increasing the revenue.
  In order to secure the reduction in interest rates most of that revenue must go to reducing the PSBR. But some can go, as it should, to lightening directly the tax burden on business and enterprise.
  There is not enough for across-the-board measures. It is important to concentrate relief where it will be most effective. I cannot, for example, find room for a reduction in the national insurance surcharge, at a full year cost to the PSBR of £700 million for each percentage point. Nor would a general reduction in corporation tax be appropriate, since it would not help companies that are so hard pressed that they are making no profit. I therefore propose to bring help to business and to encourage enterprise in the following ways.
  The first measure is one announced, subject to further consultation on the details, last November: the reform of the stock relief scheme.
  This reform will tackle certain abuses of the old scheme that have attracted legitimate concern. It will also lift the threat of clawback—the withdrawal of tax relief when businesses reduce their stocks. This was jeopardising the financial position of industry in the current recession. It was, above all, this problem of clawback that made it essential for the details of a new scheme to be announced, as they were in our consultative document last November.
  I have considered very carefully the representations that have since been made in response to my original proposals. As a result, I propose to make certain detailed changes, including improvements in the transitional arrangements.
  In particular, I have considered very carefully the concern that has been expressed to me by many businesses

  777
  about how they would be affected by the proposed credit restriction—that is, the arrangement under which relief should be restricted to the extent that a business may finance its stocks by trade credit or other borrowings. I have sought to balance the case in principle for the credit restriction against the fact that the other changes that I am making will in themselves reduce the scope for abuse under the old stock relief scheme. In the light of the severe difficulties which many businesses are now facing. I have decided not to legislate for the credit restriction. This will be reviewed in the context of other possible changes in the promised corporation tax Green Paper.
  These changes will increase the cost of the new scheme to the Exchequer. The fall in the rate of inflation would by itself have reduced that cost. But as a result of the changes I now propose, the cost in respect of profits earned in the present calendar year, 1981—tax on which will mostly be paid in 1982–83—will be £450 million. This includes the cost of dropping the credit restriction, of about £75 million in the first full year. Only a part year cost—about £180 million—will fall in 1981–82. There will be a continuing revenue cost for some time to come and equally a substantial benefit to industry.
  I also propose a limited extension of consortium relief to enable consortium members to pass relief downwards to a consortium company.

  ENERGY PRICES
  Another area of concern to industry has been energy prices.
  I recognise the strength of the representations put to me to bring the level of fuel oil duty in this country more closely into line with that of our major European competitors. I have carefully considered the case for doing so.
  The direct benefits to industrial costs are obvious. But there are also other consequences, arising particularly from arrangements entered into some years ago for gas purchases. I understand that the overall effect of those arrangements would be to put up the cost of gas purchased by the British Gas Corporation and, with it, the United Kingdom's gas import bill.
  We shall keep the position under review. But in present circumstances I had to conclude that the wider national interest would be best served by not reducing that duty, but keeping it at its present level.
  I am, however, able to announce measures which will assist industry on energy prices. The National Economic Development Council last Wednesday discussed the report of its task force on energy prices. The report showed that, while prices for the vast majority of industrial customers in this country remain in line with Europe, a limited but important number of large users of electricity and gas pay more for supplies than competitors in Europe.
  In these circumstances, the electricity supply industry in England and Wales will, in addition to the action it has already taken, introduce new flexibility into its pricing arrangements, providing further scope for large high load factor industrial consumers to reduce their electricity coats.
  The British Gas Corporation has already relaxed its industrial pricing policy to help its industrial customers. In addition, the corporation will now hold renewal prices
  778
  for gas sold under contract to the present renewal levels until 1 December 1981. Furthermore, the normal quarterly price escalation arrangements for gas provided on a continuous basis will not be applied during this period. The action which is to be taken in this area by the Scottish electricity boards will be announced by the Scottish Office later today.
  These moves will give direct benefit to British industry. Accordingly, I am increasing the external financing limits for the gas and electricity industries by some £120 million in 1981–82. That cost will add to the public expenditure total.
  The NEDC task force also drew attention to industry's difficulties in the recession of finding the capital to convert equipment from oil to coal use. To help here we shall commit £50 million over the next two years for grants towards the cost incurred in converting from oil-fired boilers to coal. The expenditure will be offset, at least in part, by greater coal sales. Any net cost will be met from the contingency reserve.

CONSTRUCTION

  DEVELOPMENT LAND TAX
  The construction industry is particularly hard pressed and it is in any case sensible to remove unnecessary obstacles to development. We have identified three helpful changes to development land tax which will stimulate activity, and so employment, particularly this year and next.
  First, under the present law, if industrial development is undertaken by the owner for his own use, tax is deferred until the property is sold or put to other use. I propose that for two years this relief should be extended to other types of development for the owner's use, including commercial and hotel development. If a development is begun by 1 April 1983 there will be no DLT for an owner to pay on any part intended for his own use until the property is sold or otherwise disposed of.
  Secondly, where property is extended there will in future be no charge if the extension does not increase the size of the building by more than one-third. The current limit is one-tenth.
  My third proposal will reduce the burden of DLT on builders who acquire land for residential development and will be of particular benefit where land is released by local authorities and others for building homes. The cost of these measures is put at up to £5 million in a full year but the benefit to the economy could be much greater.

  INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ALLOWANCE
  As I have said, I am concerned that businesses should continue to invest for the future. Our tax system already provides generous incentives for investment in new machinery. But modern machines will seldom yield their full potential if they are housed in obsolete and inefficient factories. I therefore propose to increase the initial allowance for expenditure incurred after today on the construction of new industrial buildings, from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. The cost will rise to £25 million by 1984–85. This will benefit not only manufacturing but also employment in the construction industry.

  CAPITAL TAXES
  The measures I have just announced will in total be worth about £300 million next year. And the tax measures alone will be worth over £400 million in 1982–83.
  But if we are to build a strong and vigorous economy, we must do more to encourage and reward the creation of new enterprises, new wealth and new jobs. I turn, therefore, to the subject of capital taxation, which bears especially heavily on the owners of small businesses.

  CAPITAL TRANSFER TAX AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX
  In a year in which we can give no income tax relief, I cannot make major changes in capital taxation. I do, however, propose to continue the process of making more sense of the structure of capital taxes.
  First, there is capital transfer tax. One new concept introduced as a feature of that tax was the idea of cumulating gifts made at any time in a person's life. Some allowance was made for the earlier payment of tax on transfers during life than on death, but only at the bottom of the scales. As a result, people are deterred from transferring their property during their lifetime. This is undesirable. Business property, in particular, should be permitted to pass more freely from one generation to another.
  I propose therefore to recast the lifetime scale. At the bottom the charge on gifts will remain half that on death; at the top it will become two-thirds. I also propose limiting cumulation to 10 years and extending the capital gains tax roll-over relief to gifts into trust, to avoid a double charge. I hope that, by encouraging gifts, the Exchequer will benefit as well as the taxpayer. I also propose to increase the annual exemption to £3,000.
  Capital transfer tax is also holding back the supply of land for new entrants to the farming industry. Tax is not the only factor, of course. But it is important to maintain a proper balance between owner-occupied and let land, allowing for their different value. I have in mind the unequal treatment of let land. At present, no relief is normally given on let land. In future relief will be available at 20 per cent. Agricultural land not subject to a lease will continue to receive relief at 50 per cent. The difference in the rate of relief recognises the lower value that let land commands and the lower tax burden it attracts as a result. The facility to pay CTT by interest free instalments will be extended to let agricultural land and the limit of £25,000 will be removed.
  Next, I turn to trusts. I am grateful to all who responded to our consultative paper. I propose to tackle some matters this year, but on discretionary trusts draft clauses will be prepared for further discussion and we shall legislate next year. Meanwhile, there will be a final extension of the transitional period to 31 March 1983, or 31 March 1984 where an application has to be made to a court.
  I also propose dealing with certain avoidance devices which centre on the market value rule for capital gains tax purposes, and aligning the capital gains tax rules with the new income tax rules developed following the Vestey case.
  The net affect of all these proposals in the capital tax field will be a cost of £5 million this coming year but a gain of £15 million in a full year—the saving from the anti-avoidance measures exceeding the cost of the reliefs I have proposed.

  STAMP DUTIES
  I intend to include one stamp duty provision in the Finance Bill which will help those buying council houses. This will ensure that stamp duty will be payable only on the discounted price that the buyer actually pays and not on some higher figure.

  ENTERPRISE
  Last year, I introduced a number of measures to help small firms. In addition to the major new initiative to establish enterprise zones, these included a venture capital scheme, improved tax relief for small workshops, and a reduction in the rate of corporation tax for small companies.
  All these measures have been widely welcomed. The 11 proposed enterprise zones have stimulated intense interest among investors and the private sector has begun to respond even before the zones are formally established.
  Meanwhile, provision of private finance for small factory units has grown rapidly. The continuing strong demand for small workshops shows the strength of the small business sector.
  But we can and must do more to help existing small businesses to grow, and to encourage new businesses to start up. This remains an essential key to new jobs.

  VALUE ADDED TAX
  First, VAT. I propose that, as last year, the registration threshold should be increased in line with prices—on this occasion from £13,500 to £15,000. This change will take effect from midnight tonight.
  SMALL COMPANIES CORPORATION TAX
  Secondly, I propose to increase from £70,000 to £80,000 the limit up to which the lower 40 per cent. rate of corporation tax is payable by small companies. I also intend to respond to one of the long-standing complaints from small companies, which is the relatively high marginal rate of tax which they have to pay when profits exceed that limit. The limit at which the full corporation tax rate of 52 per cent. becomes payable will be raised from £130,000 to £200,000. This will make for a gentler progression from the small companies' rate to the full corporation tax rate. The cost of these changes will be £ 12 million in 1981–82 and £21 million in a full year.
  INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVES AND PARTNERSHIPS
  Thirdly, new businesses depend on ready access to fresh capital. Last year I relaxed the conditions governing tax relief for interest on money borrowed to invest in close companies. That was good for small companies. I intend this year to relax the conditions for industrial co-operatives and partnerships.
  PURCHASB OF OWN SHARES
  Fourthly, as the House knows, the Government will shortly introduce new clauses in Committee on the Companies Bill, to enable companies to purchase their own shares. Corresponding changes are needed in the present tax structure to help with a number of problems arising in small and family businesses. I am, therefore, asking the Inland Revenue to issue a consultative document on this subject this summer, with a view to legislation in next year's Finance Bill.
  VENTURE CAPITAL SCHEME
  Fifthly, I intend to extend the venture capital scheme introduced last year. This scheme encourages investment in small businesses by allowing capital losses on shares in unquoted trading companies to be set off against income. At present, it is confined to investment by individuals. I propose to extend the scheme now to investment by companies, some of which may be able to provide funds for expanding small firms.

  POSITIVE USE OF REDUNDANCY MONEY
  Sixthly, we have looked at ways of encouraging people who are unemployed, particularly those who have just become redundant, to help themselves, and the economy, by setting up in business. Redundancy payments and other payments made on termination of employment are at present taxable if they exceed £10,000. I am raising that threshold to £25,000 with effect from 6 April. In addition, the rules for the taxation of these payments will be simplified.
  Furthermore, we are looking at the suggestion that the existing social security rules act as a deterrent to initiative. We are considering whether they could be altered, or other arrangements made, so as to encourage people who have been declared redundant, or who have been unemployed for some time, to start their own new small business.
  All these measures will be of significant help to small businesses. But I intend to go further and have two new measures to announce.

  LOAN GUARANTEE SCHEME
  First, as the House knows, I have been considering the introduction of a loan guarantee scheme. There are some people who, for one reason or another, have difficulty borrowing money to start or develop a business. They may, for example, not have the necessary collateral security. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that agreement in principle has been reached with the major clearing banks and the ICFC on the introduction of a pilot loan guarantee scheme.
  The scheme will run for three years initially, subject to an overall maximum limit of £50 million to be lent in each year. Individual term loans of up to £75,000 will be available for periods of between two and seven years. Government guarantees will be available for 80 per cent. of each loan. The scheme will be administered by the Department of Industry. Further information will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
  The scheme is intended to be self-financing. Lenders will make a full commercial charge for their loans, part as an interest payment to the lender, part as a guarantee premium payment to the Department of Industry. Receipts from premium payments will be designed to cover the cost of claims made under the guarantee provisions.

  BUSINESS START-UP SCHEME
  My second new proposal breaks entirely fresh ground.
  One of the biggest problems faced by people thinking of starting their own business is the difficulty of attracting sufficient risk capital to finance it during its critical early years. The amounts of additional money needed can be modest—at least as compared with the sums in which the big financial institutions commonly deal. But in individual cases they can be crucial.
  The individual private investor has for many years had little encouragement to help fill that gap in the capital market. I propose to change that. The private investor can often contribute not only risk capital but direct personal business experience. The opportunities are certainly there. What is needed is to make it more attractive and more rewarding for private investors to take advantage of them.
  I am, therefore, introducing an entirely new tax incentive to attract individual investors to back new enterprises. It is designed for the outside or minority investor in certain new small trading companies, as distinct from the owner of the business, his close family and associates. I am calling it the business start-up scheme. Under the scheme an investor will be able to obtain relief against income tax on up to £10,000 invested in any one year. The relief will be given in addition to the range of tax reliefs already available to the company itself, provided the investment is maintained for at least five years.
  The scheme will relate only to genuine new business enterprises of the kind I have in mind. There will be strict rules to ensure that it is not used for investment in financial or passive operations, or for tax avoidance.
  I am introducing the new scheme in the first instance for a three-year period, beginning with the coming financial year 1981–82.
  This business start-up scheme will be unique in not only this country but among our main trading competitors. It will be a striking new incentive to channel investment into small businesses.

  BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMME
  These measures to encourage enterprise and risk-taking are essential if we are to replace the jobs that are disappearing elsewhere in the economy. There must be a healthy flow of new enterprises. We must be ready to set aside the resources to encourage them. They are the real future hope for absorbing and redirecting the people and resources at present squeezed out of employment by economic adjustment.
  As I have said, this is the second Budget in which I have included measures to help and encourage small businesses. The measures I have just announced, together with those last year, constitute a formidable range of incentives. The tax system is now geared significantly in favour of enterprise, risk-taking and investment.
  Much has also been done by this Government to ease the problems of small businesses in other ways—for example, by relaxing employment and planning rules. All this represents a complete change in the climate within which the small business operates. It is vital that these measures be widely known and that people be encouraged to take advantage of them.
  The Government recognise the need to give a lead in that. We shall, therefore, be launching a business opportunities programme to publicise the help, advice and incentives available to small business. We shall be improving the advisory service available to small businesses in urban areas in England and to co-ordinate the advisory services provided by the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and the small firms service of the Department of Industry. The opportunities have been provided by this and earlier legislation and we must now do all that we can to see that they are taken advantage of.

  CONCLUSION
  This Budget has been designed to sustain the fight against inflation, and to help redress the balance of the economy in favour of business and industry. It is only by giving priority to those objectives that we can strengthen the basis for sustained economic advance.
  We shall continue to pursue our strategy for the defeat of inflation with determination.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be allowed to complete his statement.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: That strategy will be fortified by the changes that I am proposing today. These changes will reinforce the progress that has already been made and for which the nation can take credit.
  In the year ahead the burden of income tax and Excise duties has to rise in order to secure lower interest rates and thus improve the prospects for industry and employment.
  The downturn in the present economic cycle has been unusually severe. But it should now be coming close to its end. When recovery does start, the country will be better fitted than for many years to take advantage of the new opportunities, for important lessons have been painfully learnt. A greater sense of realism has been restored.
  So, as we look further ahead, we can reasonably expect lower inflation and, in due course, lower unemployment and a reversal of the upward trend in the burden of taxation.
  My present proposals are designed to secure our steady progress in that direction, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under Standing Order No. 94, the first motion, entitled"Provisional Collection of Taxes", must be decided without debate.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES
  Motion made, and Question,
  That pursuant to section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 provisional statutory effect shall be given to the following Motions—

  (a) Spirits (Motion No. 2).

  (b) Beer (Motion No. 3).

  (c) Wine (Motion No. 4)

  (d) Made-wine (Motion No. 5).

  (e) Cider (Motion No. 6).

  (f) Tobacco products (Motion No. 7).

  (g) Matches and mechanical lighters (Motion No. 8).

  (h) Hydrocarbon oil etc. (Motion No. 10).

  (i) Vehicles excise duty (Motion No 11).

  (j) Value added tax: registration (Motion No. 13).—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means Motions), and agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the motion entitled"Amendment of the Law". It is on that motion that the Budget debate will take place today and on succeeding days. The remaining motions will not be put until the end of the Budget debate next week and they will be then decided without debate.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of—

  (a) any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (i) for zero-rating or exempting any supply;

  (ii) for refunding any amount of tax;

  (iii) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations; or

  (iv) for any relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description; or

  (b) any amendment relating to the surcharge imposed by the National Insurance Surcharge Act 1976 and applying to some only of the persons by or in respect of whom the surcharge in payable.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  [Relevant European Community documents: No. 10444/80 and the annual report on the economic situation in the Community (1980) and the economic policy guidelines for 1981.]
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: It is the custom of the House for the first speaker after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered his Budget speech to offer congratulations to him on the manner in which he has delivered his speech, whatever may be the criticisms which may follow on the matter and on kindred questions. I am glad to follow that tradition.
  I have been a Member of the House for a considerable number of years, together with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On a number of occasions, I have heard him introducing various measures. We all know that he has high professional skills. He has a full capacity to make his case clear to the House. I am sure that he is still capable of doing so when he wishes. Therefore, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman lapses into opacity, obliquity or even direct obscurity, I am sure that he always does so on purpose. There may have been some passages in his speech when I thought that he treated his listeners to the range of objectivity and somnolence which he hoped to achieve, but I believe that all Chancellors of the Exchequer have had to resort to such means. That was all the more necessary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman in view of some of his previous speeches.
  I cordially welcome some features of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. I offer no satirical aside in doing so. We shall examine the detail of the closing of the Vestey loophole. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on doing so. I hope that he had the full co-operation of Lord Thorneycroft in carrying forward that proposal. We recall that Lord Thorneycroft, at the time of the exposure of the loophole, seemed to take a rather different view of the matter.
  We welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for the disabled, particularly as this is the International Year of Disabled People. We shall closely examine his proposals, but from what he seems to indicate, it is an advance which we welcome.
  We listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about child benefit. He has properly improved the position this year, although he has not made up for his failure in the previous year. Therefore, although

  785
  we welcome what he said on child benefit today, as far as it went, we still believe that the Government should have fully made up child benefit to the value it had when they assumed office.
  With regard to the 2 per cent. reduction in the minimum lending rate, we welcome any reduction in it, but we would have preferred a larger reduction considerably earlier. Although we welcome it—I am sure that industry will welcome it—there was an anomaly in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced the matter, because he will be aware—and his new assistant at the Treasury will be aware—that I have always preferred the views of Mr. Samuel Brittan as expressed in the Financial Times. I admit that all matters are comparative, but occasionally I prefer his view. Mr. Brittan warned us about a Chancellor introducing a change in the MLR in his Budget. He said:
  "We face a possible dangerous misuse of the Budget speech to announce a several-step fall in MLR by a Chancellor who once claimed to believe that such things should be set by market forces. But apart from bolstering his personal vanity, the attempt to use interest rates to manipulate the exchange rate is, if made, likely to backfire badly."
  On another occasion, Mr. Brittan said:
  "There is a very special circle of hell reserved for those who take it upon themselves to decide the level of interest or exchange rates. By playing so obviously with the idea of announcing a 2, 3 or 4 per cent. cut in MLR in his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is volunteering as a candidate for that destination."
  I would not dream of using such language, but that is the sort of language which monetarists exchange among themselves. It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take the advice to reduce the MLR before the Budget, because that would have been of benefit to those who have to pay their mortgages. It would have been a good way for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed.
  In the latter part of his speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a general range of measures which supposedly would assist industry. We shall examine those measures most carefully. However, they add up to little compared with the massive and monstrous deflation of the economy which the Budget proposes. On top of the grievous injuries which the British economy has already suffered, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes today is a catastrophe of the first order for the British economy and the British people. We shall do our best to fight it by every means in our power.
  I should like to comment briefly on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave as the reason for the change that he is proposing—although he is not proposing the radical change that some of us would wish. All the figures and prognostications of the Government have been disproved, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the candour to acknowledge. He therefore had to advance reasons why that has occurred. He advanced the reason that has been popular in Government circles in recent days. He suggested that the change was due primarily to the scale of the international slump or recession. However, that does not explain the disasters that have been thrust upon this country and its people.
  The latest EEC figures show that in the 12 months ending in January 1981 unemployment increased by 3·9 per cent. in Italy, by 13 per cent. in France, by 26 per cent. in Germany and by 64½ per cent. in the United Kingdom.
  786
  In the fourth quarter of last year industrial production generally was only 2·3 per cent. lower than a year earlier. In Britain the fall was 11 per cent., which, as The Guardian showed yesterday, takes account of the output of North Sea oil.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to conceal the scale of the comparison. The drop in production in the United Kingdom and all the other aspects of our well being associated with it are unique. Last year only the United States also registered a drop in GDP. Every country in Western Europe save the United Kingdom increased its GDP. We have fallen behind practically every other comparable country. That is the background against which the Chancellor takes his action.
  I am sorry to see the departure of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). The Prime Minister paid him glowing compliments a little earlier. Several of those who strongly supported monetarist doctrines appear now to have abandoned their belief or at any rate their conviction that the policy was correct. Some have not. Some even say that the problem is that the monetarist doctrines have not been applied. G K Chesterton stated that Christianity had not been tried and found wanting; it had been found difficult and not tried. That is what some say about monetarism.
  We are not sure what position the Chancellor takes. He apparently still holds to the monetarist doctrines that he preached earlier. In some respects that was the most scarifying part of his speech. He suggested that he would pursue the same course. He stated that it would be fatal to change course now. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] It appears that the Chancellor has at least a few supporters on the Government Benches. I presume that he is asserting that the Government will continue with the policy of massive deflation, which has been their policy ever since they came to power on 3 May 1979.
  The Budget of two years ago had a slightly different tone and there was a different feeling abroad on the Government Benches, but they soon buckled down to the old Tory deflationary policy. As the monetarist policies did not seem to be working sufficiently well in the terms in which they had been introduced, last autumn the Government brought forward a fresh bout of deflation. It was reckoned that the inflection on the economy was £3,000 million. They have done the same in this Budget. We did not get from the Chancellor an exact account of what it was to be. Indeed, he gave no figure for his estimates for employment and unemployment. In a Budget of this nature he should have done. He is embarking once again on deflation on a massive scale. Not only the general budgetary estimate, but many of the individual measures that he has introduced—in particular the 20p tax on petrol—will inflict serious injury on the economy and make it infinitely more difficult to embark on any process of recovery.
  Let us consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the burden of tax, and let us not forget that before today's announcements the Government's position was—although they rarely admitted it—that the burden of tax on individuals, direct and indirect, was higher than when they came to office in 1979. That is before today's Budget. What they have done today is sharp practice on a scale that no one expected.
  I presume that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has offered his resignation. If he has, there is no conceivable reason why it should not be accepted. The

  787
  direct taxation figures are very important indeed to the vast majority of tax payers. The failure of the Government to include the implications of the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment means an extra tax burden of £99 a year for a married couple, £63 for a single person and £132 for an elderly married couple. That is the consequence of the Government's failure to carry out their obligations and manifesto commitments. Tax thresholds are now lower than when the Conservative Government came to office, despite the fact that at the general election the Tory Party gave a direct promise that by the raising of tax thresholds the low paid would be let out of the tax net altogether. The manifesto stated how a Tory Government would tackle the matter and gave the reasons why.
  It is scandalous that the Chancellor has not proceeded with the measure today. Only a year ago in his Budget Statement he tried to explain why it was conceivably not necessary for him to go ahead with the full increases in personal allowances last year. He stated:
  "At first sight that would suggest increases in the personal allowances which fall some way short of the rise in prices during 1979, but this would have a number of undesirable effects."
  These undesirable effects will follow from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy today.
  "It would lower the starting point of income tax in real terms, compared with a year ago. It would increase the number of taxpayers. It would narrow the gap between tax thresholds and the main social security benefits, and it would impose particularly heavy burdens on those with the smallest incomes. All those effects would be most undesirable."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1474.]
  All those effects have been introduced or sustained by the Chancellor failing to take action today.
  When we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, I trust that all those who voted for the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment will vote for the maintenance of its principle, and that there will be restoration for those who are having the extra tax burden imposed on them. It is a matter of grave importance to the House and to the relationship between the House and the country.
  The Opposition and, I believe, the country as a whole, are primarily concerned about the Budget, not only because of the tax rates which will be imposed. I have barely touched upon the range of increased indirect taxation that will impose its burden upon people. Overwhelmingly, the greatest issue facing the country is what is to happen to the level of unemployment. Both the Government and the Chancellor propose that we continue along the same course on which we were embarked. That means that there will be a serious increase in the level of unemployment that our people will have to encounter and overcome in the coming months and, indeed, years.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will continue on the same course. That means the continuance of the appalling production figures that this country has endured throughout this period. Last year, GDP fell by 6.8 per cent., the index of industrial production by 13.2 per cent., the index of manufacturing production by 17.2 per cent., capital investment in all industries by 2.6 per cent. and in manufacturing by 3.6 per cent., investment in manufacturing by 12.6 per cent, and construction industry output by 9.2 per cent. Those figures add up to the massive unemployment that the country has had thrust upon it throughout this period.
  The CBI put forward proposals for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider which at any rate would have avoided a fresh bout of deflation. The House and
  788
  indeed the country should take note of what the CBI said about unemployment. These are the prophecies, not of the Labour Party, but of the CBI itself. The CBI calculates that if all the proposals outlined in the CBI plan were carried through—and certainly the Government have not come near to accepting any more than a few trifles from among them—by 1984 it might be possible to get the unemployment figures down to what they are today. The unemployment figures today are already record figures for this century.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to point out in his speech that huge totals must be added to the figure of 2½ million unemployed. There are 700,000 people working short time, sustained by the various schemes that have been introduced. There are hosts of other figures to be added. I hate to make prophecies about unemployment rising above 3 million, and I believe that one should be careful about doing so, but that is what the CBI has said.
  This Budget will produce a total of more than 3 million unemployed in this country. It is a Budget of no hope for the people of this country.
  "All hope abandon, ye who enter here"
  is the inscription to be written above the monetarist Inferno in which the Government still believe. There is no hope for the one million people who have joined the ranks of the unemployed in the past year. There is no hope for the further half million who will join the queue in the coming year, and in years to come. There is no hope for the vast majority of people coming out of the youth schemes. Certainly, they are good schemes, but the people in them still have to find jobs at the end. There is no hope for the overwhelming majority of people who will have to bear a much heavier burden as a result of this Budget.
  It is a no-hope Budget, introduced by a no-hope Chancellor. It is a Budget which can only inflict the most serious injury on our country as a whole in years to come. It will inflict serious injury upon individuals and their families and on communities in the coming weeks and months, and longer-term injury on our country. It results from a combination of the primitive morals of the monetarists and the practical incompetence of the broken-backed Cabinet that we see arrayed before us today.
  How long will this country have to endure the combination of injury and insult to which we have been subjected from the Treasury Bench? How long will this continue? That is the question which echoes up and down this country. The sooner the electorate has the chance to finish this Government, the better for all concerned.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. J. Grimond: Fifteen or 20 years ago, the Budget was considered to be the main instrument of economic policy in the Government's hands. Those days have departed. We do not now hear of demand management or fine tuning. The Budget now is a desperate attempt by the Government to cover at least a part of their own annual expenditure.
  If that is how the Budget is to be viewed, I wish to make one point. Great importance is now attached to the public sector borrowing requirement. But that includes not only borrowing by the Government for unproductive purposes but also borrowing by the nationalised industries. If borrowing by the nationalised industries is for genuine investment, there is no reason why it should not be treated as such and taken out of the public sector borrowing requirement. I am sure that the real fear in the

  789
  Government's mind is that it is not genuine investment but that it is largely wasted. If that is so, the Government should turn their attention to the running of the nationalised industries. In so far as it is genuine investment for productive purposes which earns a profit, however, there is no conceivable reason for one to be ashamed of it.
  It has been said that the Government are not changing course, but in one respect they are changing course very rapidly. They promised continuing reductions in taxation. Apart from anything else, they are raising income tax levels this year by about 3p. There is no further reduction in taxation, so they have certainly changed course on that. However, it is not my business to deploy the main Liberal case on the Budget. That will be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party tomorrow.
  I wish to concentrate upon two aspects. First, there is the question of oil and petrol. I believe that the Government's policy on North Sea oil is disastrous. There is a strong case for issuing shares to the public, as has been suggested by Mr. Samuel Brittan. There is also a strong case for putting this income to investment. But there is no case for treating it largely as revenue when it should be treated as capital and allowing it to increase the value of the pound and provide no benefit to the economy. Today, we have again heard that the price of petrol is to rise 20p per gallon. This will be killing for agriculture. Already, farmers all over the country are complaining bitterly that their costs have far outstripped the prices that they obtain. Agricultural prices are falling. It will also be a further grave handicap on industry. In areas such as Orkney and Shetland, which I represent, the Isle of Wight, and other islands off the coast, where petrol is already l0p per gallon dearer than it is in London, this will be a further blow to the whole rural community. This continual raising of the tax on oil or petrol, regardless of its effect on industry and agriculture, is quite disastrous. If any company were to treat the oil revenues from the North Sea as capital, I believe that it would land up in the Old Bailey.
  I turn to the organisation of industry. I am extremely doubtful about the effects of Budgets. I have now listened to about 30 Budget Statements. Indeed, one wonders why they are held annually in the spring, unless it is some hangover from long-ago days when we were an agricultural community. The Chancellor usually tells us that he has mapped out the course ahead, but in the autumn we are told that the whole thing must be washed out and something quite different done. What is certain is that this country's prosperity depends upon the efficiency of its industry, and that depends upon the structure of industry and the good will and productivity of those who work in it.
  With regard to helping small businesses, the main new step in the Budget is the business start-up scheme. I welcome that. However, am I right in thinking that it is only tax relief on new businesses? For instance, it will not help those who wish to expand or take over existing business; nor will it provide any capital for new businesses. There is a great need in this country for a source by which people's savings can be channelled into productive industry.
  At present, the great bulk of savings go into the savings banks or the building societies. The great bulk of those savings are taken out from the regions, where they are
  790
  accumulated, and dealt with centrally in London. I believe that the whole banking system is becoming far too centralised. We need some form of development bank—I do not mind whether it is set up by private enterprise or by Government—which will have its roots in the regions and which will channel regional savings into industry in those regions.
  The Prime Minister has emphasised that she is interested in seeing that the maximum amount of redundancy payment money is invested in new businesses. However, there is nothing in the Chancellor's proposals to encourage that. There is nothing to encourage those receiving redundancy payments to join together to form co-operatives. I have taken some interest in this matter and have visited Corby and other places. There is a considerable willingness among people to engage in that type of enterprise. However, they lack knowledge about it. They do not know what might be possible, and they are ignorant of the legal traps into which they may fall.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am not sure whether I heard the Chancellor aright, but surely the pilot loan scheme and the business starter scheme, combined with the ability to use redundancy money, will enable people who leave employment to start up businesses. Surely that is the whole object of what my right hon. and learned Friend said.
  Mr. Grimond: I do not deny that something has been done, but I am talking about a particular type of business. I am referring to the setting up of new businesses by people who have been declared redundant, who have received redundancy pay and who want to work together. There is a great deal still to be done in that regard.
  In the next year or so, when their redundancy pay begins to run down, those people will find that if they have invested in excess of £2,000 their level of social security will fall. It will take at least a year or more for any of those people to set up new businesses, but they will then be caught by a fall in their social security. The Government should make it possible for people who are investing to be able to draw on social security for a longer period so that together they may have some chance of setting up a co-operative or other forms of small business.
  At present, there is a clear and unfair difference between those who set up a partnership and those who want to start up a small business of the sort that I have outlined. In effect, the former are allowed to pay interest on any shares they buy out of pre-tax income, but that does not apply to the latter.
  I also draw the attention of the Government to the progress of the Companies Bill in another place. In particular, I should like them to look at the speech of Viscount Caldecote, the chairman of the ICFC. The Chancellor said that the Government had been in touch with the ICFC. I hope that they will pay attention to Lord Caldecote's remarks. He commended what he called"management buy-outs"—I am sure that he is quite right—and particularly approved of the Government's proposal to allow these businesses to buy back their own shares. He also coined a new phrase,"a company-owning democracy". That is something to which we should pay considerable attention.
  I am anxious to encourage not only pure co-operatives but also the wider investment of redundancy payments and, indeed, people's ordinary savings in all types of

  791
  industry and enterprise within their own regions and in their native places. I believe that Viscount Caldecote, supported by Lord Seebohm, his predecessor at the ICFC, intends to move certain amendments to the Companies Bill aimed at encouraging that type of enterprise. I very much hope that the Government will respond to that. I also hope that they will be receptive to parallel amendments to the Finance Bill in order to encourage this type of development and to lessen some of the tax burdens and other difficulties which in spite of their measures—I admit that they have introduced some measures to assist in that direction—gravely hamper those who want to strike out on their own. The position of many small businesses is gravely hampered, both by the legal complexities of company laws and also by the weight of taxation.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. John Loveridge: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I know that he will forgive me if I comment not on his observations but rather on those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  All of us appreciate the difficulties and constraints placed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer by worldwide conditions. We cannot immediately form a full judgment about the measures that have been announced. That will take time. Some of us will be pleased, and others less so. That is inevitable with any Budget. However, it gave me particular pleasure to learn that three aspects on which the Conservative Party small businesses committee—of which I have the honour to be chairman—has been pressing the Government have been brought forward in this Budget: first, a new loan guarantee scheme to help small businesses to start up and to expand; secondly, new investment measures to encourage savers to put their savings into small firms rather than direct them into pension funds and insurance; and thirdly, improved measures for the relief of capital taxation, which has proved such a discouragement to expansion. I shall return to those three points later.
  This is a tough Budget. It had to be. I have looked up one of my old speeches and I see that I then forecast:
  "Our debts abroad could grow to much more than £10,000 million before the North Sea oil flows in."—[Official Report, 29 January 1974; Vol. 868, c. 302].
  I see from an answer given by the Financial Secretary on 10 February 1981 that our official debts abroad increased between April 1974 and May 1979 by $17·2 million, plus interest at $6·4 million. Therefore, it will be seen that the estimate that I made in January 1974, as the chill of the first oil price increase broke upon us, was not far out.
  That crisis and successive crises that resulted from increased oil prices have lain at the heart of the difficulty of every Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, of the difficulties of the nation as a whole since then. In January 1974 I also noted that there had been an increase in world liquidity in the previous two years that amounted to 62 per cent., and that that presaged inflation in the Western world for a long time to come. The Government are to be congratulated on lowering the rate of inflation, after the bout of inflationary rises that resulted from the pre-election boom. Given the 2 per cent. reduction in the minimum lending rate, the pound will probably fall a little. However, the effect of that drop may have already been largely discounted on the markets. We should never forget that over a long period of time this country has shown a
  792
  marginal propensity for importing more than it exports. Therefore, the Government should keep an eye on the pound.
  Although our exporters would like a lower pound, we must ensure that we do not run into further constraints on expansion, which could arise from balance of payments difficulties. Given the benefit of our oil, however, that probably will not happen Some of us will be sorry that more help has not been given over energy prices. We all know that in America the use of oil is more than double that found per capita in this country. The United States of America benefits from cheaper prices. As long as that situation continues, there will be a strain on the economies of the Western world due to its imports. On 1978 figures, we use 3·78 tons of oil equivalent per capita. In the United States of America 8·5 tons per capita are used. Japan is an example of how much can be done to save energy. Despite its vast output, only 3·1 tons per capita are used.
  I turn to the expansion of the money supply. I wonder whether the Government have not been unduly anxious about it. However, I am glad that in recent weeks—and, indeed, today—the Government seem to have taken an easier attitude towards the growth of M3. As stocks fall, it is natural that they should be turned into cash. M3 is a broad measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded us of the effects of removing the corset.
  I should like the House to consider the figures for the growth of the gross national product from the end of 1969 to the end of 1979. At the end of 1969 the gross national product was £40·1 billion. At the end of 1979 the amount had grown to £162·1 billion, which is slightly more than a fourfold increase.
  Let us now compare the growth of M3 over that same decade. At the end of 1969 the figure for M3 was £16,132 million. At the end of 1979 it was £58,645 million. That is substantially less than the fourfold increase in the gross national product. Although there is no need for an exact relationship between the two, common sense suggests that at the end of that decade there must have been room for a substantial catching up in M3 in comparison with the growth that had taken place during that decade. Indeed, I refer to thousands of millions of pounds of room for M3 to catch up.
  I turn now to the figure for our debts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a target of about £10·5 billion for the public sector borrowing requirement for the coming year. Some of us may feel that that target will be hard to meet and that it should be eased. Some—including myself—find it strange that, when our defence needs are growing, when dockyards are idle, when steelworks are empty and when engineers are unemployed, we are not using more fully the productive capacity to create new arms for our services, such as a new Navy. Not only would the country become safer from aggression, but those industries would be lifted out of the doldrums and greater employment would be provided.
  Unfortunately, many men have had to leave the steel industry. However, 15,000 new jobs will be created under the arrangements for the expansion of small businesses in the steel-producing areas. Governments should not forget that without micro-economic success there are no macroeconomics.
  I was cheered to hear some of the measures that my right hon. and learned Friend proposed. I refer first to the loan guarantee scheme. Those of us who nagged away are cheered to find that our words have been effective and that

  793
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought such a scheme to fruition. However, I was concerned to note the limitations that have been placed on it. First, it is only a provisional measure for three years. Secondly, there is to be a limit of £50 million on lending. Thirdly, there is to be a limit of £75,000 in loans to any one firm.
  The Government seem to have adopted our scheme in most respects, including the amount to be financed totally by the banks and the amount to be underwritten—on a self-financing basis—by the Government. The ratio of 80 to 20 per cent. seems reasonable. However, when we put forward our scheme we believed that rapidly expanding firms that were already off the ground and that did not have assets needed money to sustain their growth and cash flows. Banks would not lend to them because they did not have the assets to pledge to cover any rapid expansion.
  The limit of £75,000 will restrict access to smaller units, many of which can already obtain satisfactory servicing from the banks. I was also concerned to hear that the scheme would be worked through the Department of Industry. We had hoped that the banks would carry out a major part of the work.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is the banks.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): It is the banks.
  Mr. Loveridge: I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister. The proposal represents a bold, new and good idea. It will succeed. However, we should have liked it to be on a much larger scale.
  Secondly, on the question of private investment in industry, the relief of up to £10,000 invested will be a great encouragement for those in high salaried jobs who are making substantial savings to put those savings and back them with their judgment into small businesses. But for small businesses that need capital £10,000 is not a lot. They will have to develop a new market to find the people who are willing to invest in them. I hope that the Government will be able to help in setting up such arrangements so that those who have money to invest can be brought nearer to those who need the money.
  Thirdly, there were the welcome provisions on capital taxation. They are good. They go a long way to relieve the difficulties, but again I fear that for many firms they do not go far enough.
  On the whole question of investment, that being what industry badly needs at present, I was a little concerned to note that banks would be charged a tax on their excess profits to the tune of about £400 million. I should have preferred that amount to be turned towards the small and medium business sectors. None the less, it is right that banks should not make a windfall advantage out of national considerations that have increased interest rates. On the other hand, it would have been better if the money, instead of going into the Government's purse, had gone direct into the expansion of British output.
  The Budget has hit drinkers, smokers and travellers. At the same time, it helps investors. That is surely the right balance and direction. I am glad to see that there will be a reform of stock relief, including consortium relief, and to note the help given for conversion from oil to coal, to the tune of £50 million a year.
  794
  The construction industry is helped, though it is not given a large handout. However, that is helpful and encouraging. Again, the initial allowances for new industrial buildings are on the right lines.
  The measures to give relief to let land are only fair. They should help to bring managers into farming in a way that has been denied them in recent years because of the inflationary price of land.
  The discounted price of council houses being the proper rate for stamp duty seems only fair, since that is the money that passes.
  I do not wish to detain the House long, because I know that other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak, but it would be wrong for me, as chairman of the small businesses committee, not to refer to the increase in line with inflation of VAT exemption from £13,500 to £15,000 a year. It is also to be welcomed that the 40 per cent. relief of corporation tax for small companies increases to £80,000, in line with inflation, and, more particularly, that the scale for marginal relief limit is to be changed. I and my colleagues have long argued that the marginal relief measures between small and large firms operated not as a relief but as a deterrent, because at part of the scale corporation tax shot up to 66 per cent. actually charged.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A document is being circulated in the press about the Civil List and is not available to hon. Members. It is causing a lot of concern in the Lobby outside. I hope that you will take steps to see that it is made available to hon. Members as well as to the press.
  Mr. Speaker: If it is a parliamentary paper I shall, of course, make inquiries. At the request of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I shall find out what has happened. Parliamentary papers should, of course, be available to hon. Members first. I know nothing about the matter, and I shall have to make inquiries.
  Mr. Loveridge: It is not clear at the moment how much the new relief will reduce that 66 per cent. marginal cost, but it sounds as though it will relieve it substantially. It is, therefore, a greatly welcomed improvement.
  Welcome, too, are the proposals that companies will be able to buy their own shares and that capital losses can be set off against investment in companies as well as in individual firms and partnerships, and that redundancy payments will be taxable only over £25,000, which will help many people who receive redundancy money to start up businesses of their own.
  The new improvements to be made in the management of COSIRA are welcome, though many of us would have liked COSIRA to extend its services to business in country and rural districts to towns as well.
  Our purpose has been to increase output per man, but as yet that has not been fully achieved. No doubt it will come, and certainly in the small business sector there is the will to achieve it. In Japan there are 5.4 million small businesses; here there are 1.3 million. Japan's rate per head of population is double ours. We hope that these measures, combined with those in the previous Budget, will be a start in doubling the small business sector in Britain, and thus providing an additional 1 million jobs.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has spent much of his time congratulating the Government on their small business package, but he has said nothing about

  795
  the effect of the Budget in deflating the economy and reducing demand. Is not that expansion of demand a major contributor to any reflation of small businesses in the United Kingdom? Why does the hon. Gentleman not address himself to the real issue that is being discussed in the Lobby outside, in the Tea Room and all over Westminster, which is that small businesses nationally have taken a bang from the Government in the Budget?
  Mr. Loveridge: No doubt the hon. Member will wish to make his own contribution to the debate shortly. We all want demand to grow. It is the long-term objective of every Government to see everyone in the kingdom better off. But we cannot print money without printing inflation. Not only in our time, but throughout the centuries, extensive inflation has always led to a loss of jobs in whatever country it has occurred.
  Our purpose is to create jobs. When the hon. Gentleman says that I am not creating jobs for small businesses he does me and my colleagues an injustice, because our purpose and belief is that we can create 1 million extra jobs over and above those that will come from reflation of the economy. If all the 50 measures that have been advocated by my colleagues and myself and outlined in my Small Finns Expansion (Inquiry) Bill recently put before the House were put into effect, more jobs would be created. Some of our proposals have been accepted by the Government, but not all of them. With good fortune, I hope to stay in the House long enough to see them all accepted and the 1 million extra jobs created.
  On that happy note for the future I come to the end of my speech and ask the Government to implement in the next Budget all the remaining measures that my committee has advocated.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) described the Budget as a tough one, and I agree with him. I also agree with his recognition of the unused capacity that exists in the economy at present. However, I dispute his suggestion that that unused capacity could be taken up by building new naval dockyards. I could suggest many better ways of spending the nation's resources.
  In fairness to the Chancellor, I welcome the 2 per cent. cut in the minimum lending rate and the modest concessions on energy costs, though they are rather belated. Certainly, some of us have been advocating such measures for a long time. These propositions and the other assistance to small businesses, to which reference has been made, are welcome, but they are really a recognition of the damage that has been done in the past two years to the British economy and, more particularly, to manufacturing industry.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the 9 per cent. drop in output last year in the manufacturing sector. That was a very serious admission. Like myself, the Chancellor is a South Walean. I suggest to. him that open confession is good for the soul—as you would also readily recognise, Mr. Speaker. But during the Chancellor's speech there was no real mention of unemployment. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, it was essentially a Budget of no hope.
  There is a prime need for the Government to change course and to get away from their Right-wing dogmatic
  796
  and Friedmanite policies, which they have pursued for almost two years. Tremendous damage has been done to the economy and it is very difficult now to put that right.
  I want to refer briefly to a side issue in relation to the Budget and the taxation measures proposed by the Chancellor. It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that at the very time when the new measures are being proposed the Government are locked in dispute with their own Civil Service. I spoke to over 200 civil servants in my own area on Monday, and they seemed to be in a very determined mood, so the Government should ask themselves whether the additional revenue proposed in the Budget will be collected.
  During the 15 years in which I have been in the House I have noticed that incomes policy has become a cornerstone of Government economic strategy. The Government, despite their economic policy, seemed to have held up the white Hag even before battle with the miners had commenced. But now they have decided to take on the Civil Service. It would seem to be a case of hammering the weak and giving in to the strong. That is not a very fair-minded attitude, and does not fit in with my concept of British justice. The Government are acting in a shameful way towards their own staff and they may yet come unstuck in this area.
  As for transport and the measures included in the Budget Statement, I suggest that it is time for all Governments to recognise that cars are now almost literally public transport. People go to work in them. The days of leisure motoring have paled almost into insignificance.
  I appreciate that oil is a very valuable commodity, but we must recognise that we are now self-sufficient, so it is a retrograde step to put up the cost of petrol by 20p a gallon and to increase vehicle excise duty to £70. These measures are inflationary in themselves. They will generate new wage claims and make our products, in the ultimate analysis, less competitive in the markets of the world.
  The Chancellor said that there was to be no change in VAT. I have received from a firm in my constituency—a firm with an international reputation, the confectionery firm of Lovells—the view that the present level of VAT to the confectionery industry and the allied products industry is grossly unfair compared with that in other countries in the Common Market, such as Germany. One might have thought that the Chancellor would look at this aspect and ensure that firms got the justice they deserved.
  The overall flashpoint of the economy at present is certainly unemployment. We hear many figures bandied about, but we know that there are 2½ million people out of work, many on short-time working and many more not bothering to register because they know that there is no chance of obtaining work. All the forecasts indicate that there may be 3 million people out of work by the end of the year. Indeed, some reputable forecasters indicate that the figure could increase to an even higher point in the years ahead. Nevertheless, the Chancellor did not have the courage to admit the error of his ways. The Government have watched with gay abandon as well managed and previously profitable enterprises have gone to the wall. It should have been the Chancellor's principal task in the Budget to try to get people back to work. That can be done only by increasing the spending power in the economy to enable people to buy the things that they require.
  The Government should therefore have taken much less in taxation. They could have announced steps to spend

  797
  more on social services, such as housing, education and health. They could have authorised projects that would benefit the economy in the long term—investment in roads, railways, power stations, and so on. With an expanding economy and with the construction and building industry working to full capacity, our factories would be able to improve their relative position. Machinery lying idle could once again be fully utilised, enabling unit costs to fall, so that when eventually expansion took place the efficiency deriving from such measures would in turn reduce the level of inflation in the economy.
  The CBI, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, and the chairman of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee are all as one in telling the Government that their policies are wrong. In this Budget the Chancellor has failed to heed their warning, and in my view he has failed his test.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call another hon. Member I want to refer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I understand that the matter that he was probably concerned about was a written answer to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), which will be in the Official Report tomorrow.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: This Administration came into office dedicated to the view that the basic problem of our economy was that there had been an excess of public spending as against private production and that there was an excess of spending on consumption as against production and measures to encourage production.
  The Budget fits absolutely within the objectives that the Government came into office to achieve. I was especially interested in the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who suggested to my hon. Friend that surely all would be solved if we could increase demand. I may be paraphrasing or caricaturing what he said.
  The Budget clearly does not reflect that view. I want to dedicate my brief speech to this issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—unless I misheard him—said that, far from spending having declined over the past three years, in money terms it had risen by 50 per cent. Let us contrast that with the real matter that he put his finger on—that unit costs have risen twice as fast as those of our competitors. If we are presuming that the problem is lack of demand, I throw in for good measure the fact that British exports in the past year have done better than ever.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In volume.
  Mr. Spicer: Yes, certainly, in volume, but that to some extent reflects the general level of exchange rates.
  The thread running throughout the Budget Statement—and I agree with it—is that what is wrong with the British economy is declining competitiveness. The Budget and the Government's strategy are targeted to that problem. That is where the anti-inflation policy becomes so important. British industry must be able to rely on stable
  798
  costs. Unit costs are of course partly a question of efficiency. It is the duty of Government to provide a stable currency within which business can manage its affairs. The strategy of providing our country with a sound currency has to be correct by any measure unless one believes—as one suspects must be the belief of some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—that one can put a wall round the British economy, and unless one allows that the British economy can proceed at one pace while the rest of the competitive world moves at another. The logic of most of what is proposed as the alternative to the Government's strategy is that one can insulate the British economy from that of the rest of the world, create internal demand within that wall, and live with the effects.
  The problem is that the British economy, like no other, depends on trade. No other economy imports or exports as much in relation to its gross domestic product or to its population. One has especially in mind a comparison with the Japanese, who are often quoted as living in a country similar to ours. As a proportion of the population and of GDP, Japan exports and imports a far smaller amount than does this country.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Japanese were able to insulate domestic production from the ravages of overseas competition by way of tariff barriers and other forms of protection? Is he not putting forward a black and white argument by suggesting that we are pursuing a siege economy argument, as against a grey argument, which incorporates the principles of protection, yet at the same time recognising that we have international obligations in our trading?
  Mr. Spicer: I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate and I shall not pursue that matter at great length, except to say that the Japanese economy was protected at a time when, historically, it was not as dependent on world trade for its continued existence as was this country. It also has a much bigger internal market than ours.
  We ignore unit costs at our peril. In that context the Government's key priority to combat inflation is correct. To claim that by creating internal further demand one will somehow solve the British economic problem is either to be dishonest—which I suspect in many cases it is—or to apply principles that in the real world do not exist.
  The Budget Statement should be more of a state-of-the-nation speech. It should be allowed to wander into paths that are perhaps more appropriate to other departments. I have especially in mind labour practices. If one takes a view about inflation and about unit costs, one should not avoid some kind of pronouncement about labour costs and practices. That is true particularly about monetary policy. I am bothered about an emphasis on monetary policy that ignores the inflexibility and lack of perfection—if I may put it that way—in the labour market. That is one of the basic problems that we have to tackle. The Government must get to grips with the suggestions in Green Paper on trade unions. It must come up with firm policies, in the context of the policies and strategies in the Budget Statement, to deal with the inflexibilities and monopolies in the labour market. Until we get those right, many of our policies will not have their full effect.
  I want to make two comments on the Budget judgment. The first is that we must be wary of clamping down on the

  799
  economy during depressed world conditions and, at the point when the world begins to come out of the recession in a year or two's time, suddenly expanding the economy. That would greatly delay the solution to inflation, which, I agree with the Government, is the prime objective.
  The second point in my necessarily hurried speech is the question whether we are treating the public sector borrowing requirement in too global a sense; in particular, whether we are making sufficient of a distinction between capital and current spending. There should be an emphasis upon spending money on investment for the future and on providing an infrastructure within which our industry can flourish.
  I agree with the measures that the Chancellor has proposed for trying to create new businesses, but we must have an infrastructure within which those businesses can flourish. It is vital that we distinguish between our attitude towards, for example, pay settlements in the public sector and our attitude towards spending on capital and investment projects.
  I am convinced that the strategy on which the Government came to power has every possibility of achieving what is good for this country. If we can restore a sound currency, so much will flow, especially from the great resources in energy and the skills that we possess. In 10 years the country will be transformed. The whole nation will benefit. The Budget must be seen in that context. In that context I approve of it.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: It is rare for me to agree with a Government Member, but I agree with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) about the Government's complete inability to distinguish between capital and current expenditure, in the public sector. I believe that both should be increased,. However, if the Government cannot increase current expenditure, they must increase capital expenditure. If it is not increased, the economy will never recover, because the fiscal structure of our country will not exist in order to form the basis on which it can recover.
  Recently I spoke to some civil engineers. They did not vote for the Labour Party. Most of them voted for the Conservatives at the last election. They say that 95 per cent. of all expenditure in the civil engineering industry, which is entirely in private hands, comes from the public purse. They say that of the other 5 per cent. a fair proportion goes to private firms that are building large projects, such as petrochemical works, and receiving regional aid and other grants from the Government.
  Large cuts have occurred in the capital programmes of local authorities and other public bodies. Civil engineers say that the sewerage system is on the verge of collapse, roads are not being maintained to sufficiently high standards, the water supply industry is on the verge of collapse, and the railways need massive capitalisation if they are not to cease to operate.
  Civil engineers are not scaremongers. They are not trying to make political capital out of the Government's policies. They are in the private sector of industry and are having to lay off workers and create unemployment. Many thriving companies are becoming bankrupt as a result of the Government's inability to distinguish between capital and current expenditure in the public sector.
  800
  Chancellors of the Exchequer often deliberately try to confuse those of us who are not trained economists, and possibly even those who are, with many references to MLRs and PSBRs and other jargon, in the hope that we will not realise exactly what they are doing. When I listen to a Budget Statement, I try to understand how it affects my constituents and particularly the poorest among them.
  There is no question but that this Budget will hit the poorest hardest. It will not hit the wealthy in our society anything like as hard. It is a class Budget, as we might expect from this Government. The Budget is aimed at the poorest in our society. The Government again seem determined to solve our economic problems at the expense of the poor rather than at the expense of the people who can afford to bear the burdens.
  There is to be a 1 per cent. cut in benefits. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you may be a beneficiary of the old-age pension in, I hope, the not-too-near future. You will, therefore, not obtain the full increase in the pension. The Government's argument is that the pension rose by more than 1 per cent. above the rate of inflation last year.
  I emphasise that people receiving pensions, unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit are the poorest in our society. Their rate of inflation is higher than that of the rest of the community. Their housing is usually in the public sector. Their basics are heating, lighting and food. Rents in the public sector have risen by much more than the rate of inflation in the last 12 months. If the Government have their way, they are likely to increase even more.
  Although I welcome the cut in interest rates, that means a decrease in the cost of housing in the private sector when people living in public housing have to pay massive increases. Electricity and gas charges have risen by more than the rate of inflation. People on low incomes have to purchase basic foodstuffs at the corner shop rather than at the supermarket. That is because they do not live near a supermarket and cannot afford to buy in bulk. They do not have freezers in which to store food, and sometimes they do not even have a refrigerator. Such people pay more for their food than average. To argue that they were paid 1 per cent. more than the rate of inflation last year and that therefore they should receive that much less this year is a disgrace.
  A cut in income tax was probably the election promise which, in the better-off South-East and Midlands, had the largest impact and won the election for the Conservatives. Today the Government chose a back-door method to increase direct taxation. The non-implementation of the so-called Rooker-Wise amendment means that many people who were not paying income tax will go over the tax threshold and start paying tax. Even people earning higher wages will have to pay more as their income goes up and they move into higher tax brackets. The Government have not fulfilled their promise to cut direct taxes. They have increased taxes today. The people should be aware that they have increased direct taxation, despite the pledge that won them the election. At the next election, which I hope will be soon, the people should bear that in mind.
  The incomes of the better-off will be safeguarded to some extent because mortgage interest rates will drop and they will have more realisable income in their pockets. The higher the income, the higher the mortgage, and therefore the better off the high income earners will be. To

  801
  some extent that will relieve the effects of direct taxation being increased. Most of the poor who live in public housing will have no such advantage.
  Increases have been made in the price of the basic pleasures of the poorer people. There is an increase in the price of a pint of beer. There is an increase of 14p in the price of a packet of cigarettes. When I telephoned my wife, she said that she hoped that that would make me give up smoking instead of just talking about it. I am sure that this will happen to many people. Smoking and drinking are not desirable pleasures, but for many working people and for many poor people the odd pint of beer and the odd packet of cigarettes are the only pleasure. They will now be able to afford fewer of these pleasures, if they can afford them at all.
  There is, of course, the employment effect. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn(Mr. Martin) there are tobacco factories. Some of my constituents work in those factories. They will be hard hit by the inevitable decline in the number of people who smoke cigarettes. That will create further unemployment in an area where the rate of unemployment is already far too high.
  I am the first Scottish Member to speak in this Budget debate. The whisky industry pleaded with the Chancellor not to increase the price of whisky. It will be hard hit, and there will be consequent effects on unemployment in areas already hard hit by unemployment.
  The rise in the price of petrol will inevitably have an inflationary effect throughout the whole economy. I accept that a small step has been taken in the Budget to deal with the anomaly of the company car, but those drivers are not the ones who are hit hardest by the increase in the price of petrol. It does not hit hard at the person who receives an allowance towards the cost of petrol from his company or from Parliament. It hits hardest at the person who tries to run his own car out of his own pocket and who drives his"banger" to and from work. I understand that 70 per cent. of people have a car and petrol provided by their companies. Those who are hit are the remaining 30 per cent. who try to run a car out of their own pocket.
  The Budget is aimed at and hits the poor. It will not solve the problems of inflation. The Government should appreciate that inflation is not the only priority and the only target of economic management. Unemployment is now as great a problem as, if not a greater problem than, inflation. The Government should be tackling that problem. The Budget does nothing to solve the problem.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Stokes: Any fair minded person will sympathise with the Chancellor in his difficult task today. His speech was delivered with the usual urbanity, temperance and clarity that we have come to expect from him. The fact is that the United Kingdom has become a difficult nation to govern. Expectations have risen so much since the last war that some people seem never to be satisfied. This rise in material expectations does not always seem to have been accompanied by any increase in personal happiness or contentment. Indeed, judging by the strike of civil servants yesterday, which I and many other hon. Members deplore, some of those who seem to have the most comfortable and worry-free jobs in
  802
  the land seem to be the most discontented. I know what the hard-pressed industrial workers in my constituency think about that strike: I agree with them.
  The main failure of the Government, which they admit, has been their failure to cut public expenditure. Looking back with hindsight, the Government should have wielded the axe with extreme rigour from their first Budget in June 1979. The plain fact is that the productive effort from our factories is so low and yielding so little profit that we can barely afford, as a nation, to defend ourselves, which is vital, or to sustain the vast structure of the Welfare State which we have built over the years. The Government can claim success in cutting the rate of inflation, but they still seem to find difficulty in reducing the PSBR. It may give cause for anxiety that inflationary pressures could start again in due course.
  I welcome, as, I think, do most hon. Members, the cut in MLR. I hope that some sectors of industry will now stop shouting about the high value of the pound. After all, the pound has fallen. In the end, a low pound is just as harmful as a pound that is too high. I believe that the reduction in MLR is the main help for industry in the Budget. It will help every sector of the nation's economic, commercial and industrial life, and particularly the construction industry.
  I welcome the reduction in energy prices, small as they, seem. I feel, however, that the Government have got their sums wrong and that they should have another look at energy costs. I am sorry that there has been no cut in the insurance surcharge, which is another tax on industrial, manufacturing and exporting companies.
  The increases in taxes on drinks and smoking were expected and do not displease me. The increase in car and lorry taxation and the increased tax on petrol will put further costs on industry and bear down still more on the hard-pressed motorist, particularly those living in country areas, who depend so much on their cars. I believe that these increases in taxation were inevitable and necessary if the Chancellor was to try to recover some revenue. The huge payments to British Steel, BL, and the National Coal Board and British Shipbuilders are a fearful loss of blood to the body politic and make the ordinary, prudent business man despair that we shall ever get the public sector right.
  I believe that the only solution will be to sell off as much of these enterprises as possible to the private sector. I am disappointed that more progress has not been made in this direction.
  I recognise that there probably had to be an increase in direct taxation, which is the result of no increase being made in the tax allowances. If we, as a Conservative Party, believe in incentives, as we do, I hope that, at least in the next Budget and in succeeding Budgets, we can turn once more to reducing the burden of direct taxation.
  I welcome very much the various steps promised to help the small business man. What everyone awaits is the end to the world slump, which now looks as if it will come later this year than we were led to expect. What is also badly needed in this country is a mood of hope and optimism about our future as a great trading and manufacturing nation.
  I welcome the increased pensions. I hope that pensioners will now realise that they are, on the whole, an exceptionally favoured class in the community.
  The Government's attempt to widen their scope in borrowing is enterprising, if, perhaps, not always wholly dignified. I hope that the Government's fund-raising

  803
  efforts will not come to look too much like a hire-purchase finance company that is desperate to attract deposits. Nor am I exactly delighted by the once-and-for-all tax on banks. This rather smacks of the efforts of Sir Stafford Cripps in the Labour Government after the last war. Industry, which I mainly represent, envies the banks and the life of the banks. I have, however, met very few industrialists who want this sort: of tax placed upon banks. They want the banks to do their main job—to lend to industry and to work to secure the recovery of this country.
  I am not altogether happy about the additional tax that is to be placed on our great independent oil companies, on which we depend for so much.
  Sometimes when we are depressed and worried we forget our virtues. We forget what a civilised country we are, what admirable institutions we have, how kind and tolerant our people are, in spite of occasional violence and picketing, what brains we have, what inventiveness, what achievements in trading and in financial services.
  Our problem lies mainly in our manufacturing sector. There, still more emphasis must be placed on research and development, design, production, marketing and aftersales services. The greatest leadership is required from those in charge of our factories. An intense effort is required to pull together our nationalised industries.
  Our troubles are not economic and industrial; they are spiritual. There is some strange malaise. We almost seem to doubt that we can match the products of France, Germany, the United States of America, or Japan. Yet in our heart of hearts we know that we have the skill and ability, if only we put our minds to it and are imbued, as the CBI said, with the will to win.
  This change of attitude is essential if we are to succeed. There is increasing evidence of this on the shop floor and some evidence in management. It is to this task of rallying the productive capacity of the nation that the Government must turn in the coming months. This spirit must get right through from the Government and from all of us here to the family, the schools, the universities and technical colleges, to charge hands and foremen, managers and directors, schoolmasters and parsons, and all those who have influence on young people, if this country is once again to regain its industrial greatness, which, regrettably, has been in decline for more than a century.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Michael McGuire: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), because he always issues clarion cries. His clarion cry today was that he wants to see Britain great once again, and I think we are all in agreement with him there. Our arguments would be over the methods that are needed to bring that about.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the House for an hour and 40 minutes, and it is difficult within the short time that has elapsed for hon. Members to get a perspective of the proposals in the Budget Statement. My overall impression is that the Chancellor is just tinkering. The Minister of State Treasury, will appreciate the phrase, because in the past such phrases as"a touch on the tiller" have been used in speaking of the Budget. In this case there has been a bit of tinkering, which does nothing substantial.
  I follow the line of thought expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said that he judged these matters by his own
  804
  experience. He asked whether the Budget would improve the lot of those who supported the Opposition—those who need help. Our policy is that the broadest backs should bear the biggest burden, and my impression is that the Budget does not go towards that desirable end.
  When the present Government were in Opposition they railed against the then Labour Government about many aspects of our policy. They boasted that if they were in power they would galvanise industry, and small businesses in particular. They boasted that they would halve unemployment; all firms would be taking on a minimum of five people and possibly 10 or 20, and firms would be looking for workers. They derided our incomes policy and said that we conceded to the powerful and mighty because we had an incomes policy. They believed in free market forces. But they do not, as they have consistently proved. They have bowed to force. They have punished those who cannot offer force as an alternative. That is not good for the health of the nation, whether the Government in power are Labour or Conservative.
  The Chancellor told us how badly our industrial performance compared with that of our industrial competitors. There is no doubt that we compare very unfavourably. We have suffered a 14 per cent. reduction in production. The Chancellor mentioned the textile industry. Sometimes, in short debates, we have difficulty in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. I sat all through the debate on the textile industry but I was not lucky enough to be called. Had I been called to speak, I would have referred to a topic that I hope will not be out of place in today's debate. The textile industry's wounds are not self-inflicted. The industry is suffering from the effects not of free trade but of unfair trade. It is a model industry from the point of view of capital investment and industrial relations.
  The Budget will not do much, if anything, to redress the industrial decline that the nation has undergone. That decline is more severe than that which has occurred in any other country. If anyone had said in the House, 10 years ago, when the bonanza of North Sea oil was a hope rather than a certainty, that we would be self-sufficient in anything and yet have the greatest industrial decline in Western Europe, no one would have believed it.
  I am not an economist, but my feeling is that we are not using wisely enough the tremendous financial resources that flow from North Sea oil revenues to resuscitate and modernise industry. Modernisation goes with a planned policy of wide training schemes for workers, who are inevitably thrown out of work by greater capital investment. We do not have that policy. The 2 per cent. cut in MLR is welcome. The Government's strategy, like that of the Labour Government, is to get down the rate of inflation.
  The other week I was talking to some business men at the factory of a small, successful firm, which is still growing in spite of the difficult industrial climate, and they told me that if they were offered a 2 per cent. reduction in MLR or a 2 per cent. reduction in inflation, they would go for the reduction in inflation. They said that it would be far more beneficial to them. So I think that that will be very welcome.
  I am glad that the Minister of State, to whom I referred earlier, is still here and is studying as keenly as ever the biographies of Members of Parliament who are present, perhaps hoping to be called, and I should like to draw his

  805
  attention—I know that he is an expert on these things—to a letter that I have had from a local society that helps mentally handicapped children. It reads:
  "In view of the present emphasis being given to the role of voluntary organisations, MENCA"—
  which is an acronym for the Society for Mentally Handicapped Children—
  "is striving to increase income and reduce expenditure. This raises again the unfair burden which the larger, service charities incur each year through the operation of value added tax. Last year, our organisation's unrecovered VAT was £40,000.
  We feel that we should be treated for VAT purposes on a basis similar to local authorities, whose services in the relevant field are in many respects comparable to our own. There is little doubt that, if MENCAP is not given this financial concession, families in your constituency may suffer considerable inconvenience and even hardship."
  The letter urges me to recommend to the Government as strongly as I can that in the next Budget MENCAP is brought within the framework of section 15(3)(i) of the 1972 Finance Act. I hope that I have been able to convey to the hon. and learned Gentleman the need to have a look at problems of this kind.
  I know that I said how difficult it was to absorb everything in the Budget Statement, but I realised that there were certain concessions in this field and for the handicapped. The purchasing of ambulances, and so on, was mentioned, and I welcome the mobility allowance increase. I have a son who is a recipient of that allowance. Indeed, I very much welcome anything that helps handicapped people in particular.
  Like my hon. Friends, I cannot see that increasing the price of petrol by 20p per gallon and putting £10 on the road fund licence can be anything but inflationary and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), I agree that cars have now become a form of public transport. Punishing people like this will, I think, come back on the Government. Their non-governmental incomes policy will be under more stress and strain, and they will have bigger fights on their hands.
  I look forward to the day when the vehicle licence fee is abolished. A much more sensible action would be to abolish it and increase the cost of petrol, because the bigger, more powerful cars and lorries would then appropriately bear the biggest burden and there would be no fiddling things like rating cars on their horse power, and so on. That is a dream which I hope will come true under a Labour Government—soon to come; it cannot be long delayed with the performance of hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches.
  As for income tax, like many other hon. Members I had written down a whole series of headings to help myself write down the assumed increases in—I had written down"personal; married couples' allowance; wife's allowance; age relief; and tax bands". Now I see that there is going to be no change—not even a touch on the tiller. The Government got into power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, on the proud but, we now know, vain boast that they were going to reduce taxation, both personal and indirect. The fact of the matter is that with the inflation that has taken place we are not even to be given a modest increase. So that was a false boast.
  In the debate on the Queen's Speech I said that all the forecasts indicated that there was going to be pretty thin gruel for the people of this country in the next 12 months. I am sorry to say that that thin gruel has been watered down
  806
  substantially. The Government seem hell-bent on proving the truth of the sick old joke about the operation being a marvellous success but the patient unfortunately dying. A Budget of this kind is going to help the patients to die much more quickly than they might otherwise have done.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thoroughly welcome the increase in child benefit. I should like to congratulate the Treasury Front Bench on its action in making sure that child benefit has gone up faster than tax allowances. Since the introduction of family allowances in the 1940s we have seen many hiccups in family incomes support. I think that hon. Members in on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that this Budget, like one or two others, has made sure that the level of income that people expect for their children has risen faster than have national average earnings during the past year.
  During the past year we have seen earnings rise by between 10 and 25 per cent., depending upon the month for which the calculation is made. During the forthcoming year we can expect earnings to rise by less than 10 per cent.—they certainly need to—but to have what will be a 10 per cent. increase in child benefit is right. It helps to make a low level of earnings increase more acceptable to families who are caring for children. I think that it is important to emphasise that we need to get the average level of pay settlements down substantially more than we have so far. Child benefit is the only way to step in to help those families who have child dependants and who are at work.
  During what is necessarily a short speech, I bow to the judgment of the Goverment on the question of reducing the PSBR. I happen to believe that it is fairly easy to finance a higher level of PSBR on the expectation of falling interest rates, but I think that the study that they have given us should perhaps take precedence over my own possible preference. I would say to the House and to the country that, given a target figure for the PSBR, it is possible during the year for the country as a whole to affect the outcome on earnings and the outcome on prices. Given a target level, especially in cash terms, which the Chancellor has introduced to us today, I believe that we ought to be able to get the rate of inflation down below the 10 per cent. that is expected for November—a 10 per cent. which, presumably, includes 2 per cent. provision for the indirect tax and Excise duty increases in the Budget—and to aim to have by this time next year a rate of inflation that is down below 5 per cent. That would be compatible with average pay increases of below 5 per cent. If we can get average pay increases at, say, 3 per cent. by this time next year, the demand effects of the Budget will be different from what they will appear to be if the average level of pay increases over the next 12 months is 7 or 10 per cent.
  I do not believe that it is possible, with a TUC that is committed against an incomes policy, a Labour Party conference that is committed against an incomes policy and a Tory Government who are committed against an incomes policy, to achieve the kind of low level of average pay increases which we all know is necessary unless we all talk about it far more. So, my final point to the Treasury Front Bench is this: do not just come along at Budget time and say that because of the aggregate behaviour of people in the economy we cannot raise tax allowances or other things. Do say, a year in advance, that if we can get a certain level of price increases, or a certain level of pay

  807
  increases, or a certain achievement on the PSBR, or whatever the targets may be, we will provide certain rewards; we shall be able to afford to do more for the elderly, or children, or various projects. I believe that only by doing that is it possible for the Government to get the co-operation of most of the people in the country, for most of the time, during the year that matters.
  On those grounds I give my general support to what the Chancellor has announced and I repeat that child benefit is valuable and that what has happened on child benefit is good. Let us hope that we get some more next year.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Thompson.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  British Railways (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is one of a long line of general powers Bills that have come before the House promoted by British Railways. On this occasion it is a somewhat smaller document than usual. A number of matters are in contention, and I shall refer to them in a moment.
  I wish to follow precedent and say a word or two about the general position of the railways. The railway system in Britain is undergoing an important and encouraging transformation. It is interesting to note that we are once again hearing talk about building a Channel tunnel. I am delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport to our deliberations. The Government are considering British Rail's plan for electrification. The Budget suggests that personal transport by car will become more expensive, so surely rail travel will be an even better deal than in the past. The plan to electrify, as nearly completely as possible, the railway track in Britain should be given a fair wind. If 80 per cent. of passenger trains and 70 per cent. of freight-carrying trains were electrified, about 120 million gallons of oil would be saved each year. That is no mean feat for a country which, with the remainder of the Western world, must be careful about its energy resources. When the Government examine this plan, I hope that they will draw a distinction between investment in that project and money to prop up industries in financial trouble. This plan is investment for the future.
  The Bill covers a number of aspects of the rail network. The contentious items are largely contained in clause 5, which provides the British Railways Board with powers to undertake certain works. A number of my hon. Friends expressed concern about some of them. I shall try now to satisfy their need for explanation. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I shall ask to be allowed to speak again, if necessary, to reply to any further points that may be raised.
  Work No. 1 relates to the establishment of a link railway between the Tilbury-Barking line and the Thames Nitrogen Company Limited. That company is a fertiliser manufacturer, and the feed stock for its operation is ammonia. Currently the ammonia is delivered to the company's premises by road, and about 150 tonnes are moved each week. Because of the rigorous and proper safety requirements for moving such a product, only about 17 tonnes can be moved on each journey. The whole process requires a substantial fleet of road vehicles. The company, quite reasonably, has asked to be linked to its suppliers by rail. The British Railways Board has always been anxious to encourage customers to have rail links wherever appropriate, as it is in this case. The proposal should be welcomed from a safety aspect and it has a good deal to commend it. From a cost-effectiveness aspect, for the reasons I gave about road transport and in the light of the proposals in the Chancellor's speech, such a link would make good business sense.
  I recognise that there is a slight dilemma because the Department of Transport is considering a route for the A13. If the Under-Secretary intervenes in the debate, he

  809
  may wish to comment on that position. It is the board's contention that its plan for a link railway should remain part of the Bill until a final commitment has been made about the route of the A13, because it appears that its plan enjoys the support of the House.
  Work No. 2 relates to the deviation of the LutonDunstable branch freight line to provide land for the construction of a road for Bedfordshire county council. There is no argument about that new road being urgently required. The problem is that the land required is currently leased to the Luton Town Football and Athletic Company Limited, usually known as the Luton football club. It has leased that land from British Rail since 1973. The club itself has been in existence since 1885. Some of the land in question will be required for the project. The club is concerned about the effect that the removal of that land will have on its ability to remain a viable commercial enterprise. British Railways have indicated that they are anxious, whenever possible, to provide alternative land—for example, for car parking. They have made a clear proposition about the alteration to, and the movement of, the Kenilworth suite—a suite of directors' facilities and other facilities—so that it can remain, albeit in a slightly altered position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) is concerned about that matter, and has tabled a blocking motion against the Bill. I assure him that, as he well knows, there is no question but that the relief road is required, that this is the preferred line of route and that the facilities that British Railways are anxious to discuss with the club should meet most of the objections. I realise that there is talk about the programme for the development of the road slipping back from 1983–84 to 1985. That might provide a temptation to omit this section from the Bill. The inclusion of that future work in the provisions of the Bill would provide greater time for the club and all interested parties to arrive at a more appropriate and sensible solution than if the works were carried out earlier. Therefore, I hope that that argument will not be used to have this provision removed from the Bill.
  Mr. John Carlisle: It seems that my hon. Friend feels that if the Bill goes into Committee in its present form there will be a time advantage. As I and the Luton Town football club understand it, there would be about two months between Second Reading and Committee. Much will depend on Mr. Speaker's programme. I fail to understand how that timing can be of any advantage to the various discussions that are bound to take place between the interested parties.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has made the point to which I was about to turn. There will be ample opportunity to discuss these matters when the Bill goes to the Examiners. I accept that delay on the part of the county council in implementing this part of the programme could lead one to hope that British Rail would no longer want the branch line. I cannot give my hon. Friend any such assurance. British Rail is determined that the line should remain. It is an important freight link.
  I accept my hon. Friend's argument that the postponement of the facility will not alter the need to make the changes to which I have referred. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that the postponement of implementing the plan could lead to British Rail dropping
  810
  its requirement for the line. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow the Bill to go into Committee, when the issues that he and his friends have properly brought forward can be fully discussed. I hope that a happy solution will be found. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will raise these issues.
  The remainder of the Bill is largely non-contentious. However, there are two matters to which I shall refer, as I consider them to be of significance. Clause 8 deals with the stopping up or diversion of roads or footpaths at certain specific locations. There is one such stopping-up or diversion that has caused the Ramblers Association some concern, namely, that at Steventon. The proposal raises a wider issue of which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will take note.
  British Rail is using much higher line speeds. Many of the existing footpaths that cross railway lines are very dangerous. Although the Ramblers Association would like to continue to use the footpath at Steventon, it is crossing a main line on which trains are travelling at 125 mph in one direction and at 85 mph in the other direction. It might be all right for an alert person to use the crossing. However, it is necessary to climb a bank to get on to the track. Bearing in mind the high line speeds, surely a much more general power is required to be taken by the Government on access to the track. At Steventon there is a perfectly normal crossing about 126 metres beyond the footpath.
  As most of the crossings date back to when the railway system was rather different from what it is today, there is an argument for considering the possibility of more general powers being taken on a future occasion. Perhaps it is sad that such powers are not contained in the current Transport Bill. Nevertheless, powers should be taken to ensure that we put the safety of those on foot high on our list of priorities.
  The proposals set out in Works Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 relate to Wales. I think that they will be accepted without argument. They deal with coal trains being able to use a line without modifications to the locomotives. In common with so many other parts of the railway system, modernisation has to be introduced. The cabs of the locomotives are having to be cut down. Gearboxes are failing. Some trains need three locomotives to climb a steep gradient. These works can be taken together. They will benefit the part of South Wales near the Barry estuary and Kidwelly where the works are to take place.
  Part V relates to the Sealink train ferry and the need to establish a new terminal. New large ferries are being used on the Harwich-Zeebrugge route. There is no objection to the plans that are contained in part V for those works.
  Clauses 51 and 52 are of significance and importance. Clause 51 is basically a tidying-up measure. It extends the powers of search and arrest for British Rail constables, who normally have their powers extended periodically and who have been given such extensions since 1949. The clause proposes an extension to 1985. I hope that the provisions in clause 52 will be welcomed. They raise to a much more realistic figure the fines that can be imposed upon those who contravene the bylaws, especially those that relate to the taking of alcohol on to trains. Many of our constituents are concerned about the vandalism that is committed on trains and about all the other problems with which hon. Members are familiar. It is at least sensible to

  811
  provide that the fines should be increased to a realistic level. I hope that the clause will find the approval of the House.
  As I have said, the Bill is a fairly modest document. I hope that the sections that are causing hon. Members concern can be dealt with in Committee if not on Second Reading. Each one of these Bills is a form of building brick in establishing a modern, effective and efficient railway system. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on the lucid and calm way in which he presented the Bill, which made it easy to understand. It may make it more strange to those listening to our proceedings if I now seek to suggest that at least one aspect of the Bill represents perhaps the most contentious and controversial constituency issue that I hope to face during the lifetime of this Parliament. I refer to the Rainham link and the proposal of the Thames Nitrogen Company Limited.
  Several of my constituents are opposed to any extension of chemical works and all the predictable consequences. I do not share that view. The company is experienced. It has been handling ammonia and other similarly dangerous materials for a considerable time. I accept that it must make more sense for the loads to be shifted by rail by night on fewer journeys than for the journeys to take place not only by day but all the way from Avonmouth to the East End of London and beyond. Many more journeys take place than are envisaged should the link be constructed.
  I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Undersecretary of State will be the first to confirm that the hottest issue in my constituency is the possible re-routeing of the A13 trunk road. So hot is the issue that in December 1979 I led a deputation from virtually every political party within the constituency. It made representations for the future line of the route to be across the marshes. That route would prevent Rainham village from being bisected by a large trunk road and would have the beneficial effect of opening up the marshes for industrial development. The area is well sited for such development. I shall not seek to go through all the arguments in favour of that in the context of the Bill, because I am sure that if I did so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would suggest that I was dangerously near to being out of order.
  It must be obvious that the possible re-routeing of the road is a critical potential development. I venture to suggest that it has more effect on most of my constituents than will any item announced in the earlier business this afternoon. They have been waiting for that development for some time. In those circumstances, my constituents and the local authority, which is also petitioning against the Bill on those grounds, insist that the possible line of the A13 should be preserved unless and until there is an announcement from the Department of Transport about its decision on that road. My constituents will be bitterly disappointed if the announcement from my hon. and learned Friend is not in favour of re-routeing. They would be homicidal if that decision were taken away from them and they were advised at the end of the day that, because of a clause in the Bill the option for that re-routeing was no longer open. That is strongly felt in my constituency.
  812
  I shall not try to divide the House on the Bill, because I am sure that during the quasi-judicial stage that will follow this one—assuming that the Bill receives the assent of the House—wise counsel will prevail and that concern will be looked after. If it is not, I shall seek to oppose the Bill by whatever means are at my disposal when it returns. to the Chamber. As it is now drawn, without the safeguard being specifically stated, it will be injurious to my constituency. I should have to oppose it in this form.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: If I may seek to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, I wish to speak on work No. 2 of our statement, which is of direct consequence to my constituents and my constituency. It refers to the diversion of the present railway line that will be constructed because of the intended new construction of a road between Luton and Dunstable. I wish to speak with particular reference to the effect which that road will have upon the Luton Town football club.
  Perhaps I may crave a small indulgence of the House to put right one or two objections which have been made to me by my constituents. One of the local minority political parties has been putting it about that I objected to the Bill by the mechanism of using the block. My reason for objecting was that I wished to obtain a Second Reading on the Floor of the House so that this important matter could be discussed.
  Three major parties are interested in this section of the Bill—the Bedfordshire county council, which wishes to construct the road, British Rail, which is concerned with the deviation of the line, and the Luton Town football club. Other companies in my constituency are affected, such as Laporte industries, which is a fairly large chemical group. A shop, a cold store and some minor agricultural interests would be affected by the provision of that road.
  Throughout the planning negotiations between the council and the various county halls and town halls, no objections have been made to the provision of that road, which, as my hon. Friend said, is of great importance to the constituency. I have had no individual constituency objection to the road, which is quite unusual when one bears in mind that the road is of considerable length and would affect residents on either side. It would mean the demolition of a small number of houses.
  The joy of the route itself is that the road is an obvious road. It would be of great environmental advantage as well as being of advantage to the traffic in that part of the town. I am heartened to see that the county council proposals take full account of the landscaping of the road and of the trees and hedgerows around it.
  There is no doubt that the road is needed for the town and for the county. At today's prices, it will cost about £8 million, which in today's stringent times is the yearly allocation of the county council on its road system. It is an integral part of the link roads of the inner road system which is nearly constructed, which will take much traffic away from the centre of the town and relieve the second busiest road in the county, bearing in mind that the busiest road in Bedfordshire is the Ml. Therefore, there is an obvious and ready need for the road. Most people in the county will welcome it.
  The road will be a great link between Luton and Dunstable for various industries. It will be a link towards the Ml and to our flourishing airport in that part of the

  813
  town. Our greatest industry and employer in Luton is Vauxhall Motors, which is probably licking its wounds at the increase by 20p of petrol tax. The road will be of great advantage to that company when it is completed, because it links two of its factories. Many local businesses have told me of the advantage that the road will be to them for the carrying of goods. There is no doubt that that road is high in the priority of budgets in the Bedfordshire county council, although it may have to be postponed for a couple of years.
  As the road is to follow the line of the railway, the railway was an obvious candidate for closure. It would have been convenient and easy to close the line if British Rail had agreed that the line was not viable and that it could be closed. I would not have made any objections and there would have been no objectors from the Luton Town football club. However, that is not to be. The constant representations made to the Minister and to the county council, and on my part to the various bodies and to the British Railways Board, have proved without any shadow of doubt the line is an essential link.
  I have received a letter from the British Railways Board in which it says that the line carries a significant annual tonnage of cement as well as a small amount of oil. It is a freight-only line and is fairly regularly used, but, according to the answers given to me by the British Railways Board, with which I am satisfied, the line is carrying what it describes as some of the most profitable type of traffic. When forms of communication and transport are expensive and highly subsidised, it is good to see that one little line somewhere is making a profit. I was worried that the original contention of British Railways was that the line would be open, in their eyes, only for the foreseeable future. However, on 5 March I was given the assurance that they intend to:
  "retain the line in the long term."
  If that is so, I do not see any point in making an objection to the line remaining open. In recommending to the House that there might be a delay on this section of the Bill, in no sense did I think that the line would be closed. It is of environmental advantage to keep a railway line open. It is an advantage to those who are employed on the line. A union representation has been made to me about that. I am satisfied that that line is a viable concern. I add one rider: if within the next few years the line is closed by British Rail, there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces.
  As the scheme put forward by the Befordshire county council came into being, the normal planning procedure was followed. I shall not detain the House with the exact dates. Suffice it to say that the county council gave itself planning permission to plan for the road. An exhibition was held in the surrounding areas to acquaint the public with what was happening. At the end of the day, the whole question of the road could be subject to a public inquiry. Meetings have been held with interested parties, not least the Luton Town football club, which started its meetings with the county council on 30 May. It had one or two preliminary discussions in May or June with officials and councillors. I am somewhat perplexed that some of the meetings seemed to be nothing more than discussions and not many concrete suggestions came out of them. That is possibly why at this rather late hour there is anxiety that the subject has not had a full airing between the principal parties. Architects have swapped notes: no more than that.
  814
  From the start, the football club showed its great anxiety about the issues and the whole viability of the club. That is apparent throughout the discussions between the football club and the county council. The objections have almost grown stronger as time has gone on.
  The turn of the year was the first time that any real alteration of the club was recommended by the county council. It is sad that it took that long for alterations to be suggested. They are now in the hands of the club's lawyers. There are plans afoot for an alternative that at this stage seems worthy of discussion, but, unfortunately, there is no test with the plans. More time is needed for discussions between the interested parties. It would be unhealthy to rush the matter. We are talking of a large investment on both sides and a change that will radically alter the viability of the football club.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I fought the Luton constituency with considerably less success than my hon. Friend. I have visited the football club on many occasions, with varying degrees of success, in the company of Preston North End. Is he satisfied that if the Bill is enacted it will not threaten the existence of the club? Am I right in thinking that the Kenilworth suite may be lost? What provisions are being made to replace it?
  Mr. Carlisle: I shall deal with that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the proposals will have serious consequences for the club. I support the club's contentions, although it has been accused of scaremongering. The objections should be thrashed out. It was good to see my hon. Friend at the club not many weeks ago. Needless to say, we beat his side out of sight.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest said, the club was formed in 1885. It is one of the oldest in the land. It came into the Football League in 1920. It has been playing football at Kenilworth Road since 1905. It is a fairly typical Midlands football ground, surrounded by small terraced houses. It is crammed in, close to the centre of the town. It is a homely place, where fine football is played. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) is welcome to visit the ground. It enjoys wide support from the surrounding areas. People come from many miles around, not only in Bedfordshire, but from Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and London. The club is affectionately known as the"Hatters". It can boast such personalities as Eric Morecambe, who was a director. He is still a regular supporter. Some hon. Members may remember Joe Payne, who scored 10 goals against Bristol Rovers just before the war, which put the town on the map. It is a dynamic club, with an enthusiastic board of directors, keen and willing to invest in the club. It is run by an enthusiastic chief executive, John Smith, who has done much for the club over the past few years.
  It is important to emphasise to the House how much that prestigious club will be affected by the proposals. The club is not only used for football: it is used for other purposes during the week and at weekends. The club plays an active part in the life of the town. It encourages young supporters. Under a recent scheme, players are helping the unemployed. We are talking not only of a stadium of four walls, stands and terraces but of the life and soul of that part of Bedfordshire. It is the only league club in Bedfordshire, and its viability may be threatened by the Bill.

  815
  The club has a freehold on the stadium. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned, it also has property leased from British Rail, which will be directly affected. One tragedy is that the Kenilworth suite may be demolished. It is provided for the use of directors and the vice-president. It is a prestigious and money-raising part of the club People pay substantial sums annually to be members. It is imperative for the club to have such provision to entertain the many important guests who come to watch the game, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). The surroundings are particularly amenable. The suite brings a good financial return to the club. In the cramped accommodation of the club, nowhere else could be found for the purpose. I should be sorry to see that great asset to the club disappear.
  The deviation of the line would also mean the loss of an all-weather pitch. Some years ago, through the initiative of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the Sports Council put money into all-weather pitches and other facilities throughout the country. The pitch is well used. In a high density residential area it is used a great deal by the local youth. The borough council, too, takes an interest in the pitch. Its loss would also be a tragedy for schools and other parties that play on it. The club contends that there is no alternative site of comparable facility. No other site can compare with that large site.
  To deprive that area of the town and the community of that facility would be a tragedy. It is a facility which enhances the standing of the club. It shows that the club itself is very interested not only in its professionals but in young amateur players. It is an essential part of the training and recruitment of young players in the area and its loss will be sadly felt by many of my constituents.
  The Bill would create a major problem in that it would abolish, literally overnight, the coach parking facility which is so important nowadays at football clubs. It would not be right for me to expound on the horrors of the violence and vandalism which, regrettably, occur at football grounds all over the land, but the town club has done as much as it can to keep rival supporters apart. To do that a coach park near the ground is needed. The railway line would go virtually through the middle of the present coach park which is an essential part of the ground in these days of rising soccer violence.
  However sad it may seem, it is imperative that visiting supporters be segregated from home supporters. On big match days, up to 60 coaches may need to be accommodated at the Luton ground. If the coach park disappeared, the effects would be horrifying. I am sure that there would be objections from the police and, not least, from my constituents. My constituents have to put up with a great deal of abuse and they suffer great inconvenience on Saturdays—possibly even on Sundays now—from visiting supporters and also, regrettably, from our own supporters. They are long-suffering and patient people. If coaches had to be parked some distance away, so that visiting supporters had to come to the ground through the small streets surrounding it, there would certainly be trouble, and we in Parliament would have a great deal to answer for.
  The other section of parking space that would be lost is the VIPs' and supporters' car parking area. Due to considerations of space, there is no alternative to the line
  816
  going through the middle of that car park. None of the alternatives recently proposed makes provision for car parking on the scale that the club at present has.
  The club is extremely concerned about the safety aspect. This is one of the most serious effects of the Bill. If the Bill goes through as drafted, and if any alterations are made to the ground, the capacity of the ground would be reduced. Its present capacity is about 25,000. The House will be aware of the strictures now imposed upon clubs with regard to safety, and rightly so. Here I pay tribute once again to the right hon. Member for Small Heath who did a great deal of work on this matter some years ago when he was in office. With more than 20,000 people going into the ground, it is only right that we in Parliament, as legislators, and responsible bodies such as football clubs are as safety conscious as possible. One vital aspect of safety is that there be quick access should there be any problems and also at the end of the match when people are anxious to get home.
  The provisions of the Bill would virtually seal off one side of the ground. The Home Office green code, as it is called, includes a whole list—I shall not read them out—of provisions which have to be made by clubs to ensure the safety of crowds entering and leaving the ground and to make certain that all entries and exits are smooth and uninterrupted.
  This is an important aspect of the Bill. If the railway and the road went through as planned, they would virtually cut off one side of the ground and present enormous problems. Luton Town football club spent about £300,000 last summer on improving its ground and terraces by the provision of separate walkways or cages which, call them what one will and however sad one finds the sight, are an essential part of the ground these days.
  The last feature that will be affected is the provision of a segregated walkway which was proposed by the club but for which permission was refused by the county council during the summer. That segregated walkway would have taken rival supporters straight out of the ground and into their coaches without their having to come into contact with any home supporters at all. That was an essential part of the town's legal obligation, of the smooth running of the club and the smooth withdrawal of supporters from the ground. Permission was rejected by the county council on the ground that as this new scheme was to be introduced it would clearly prejudice any decision. It therefore did not wish to let the club go ahead and build the walkway.
  That was probably an understandable decision in the circumstances, but it emphasised the need that the club feels for such a walkway. It is essential that any alternative proposals put forward, whether by the county council or by any other body, should include such a segregated walkway. Even when it is built, there will be further problems with the provision of turnstiles, and so on. Anything that the club can do to ban any kind of hooliganism or violence on the terraces and to prevent any problems must certainly be taken into account in relation to the Bill.
  Various alternatives have been put forward by various people to meet the changes that will inevitably be made because it is intended to move the railway line. There is a history to this matter in Luton. Various sites have been suggested—from Milton Keynes to Watford—to which the club might move, away from the centre of the town. None, however, has come to fruition, and I believe that the club itself is anxious to stay on the site that has been its home

  817
  for so many years. At this moment, a small working party from Luton borough council, South Bedfordshire council and Bedfordshire county council is searching for and discussing the possibility of a new site. A new site today, however, would probably cost about £10 million and would depend very much on the prospects of the club. The club, of course, hopes to get into the First Division next year. It is a very go-ahead club. Nevertheless, the alternative of a new ground is probably too remote and too expensive to be envisaged.
  The other alternative put forward, only very recently in real terms, by the county council was for certain building alterations and alternatives which give me some hope that a solution will be found to this terrible problem. The county council has put forward various proposals, but they still need discussion. They need to be thrashed out between the various architects and other persons concerned. I very much hope that whatever happens to the Bill fuller discussions will take place between the parties, because the alternatives that I have seen seem to offer some small relief for the club and I believe that they must be pursued.
  Time is of the essence, and time is running out. Here I must take issue to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest. If the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, it will then pass into Committee. At that stage, as my hon. Friend knows, the arguments are put by the various members of the Committee. I suggest that a great deal of time and money could be saved if some delay were imposed upon this particular part of the Bill by British Rail, with the mutual consent of Bedfordshire county council and the football ground. I hesitate to suggest that there may possibly be some abuse of the House if the club has only two months to lay its plans and to undertake full discussions of the new alternatives, which appear reasonably encouraging, before the Bill goes into Committee. Nevertheless, it might be that, as a result of the representations made in Committee on behalf of the various parties, the Bill itself could be delayed even further. Throughout the whole of this rather sorry business there has been a certain lack of communication between the various parties. It is not for me to lay the blame at any particular door.
  I am sorry that it has taken literally until tonight before plans have been laid. The two sides are now talking about getting together. But even at this stage we should not rush it. There is no need for this unhealthy hurry.
  The Budget proposals have now pushed the building of the road back until 1985. I want it put on record that there is no way in which I would wish to delay the provision of that road because I appreciate its full importance. At the same time, the representations of the main objector—the Luton Town football club—must be heard. It needs time to consider the new proposals, and the county council needs time to make sure that nothing is rushed through.
  If this section of the Bill were withdrawn, and if discussions were to take place between the various parties during the summer, we could possibly come back on 27 November with all the arrangements settled and even with the compensation agreed. I feel strongly about the fact that the matter has been rushed during the last few weeks. It would be a tragedy if a great institution such as the Luton Town football club were to suffer great financial hardship, not to mention the hardship to the town, if the Bill were
  818
  to go forward. I plead with my hon. and learned Friend to make some recommendation so that a delay occurs in relation to this part of the Bill.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I want to speak on two aspects of the Bill—the whole of part V, which relates to works around and about Parkeston Quay, and clauses 51 and 52 of part VI, which relates to the strengthening and extending of powers to control various unwelcome activities on the railways.
  I deal first with Parkeston Quay. I should point out its importance to existing railway and Sealink operations. I can do no better than"half-quote" what the Secretary of State for Transport said in Standing Committee E, which is considering the Transport Bill. The main shipping services using Parkeston Quay are Sealink's multi-purpose service to the Hook of Holland, which carries passenger cars and roll-on roll-off freight, and similar services run by Danish and German companies.
  A container service to Zeebrugge is run by Sealink under contract to what in Hansard is called the"Bristol Railways Board", but I assume that that should be the British Railways Board. That service mainly carries rail-borne containers. There are plans to build a new train ferry berth at Parkeston Quay. At present Parkeston Quay handles 40,000 train ferry wagons a year, and it caters for an enormous number of passengers, both rail passengers and people going across on car ferries. It is an important land terminus of the railway system as well as an important connection with the Continent.
  For that reason I have paid close attention to the provisions of the Bill, and also to the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of its Second Reading. Paragraph 11 of that statement reads:
  "Part V would confer powers on the Board and on Sealink UK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Board, to construct a new train ferry terminal at Parkeston Quay for the Board and an extension of a quay to provide improved facilities for general cargo handling by Sealink".
  That is the truth, but it is only part of the truth. It is true, as of now, that Sealink is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board, but once the Transport Bill becomes law Sealink UK Limited will not be a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board. It will be sold to the private sector.
  In selling Sealink to the private sector, it is a vital part of the Government's case that, although British Railways may retain a shareholding in Sealink, effective control of Sealink must pass to the private sector. That is a vital part of the Government's argument for that piece of denationalisation.
  In those circumstances, all the powers and duties granted either to the British Railways Board or its present publicly owned subsidiary, Sealink UK Limited, will pass out of the public sector into the private sector. It is important that the House should consider that change.
  Among other things, clause 34 provides compulsory purchase powers for Britih Railways or Sealink UK Limited. In addition, unless the Under-Secretary tells us differently—I do not think that he will—it also means that those compulsory purchase powers will pass to the private owners of Sealink, or, more particularly, to its subsidiary harbour company, once Sealink is denationalised.
  I know that hon. Members are not present in their legions this evening, but, generally speaking, hon.

  819
  Members on both sides of the House have considerable doubts about the exercise of compulsory purchase powers, even by public bodies that are subject to forms of parliamentary restraint and to public pressure by Members of Parliament and others. Even greater doubts exist among Conservative Members about compulsory purchase powers being exercised by private companies that are responsible to no one other than their private shareholders. It is one thing for the House to say"We agree to British Railways, owned by the public and to some extent subject to parliamentary jurisdiction, having the powers of compulsory purchase"; it is an altogether different kettle of fish for it to say that a private company should exercise those self-same powers.
  If the Bill gets its Second Reading tonight there will be an obligation on those hon. Members who serve on the Committee to scrutinise closely any compulsory purchase powers which, as a result of the Bill in combination with the Transport Bill, may be transferred to private companies.
  I do not want to mislead the House on this matter. I am not at all clear about what happened in the Committee that considered the Felixstowe Dock and Railway (No. 2) Bill. I understand that when the Committee considered the desire of the privately owned Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to be given compulsory powers under that measure it decided to abate and reduce the compulsory purchase powers that the company sought. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate that the Committee should consider the reasoning and logic behind the decision that was made last year before it considers the proposals that will affect Parkeston Quay.
  I am forced to conclude that still greater scrutiny will be required if the House is to do its job properly. Clause 32(b) sets out the interpretation of part V. It states:
  "'the company' means Sealink UK Limited".
  If those who can be bothered to do so will turn to clause 39 they will see that it is in a sense another interpretation clause. It states:
  "'the Board' includes any subsidiary of the Board".
  That is a reference to the British Rail Board. It also states:
  "'the company' includes any subsidiary of the company".
  I understand that it would be possible not only for the privately owned Sealink UK Limited to exercise compulsory purchase powers in the coming year, but for it to allow a subsidiary to exercise such powers. The Under-Secretary seems to be shaking his head. I hope that he is better advised than I am. However, it seems possible that that might be so. A subsidiary of Sealink UK Limited could exercise the powers of the main company.
  If any hon. Members are doubtful about a named private company exercising compulsory purchase powers, they will be even more perturbed by the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of an unnamed and as yet unformed subsidiary of that private company exercising such powers.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This is not my Bill, and therefore I intervene as a helpful bystander. I understand that the provisions in clause 39 to which the hon. Gentleman objects refer only to"this section", which means clause 39. Therefore,"the company" includes subsidiaries only for the purpose of any agreements entered into between the British Rail Board and the company. The compulsory purchase powers and the powers to construct any works
  820
  seem to me—I have been reading the Bill as the hon. Gentleman has taken us through it—to be confined to Sealink UK Limited by clause 32.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. and learned Gentleman used to earn his living as a lawyer before he sat on the Government Front Bench. I am always loth to dispute matters with lawyers. I shall get no fee for quoting from clause 39(4), which states:
  "As from the vesting in the Board or the company,"
  —that is Sealink UK Limited—
  "as the case may be, of the works transferred under an agreement made … all the rights and liabilities of the transferor in respect of the works or any part thereof so transferred and vested as aforesaid shall be transferred to, and become the rights and liabilities of, the transferee."
  When members of the Committee consider the Bill in detail, they will probably discover that the rights that will be given to the board or to Sealink UK Limited can be transferred to an unnamed and as yet unestablished subsidiary of the company. Again, clause 39 states:
  "'the company' includes any subsidiary of the company".
  I am not asserting that that is definitely so. However, there is good reason to consider carefully that aspect of the Bill.
  Having raised such doubts, I hope that, at worst, the Committee will see fit to scrutinise closely part V. At best, I hope that it will limit any compulsory purchase powers as long as those bodies remain in the public sector. Modern, compulsory purchase law was basically established in the nineteenth century. Parliament gave compulsory purchase powers to private railway companies so that they could buy land all over the country, but it did so knowing that those companies were privately owned. Therefore, it did so knowingly and deliberately.
  In addition, Parliament knew what it was talking about and it knew the sorts of works that were envisaged. In many cases it placed severe limitations on the powers of compulsory purchase and laid down the periods of time in which they had to be exercised. If those powers were not exercised within a limited period, they were lost. Those elements were deliberately built into the law of compulsory purchase in order to protect the rights of both individuals and companies whose property was close to, or in the way of, a railway company's proposed lines.
  Proper restraints were applied. The Bill does not impose proper restraints. Until now Parliament had not realised that it was conferring compulsory purchase powers on a body that was likely to become a private, rather than a public, sector undertaking. Once the company becomes a private undertaking, it becomes a different outfit. It is not subject to the restraints that apply to the public sector. Therefore, in Committee the Bill should be considered carefully. Perhaps it should be amended to ensure that it will look after the interests of those in the Parkeston Quay area who might, at a later stage, be affected by the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by a private company that is acting in the interests of its shareholders. We are constantly told that the object of private companies is to further the interests of their shareholders. The interests of that private company's shareholders may be wildly at variance with the interests of individuals. Therefore, we should look at this subject carefully.
  Clause 51 refers to extending the powers of search and arrest of the British Transport police. It is not the powers that are being extended, but the period of time. I was surprised to discover that British Rail's ability to empower

  821
  some of its staff to carry out search and arrest operations on its premises and vehicles needed to be extended. Before I read the Bill I had assumed that that was a permanent part of railway legislation. However, we need such an extension, and I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome it.
  Similarly, we shall all welcome an increase in the maximum penalty, from £50 to £200, for offences against the bylaws. The prospect of being fined £50 acts as only a slight deterrent to many of those who cause damage or who act violently both on railway stations and on trains. As a Member who is sponsored by the NUR, I reiterate my union's concern aboout the amount of violence that has taken place on the public transport system. It is not as bad, generally speaking, on the rest of the public transport railway system as it is on London Transport. Nevertheless, far too many men and women who work for the railways are getting abused, kicked and beaten up while going about their ordinary business of trying to provide a decent service for the rest of us. Anything that can be done to protect them is welcome.
  Even in that respect I have to refer back to Parkeston Quay, because it is intended in the Transport Bill to extend the powers of the British Transport police to the policing by this public body of the holdings of the privately owned Sealink company. Again I am forced to draw attention to what I regard as a shortcoming in the statement that was submitted on behalf of the promoters. In paragraph 11 it says:
  "Other clauses commonly found in such provisions … are included"
  in the Bill. But it is not common for the House to be expected to extend the powers of a public sector police force and increase the fines that may be imposed as a result of the activities of that public sector police force if that force is policing, as there is every prospect that it will, the property of a private company.
  The promoters of the Bill should have drawn to the attention of the House, and should draw to the attention of the Committee, the fact that the extensions of policing powers that exist in parallel legislation—for which, admittedly, the promoters are not responsible, but of which they are well aware—will apply to the private sector Sealink company if that is what Sealink and the board wish. There is that shortcoming in the promoters' statement.
  I welcome clauses 51 and 52. I hope that the Committee will carefully consider the provisions that relate to Parkeston Quay, and possibly seek to limit the exercise of compulsory purchase powers by the Sealink company once it is privately owned.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) raised an interesting topic. When he drew it to my attention, I did some homework to discover what happened about the compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill. I went to the Private Bill Office to obtain the report of the evidence-taking stage of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (No. 2), a Private Bill that was considered in Committee last year. It concerned the application by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to introduce changes in the area of Felixstowe to its asset, namely, the
  822
  Felixstowe dock. The Committee was required to take evidence from local petitioners who objected to the development and the considerable powers that were being given to the company.
  During my investigation in the Private Bill Office, I found the statement made by Mr. Drinkwater, the barrister representing the company when the evidence was taken. I shall read the short evidence that he gave in seeking to convince the Committee, on which five hon. Members sat, that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company should be given the considerable compulsory purchase powers that now are being sought by the Sealink company and any successor company that may be set up following the distribution of that company when it is denationalised.
  In his address to the Committee, Mr. Drinkwater said:
  "There is a further point in amplification that I would take. If this Committee feels that these powers"—
  these are powers similar to the ones that we are discussing today—
  "should not be granted in this case, you set, do you not, a possibly dangerous precedent for the future where other companies that have statutory obligations come before Parliament asking for powers which they may need in the public interest… in order to implement the undertaking. It may be said against them that they did not get them at Felixstowe in 1980"—
  that refers to the Committee on which I and a number of other hon. Members sat—
  "Why should you have them now?"
  That is the question that we put to the House, and I believe that that is the substance of what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South said.
  "That is a very dangerous precedent, if I may say so. I am measuring my words as cautiously as I can but I suggest that that is a very dangerous precedent. We are not omniscient, and you, Sir, with great respect are not omniscient either. You cannot know what circumstances may arise in the future that might be deleteriously affected in other cases by withholding the very well precedented grant of these powers that we now seek. So many cases where obligations are imposed upon promoters in the public interest require the use of these power… and are granted by Parliament, in case after case. In my submission, it would be undesirable in the public interest—I think I would go that far—that these powers should not be granted in this particular instance, bearing in mind the statutory obligations that we have".
  He was trying to convince us in that evidence that we should grant the considerable compulsory purchase powers that that company was seeking so that it would be able to carry out its duties.
  I notice that there is a similarity between the words used in this Bill, in the clause that deals with compulsory powers. I quote from clause 34:
  "and may purchase compulsorily and use such of the lands delineated on the deposited plans relating to the said work and described in the deposited book of reference as they may require for the purposes of the said work".
  Those words differ only marginally from the words in the Felixstowe (No. 2) Bill that came before us last year, section 7 of which said:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act the Company may enter upon … and use such of the lands on the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference as may be required for the purpose of the works or for the purposes of obtaining access thereto.
  "(2) The power of the Company for compulsory purchase of land under this section shall cease after 31 December 1983." In many ways, the powers seem to be similar.
  Inasmuch as on that occasion we were unwilling to allocate those powers to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, I do not see why on this occasion we should be required to allocate the powers that we rejected then.
  It was the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) who, as Chairman of that Committee, said to Mr.

  823
  Drinkwater—he having put his very persuasive evidence before us, arguing that the compulsory powers should be granted—
  "If I may say so, nobody could have been more persuasive, but even your powers of persuasion cannot convince us. We do not feel that these powers are necessary."
  We having sat on that Committee, recognising the considerable powers that were being sought, and then rejecting the application, why should we now in some way be undermined by a Bill that does the very reverse and allocates those same powers to Sealink—and, more dangerously, to the successors of Sealink, recognising that Sealink will be sold off under other legislation that is before the House?
  I am one of those hon. Members who feel that there is a danger in allocating to nationalised industries and publicly owned companies considerable powers of compulsory purchase. I am told that this is a procedure that is brought before the House for ratification, has been brought on a number of occasions in the past, and will be brought on a number of occasions in the future.
  I am particularly appalled, as my hon. Friends must be, by the prospect of a private enterprise company—despite there being some shareholding in that company by the State, albeit a minor one—being given extensive powers, real powers, and the kinds of powers that should not be allocated to a private institution in a democracy.
  8.22 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I intervene in a debate on what is a Private Bill in order to give a brief indication of the Government's reaction—and no more than that—to the various parts of the Bill.
  The Bill is, of course, in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is acting as its sponsor, and who will no doubt help to steer it through the House in his usual capable way. I join in the congratulations to him on the usual lucid and persuasive explanation that he gave of the various provisions in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend began with a few words setting out his general views on the present position of the railways, and endorsing the request made to us by the British Railways Board for investment in electrification of an extensive part of its system. My hon. Friend and I both know that we cannot go too far into that this evening, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that matters have advanced on this front. The Government and British Rail have now published the results of the joint study that we carried out into the prospect of electrification of a large part of the network. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are now to consider the case for electrification, and we hope to announce our conclusions in a few months.
  My hon. Friend will know that the Government share his desire to see a modern and efficient railway network in this country. We believe that that involves taking a view on the future investment needs of the railway. Indeed, we have protected the investment of the railway throughout the recent difficult financial period.
  The future of the railways depends in part on a correct assessment of their investment needs, and in part on the railways themselves in improving their productivity, reducing over-manning and improving their own business performance:, so as to make a proper contribution to their own investment needs.
  824
  I should like now to touch briefly on some of the items that have been raised this evening and which will obviously be of concern to those who examine the Bill at later stages.
  Work No. 1 is the proposed sidings for Thames Nitrogen, and I was not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) intervened and gave his views. He has apologised to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker because, like me, he was surprised by the length of time that the debate has taken, and was not able to stay. I know of his very considerable concern about the prospects that the new railway might pose for a road diversion that he would like to see built across the A13.
  At this stage, I want only to say, on behalf of the Government, that obviously the transport of ammonia by rail wherever possible must have considerable attractions to us all, and in principle the transfer of this sort of traffic from road to rail appears to be very desirable. No application has yet been received for a section 8 grant for this traffic, but obviously this is the kind of thing that would be eligible for a section 8 grant if the customer could make out a case for it. But there is the particular problem of the routeing of the road improvements which need to be made to the A13 through the village of Rainham.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch expressed in very strong terms his belief that that road should be improved, and that a route should be followed across Rainham marshes. He reminded me of a deputation that he brought to me on the subject in December 1979, and he described it as the most important issue in his constituency. Not only has he brought a deputation to see me but he has pursued me in and out of formal and informal meetings on every occasion that has presented itself to him. on the subject of the A13 improvement, ever since he has been in the House. I am only too well aware of his strong concern. He has presented to me the case for the diversion of the road across Rainham marshes, which he believes would be an improvement from the traffic point of view, taking traffic: out of the village of Rainham and also enabling a very considerable acreage of derelict land to be opened up for industrial development in the most efficacious way.
  I have been promising my hon. Friend for a considerable time a final and definitive decision about the routeing of the road improvements that are undoubtedly needed to this stretch of the A13. I was impressed by and sympathetic to the case that he put to me, but in the end the Government as a whole will have to decide it. We are taking some time to study the matter because the route that my hon. Friend and his constituents would prefer has considerable cost implications and is more expensive than the on-line alternative that the previous Labour Government appeared to prefer.
  Meanwhile, I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that no decision about the building of a railway line on the marshes should at this stage prejudice the possible choice of the right route for the road improvement on the A13. It would be most unfortunate if my hon. Friend were to be left waiting for a decision about the road improvement and meanwhile the whole matter were to be taken out of our hands because British Rail was putting a new private siding along a line which prejudiced potential improvements to the line. My hon. Friends the Members for New

  825
  Forest and for Hornchurch discussed the matter this evening, and obviously they will discuss it further at later stages of the Bill.
  It is also clear that the Bill will take some time to get through the House, so perhaps the best contribution that I can make is to try to ensure that a final decision on the improvement to the A13 should be taken by the Government before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I assure my hon. Friends that I shall make every effort to ensure that the final decision is reached before the Bill has left Parliament. I shall do everything possible to ensure that such a decision is made. If the decision were to proceed with the Rainham marshes route of the various alternatives suggested for improvements to the A13, it would be necessary to reconsider the whole subject of the building of the railway sidings and the route that it might follow.
  The Government are in a completely neutral position, fortunately, on Work No. 2, which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle). I am familiar with Luton town though I have never been to Kenilworth Road. I saw the club's one and only cup final match, when, I am glad to say, it lost to Nottingham Forest. I suppose that I should now be slightly prejudiced against Luton Town because it recently beat Notts County in a key promotion game at Meadow Lane. I shall leave that light-hearted side. Our role is to consider the road proposals if the county council brings the proposal forward and applies for grant or if there is a public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders needed.
  It is a county council proposal. At this stage the Government may be involved in making decisions about public inquiries at later stages, though I cannot give a definitive opinion at present. I take my hon. Friend's speech to be support for the road which I understand is desired by his constituents. It seems to me that it will be eligible for transport supplementary grant and I shall bear his views in mind if anything comes to my Department in connection with it.
  I hope that a solution will be found as the Bill passes through the House. I am encouraged to hear that my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest and for Luton, West believe that they will be able to reach an understanding. I listened to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest arising from the provisions for the Steventon level crossing, which is again a matter on which the Government can take no view. The previous Secretary of State took a decision in 1977 that a revocation order was not justified. The Ramblers Association is petitioning against the closure, but I have taken note of my hon. Friend's views about the safety of crossings on high speed lines. He believes that we should take a general power to close footpaths in those circumstances. I shall consider that. He suggests that it might be put into the Transport Bill this year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) and myself feel that the Bill has quite enough in it already. As we passed the guillotine motion on the Transport Bill yesterday, I do not believe that the Government will be making new proposals this year on footpaths across railway lines.
  The proposals for a train ferry terminal at Parkeston Quay is the most important part of the Bill. The Bill gives extensive powers to the board and to Sealink to carry out certain improvements in and around Parkeston Quay. The
  826
  most important part of those works is connected with British Rail's desire to construct a new train ferry terminal at the western end of Parkeston Quay which is linked with its desire to use a new generation of jumbo train ferries to carry freight across to Zeebrugge. I am sure that in principle everyone wants to see British Rail develop its freight business and more of our international freight carried by rail. The West German Government shares our desire to see more international traffic between Britain and West Germany, by train whenever possible.
  My right hon. Friend has been considering an application by the board for consent to invest in jumbo ferries. He has already approved the board's proposals in principle. The final go-ahead will be subject to a review that the board is carrying out at his request into the whole project because, among other things, the freight business is in such a sorry state that there is doubt about its ability to sustain investment. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the whole idea of the new jumbo ferry provision.
  My right hon. Friend's consent will also be required even if Parliament grants the powers that are sought in the Bill. He will have to give consent under section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 before all the work can be carried out. It would be sensible for my right hon. Friend to consider the section 9 application for the terminal in conjunction with his decision on investment in the train ferry. We hope that in the end a full examination of the project will enable my right hon. Friend to come to a favourable conclusion and give the go-ahead to the improvement in rail freight links between Britain and the Continent.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South tempted me to stray to debates that we had until this morning at interminable length in Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. He re-opens the question of whether it is right to give limited powers to Sealink UK Ltd. if and when it becomes a private sector company. The major powers are given to the British Railways Board. The only part of the Bill which gives powers to Sealink is a comparatively small work involving an extension at Parkeston Quay. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that whether it is a good idea to have an extension of Parkeston Quay should be a judgment about its commercial desirability, the needs of the travelling public and the needs of Sealink's business. The argument that the extension to Parkeston Quay is good if a nationalised industry is doing it but bad if a private company is carrying out the same extension is difficult to follow. The hon. Gentleman is guilty on this occasion of being dogmatic and, perhaps, of being carried away by opposition upstairs to the provisions of the Transport Bill.
  Our clear policy under the Bill is that, once the necessary powers have been taken, Sealink UK Ltd. will become a private sector company because the British Railways Board will be enabled to dispose of a substantial and controlling interest in that business. But it is precedented for private companies to have powers of that kind. I hope that those who consider this part of the Bill will form a judgment about the wisdom of extending Parkeston Quay and not get bogged down in the obsession of the Labour Party that investment of that kind is good only if a nationalised industry carries it out.
  Mr. Dobson: Generally the Under-Secretary of State is courteous when replying to a debate because he responds

  827
  to points made instead of to points which have not been made. However, on this occasion he has strayed in the direction frequently taken by the Secretary of State.
  The argument is not that the circumstances are different but that we believe that, if the House is to approve the giving of compulsory purchase powers to a public sector body which is ultimately responsible to the House, that should be explicitly set out in the Bill. The promoters of the Bill should be explicit and spell out that the power might be transferred to a private company. There is a significant difference between the House giving powers to a public sector body and giving them to a private sector company.
  Mr. Clarke: The significance is not as great to me as it is to the hon. Gentleman. I accept the statement of the promoters, for which I am not responsible. It might be taken over by events since it describes Sealink UK Ltd. as a wholly owned subsidiary. The Government had no part in drafting that statement. The Government policy is that Sealink will, in the near future, become a private sector company and be no longer a wholly owned subsidiary of British Rail.
  I accept that that must be borne in mind when considering the Bill and whether it is right to give such powers. However, I hope that a decision will be made about whether it is a good idea to have the extra transport facilities that will arise if powers are given to construct a quay extension. I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) implied, that it is always wrong to give such powers to private sector companies. I shall not dwell on the Felixstowe matter, which hon. Members have already decided upon as is their right and duty. We should not have built the railway system, nor half the docks in the country, if we had denied the right to use compulsory purchase powers for such major public works. The fact that the situation has been overtaken by events will not make much difference when deciding whether that is desirable.
  In Committee on the Transport Bill I have undertaken to re-examine police powers to ensure that there are no general dangers. British Transport police are employed by British Rail. They are kept apart from local authority and the Metropolitan police because of the nature of railways and ports undertakings. It appears that the British Transport police will continue to police all the docks owned by Associated British Ports, the new statutory corporation that soon will be wholly owned by a private sector company once the Transport Bill policy is put into effect.
  The same policemen with the same powers will patrol the same docks and carry out the same duties. I am not convinced that the public interest is threatened if the ownership of the equity changes. However, I appreciate that it is a view. Perhaps it is best pursued in discussions on the Transport Bill.
  Mr. Don Dixon: If the British Transport police are transferred to a private company with powers of arrest, other companies which employ Securicor and other security organisations will want the same powers for their men who patrol their premises. That is the danger of transferring such public assets. What will happen if there is a strike and picketing takes place? Any power that British Transport police has in that connection will be transferred to private hands. That is what worries us.
  Mr. Clarke: I can well understand that many hon. Members would be anxious if it were thought that we were paving the way for private companies to acquire police powers for their own security operations. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Home Office would have to answer for that. I can only say that, so far as this part of the Government is concerned, that thought never crossed its mind when drafting the Transport Bill. I hope that I shall be able to assure hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill that we are not paving the way for private police forces, that we are merely preserving the existing transport police in docks and that we shall look at the implications of denationalisation for them.
  There has been a general welcome for the proposal that penalties should be increased for certain offences on the railway and particularly for carrying alcohol on trains. It would be welcomed by the Government. Certain of my hon. Friends have tabled such an amendment to the Transport Bill. I believe, however, that it has been ruled to be outside the scope of the Bill and that it has not been selected by the House authorities. Perhaps someone will have a go in the House of Lords, which is not so restricted by the scope of the Bill. If such an amendment were to be pressed on the Transport Bill in the House of Lords, it would be favourably received by the Government.
  A race may develop between those endeavouring to put such a provision into the Government's Transport Bill, on the one hand, and the promoters of this Private Bill, on the other. On that point, I abandon my neutrality and say that the Government hope that, in one piece of legislation or another, these increased penalties will be provided. All too often, unfortunately, unpleasant experiences are suffered by passengers when people having drink problems get on to trains. The penalties have been overtaken by inflation. It is time that they were brought up to a more realistic level.
  I hope that I have given adequate indication of the Government's views. We shall follow the progress of the Bill in its later stages with interest.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With the leave of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made. I welcome the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-secretary of State for Transport. To some extent, I am faced by a dilemma. The promotion of the Bill and its juxtaposition with the Transport Bill have created problems that have been aired by the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). My hon. and learned Friend has helped to clear up this dilemma.
  The hon. Member for Workington and I find ourselves more often involved in discussions on the steel industry. I assure him that in this situation there will be no intention for British Rail to give free services to a competitor. I undertake that the matters to which reference has been made will be examined thoroughly. We should be honest. The Transport Bill is not yet law, and British Rail has to get ahead with this type of legislation because it affects so many aspects of its activities. I hope that with the assurances given by my hon. and learned Friend we can leave the matter there and try to separate the promotion of legislation for one statutory body from the wider political context of the Transport Bill.

  829
  My hon. and learned Friend referred to the routeing of the A13. I can only ask him to be as swift as he has promised. This has been a very long playing record. Many people have been waiting for a long time for the Department to give its determination. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has not asked the board to take this clause out of the Bill. The work is important. The welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on safety grounds should be enough for us to try to press ahead as quickly as possible to get goods off the road and on to rail. I would have thought that this was a good example.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has given a detailed account of some of the worries and anxiety expressed by the Luton football club. I recognise that he has no wish that the road project should be delayed or dropped from the programme. That would be the worst thing that could happen. I should like to deal with some of the comments that my hon. Friend made. They clearly reflect the views of the football club. The other individual groupings to which he referred, like the cold store, have not made objections. If the line of route were to be moved substantially to the south, we would be talking about the demolition of factory buildings. It is therefore common ground that the alignment that has been selected is the preferred.
  My hon. Friend said, perhaps inadvertently, that the intention was to demolish the Kenilworth suite. That is in no sense the intention of the British Railways Board. Plans exist to raise the suite in such a way that trains can pass under it, and the important facilities that it provides will continue to exist.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Technically, the Kenilworth suite as it is today would have to be demolished. My hon. Friend
  830
  is right in saying that proposals have been put forward for the building of a new suite but, by the very nature of the architecture of the suite, it would have to be demolished and raised again, with a cantilever type of erection. I think that I was technically correct in what I said.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am advised that it can be relocated. I note what my hon. Friend says and I am sure that those who are concerned in these matters will also note his comments. This matter can be discussed later, and I assure my hon. Friend that it will be.
  The training and parking facilities about which the club is concerned can also be accommodated. I do not want to strike a sour note. The club has facilities for accommodating 22,600 people, but I am advised that it is very seldom that more than 10,000 are present at any one time, even for a home match. There are seldom more than between 12 and 14 coaches to be parked. It is therefore the belief of those concerned that facilities can be made available to take account of that level of parking.
  Anxiety has been expressed lest the club's safety certificate is endangered. I am advised by the county council that this is unlikely and that there is no need to regard that as a worry.
  In reply to my hon. Friend's detailed speech, I assure him that it is the board's desire to find a happy accommodation with the club to make sure that, as far as possible, it is satisfied with the facilities that are given. With that assurance and the other assurances given by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I hope that we can allow the Bill to go forward to its next stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  Local Government, Planning and Land (Northern Ireland)
  8.47 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
  That the draft Local Government, Planning and Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
  Despite its title, the order is not a carbon copy of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Much of what is contained in that Act is of no application to Northern Ireland. For instance, the different structure of local and central administration in the Province means that many provisions of that Act, for instance, the new block grant system, are of no relevance to Northern Ireland. There are also other matters covered by the Act where further consideration of the specific implication for Northern Ireland is required before we decide whether to bring forward legislation.
  Before I go on to explain the contents of the order I should draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that four additional articles have been added since the order was first published as a proposal. These additional articles are all valuation and rating matters and would empower the Department of Finance, first, to vary by order the amount recoverable in respect of rates pending disposal of an application for revision of a new valuation list; secondly, by order to vary the amount of certain allowances payable to an owner rated instead of the occupier; thirdly, to extend the right to a reduction of rates on a dwelling house to a private garage and private storage premises; and, fourthly, to provide rating exemption for fish farms. These articles correspond to late additions to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; additions that we decided should also apply in Northern Ireland.
  The rating and valuation provisions in the order correspond to provisions in part V of the Local Government., Planning and Land Act 1980; the planning provision in relation to fees corresponds to provisions in part IX; and the provision for new town land disposal corresponds to the provision in part XV.
  Apart from articles 1 and 2 which are introductory, article 3 amends article 12 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. Hon. Members will recall that it is under that article that the amount of rates recoverable pending disposal of an application for revision of a new valuation list and any subsequent appeal is limited to the amount last levied plus half the difference between that amount and the amount of the new charge. The new article will confer power for the Department of Finance to vary the amount by order.
  Article 4 makes provision to enable the Department of Finance to vary by affirmative order the percentages of allowances to owners who are obliged to pay rates on property occupied by others, or who do so by agreement. Under the existing provisions of articles 20 and 21 of the 1977 rates order, the allowances are at fixed percentages.
  Article 5 extends domestic rate relief to private garages and private storage premises that are physically separate from dwellings. Article 27 of the 1977 rates order at present limits this relief to dwellings.
  Article 6 amends article 29 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which gives the right to domestic ratepayers to pay rates by instalments. The proposed
  832
  article would extend the right to pay rates by instalments to non-domestic ratepayers and, in particular, small businesses—and it is this small-business concession that was contained in the mainland legislation: that is, for property that is valued within lower and upper limits to be specified in an order subject to affirmative resolution. The precise figures of valuation used in the Great Britain legislation are £100 to £2,000, and we are proposing to use the same.
  Article 7 amends article 39 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to make provision enabling the Department of Finance to prescribe by subordinate instrument a reference date to which net annual values assessed in the course of future general revaluations of specified hereditaments shall notionally relate and to prescribe that in relation to specified or unspecified hereditaments the rateable value shall be arrived at by methods to be set out in subordinate legislation.
  By way of further explanation, as I have been using the technical terms, in order to ensure that those who have to interpret the subsequent legislation are fully aware of the precise details, I should say that this enables partial revaluation of classes of property but does not allow a class to be disadvantaged. Obviously, hon. Members will have in mind the relative positions of a domestic and a non-domestic hereditament.
  Article 8 amends article 45 of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to relieve the commissioners of valuation of the obligation to publish a new valuation list every five years and substitutes a power to have a general revaluation at dates to be prescribed by the Department of Finance by subordinate instrument—which means that it is subject to prayer for annulment.
  Article 9 extends existing rating law to the effect that occupiers of fish farms will be exempted from liability for rates on such properties on the same general basis as occupiers of agricultural land. Perhaps here I should remind hon. Members that in Northern Ireland a fish farm is treated as an industry and that therefore it will move from 60 per cent, derating to total derating from 1 April.
  Article 10 of the draft order authorises the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make regulations prescribing charges for any application or appeal under the planning legislation. The Government consider the reduction of public expenditure as one of their most important tasks. If, therefore, services that in the past have been paid for out of the public purse are to continue, an alternative source for part of the cost must be found. The provision in article 10 would be used to prescribe charges to meet part of the cost of the development control system. Similar powers were provided for the remainder of the United Kingdom in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It is intended to prescribe a scale of fees for applications for planning permission and for consent to display an advertisement.
  There will be no fee for an application for a determination whether planning permission is necessary. Nor will the new charges apply to applications for listed building consent or to planning appeals. A consultation paper outlining proposals for the new planning charges has recently been published and comments have been requested by 15 April. The scale of charges proposed will be in line with the reduced fees prescribed in the regulations for Great Britain which were approved by the House on 3 March 1981.

  833
  It may be helpful for the House to know that a consultation paper on relaxing controls on the size of extension that requires planning consent is now out for comment. That must be taken into account when considering the additional charges that arise under article 10. In other words, many of the smaller applications that in the past would have required planning consent, and therefore incurred fees, will not now do so.
  In article 11 the opportunity is taken to raise the current maximum for some fines under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 from £400 to £1,000. I think that hon. Members will approve of that. Those increases give parity with the higher penalties provided in Great Britain under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Only the more important offences are involved—for example, failure to comply with enforcement and stop notices, tree preservation orders and unauthorised demolition or alteration of a listed building. Since the fines were set in 1972 they have become less effective as a deterrent and the new maximum of £1,000 should ensure a more realistic penalty. I confirm that enforcement arrangements in the Province are the same as those on the mainland.
  Article 12 of the draft order deals with disposal of land in Northern Ireland's new town areas of Antrim, Ballymena, Craigavon and Londonderry. Land for those new towns was acquired largely between 1966 and 1969, in accordance with the initial plans and projections of future increases of population for these towns. Actual progress, except perhaps in the case of Antrim, has been at a much slower rate than originally expected and present trends suggest that the ultimate populations of the new towns will be significantly lower than the original forecasts, again with the possible exception of Antrim. In consequence, less land will now be required and land identified as surplus to planned needs will be available for disposal.
  Article 13 confirms the Belfast city council as the owner of two industrial estates, namely, the Balmoral and Duncrue Street industrial estates. It will regularise an existing position under which the council took responsibility for promoting the development of the two estates, both of which were acquired by the former Belfast county borough council under various enactments. They have been operated by the present city council since reorganisation on 1 October 1973, on a profit-making basis. The legislation will also confer power on the city council from 1 October 1973 to manage these estates and a small area of land adjacent to the Balmoral estate acquired in 1974.
  The powers being taken are not of a general kind and limit Belfast city council's responsibility to develop and manage industrial estates to the lands at Balmoral and Duncrue Street. It is not the Government's intention to extend the powers of other councils in Northern Ireland to acquire and develop land for industrial or commercial purposes, this being the function of the Department of Commerce. There is a need to obviate some uncertainty about lands that were acquired by the former corporation before the existing city council came into being.
  The draft order is of modest length and of no great complexity. It seeks generally to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. I shall be happy to help hon. Members on points of clarification.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: First, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the way in which he has elucidated some of the order's more intricate details. I do not intend to detain the House for long. Most of the provisions deal with local government and it is only fair that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland should have the maximum opportunity to debate these issues.
  I have several questions to put to the Minister on the powers to be granted to the Department of the Environment by certain articles. They demand clear and open answers from the Minister so that those who are in possession of property that they want to improve may know where they stand.
  I am concerned that under the new article 105A the Department of the Environment may
  "make such provision as it thinks fit for the payment of a fee"
  for planning applications and appeals. I do not know whether I misheard the Minister, but I thought that I heard him say that he was not contemplating a fee for appeals. In Northern Ireland we have the Planning Appeals Commission, a body which does not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It seems that article 10 makes provision for article 105A(6) of the 1972 order to include a fee for appeals. The Opposition have always been opposed to the principle of charges for planning permission.
  I have always regarded the Planning Appeals Commission as a body that provides the opportunity for the law to be seen to be done. I accept that some might have taken advantage of the procedure. However, those who feel that the Department is riding roughshod over them have been able to turn to the commission. I should hate to think that payment to the commission will put the appeal system out of reach of many in Northern Ireland. If I have misunderstood the Minister, I shall be happy to be corrected.
  This is an intricate and complicated piece of legislation. I hope that every effort will be made to elucidate the changes so that the people of Northern Ireland will be fully informed of their rights under the law. I think it best to resume my place and allow those from Northern Ireland who represent the people to get on with the job.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is an order of considerable width and scope, and of considerable importance. I am afraid that it is possible to consider it satisfactorily only by taking the separate articles one by one, as I fear I shall trouble the House by doing in a moment. I shall make two procedural observations by way of a preface.
  In the first place, as the Minister conceded, the order as laid is considerably larger—it is larger by four articles—than the order previously laid in proposal form, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. When it was relaid in its extended form there was no consultation process of the ordinary character and no explanatory memorandum accompanied it. Consequently, hon. Members confronted with the draft order in its present form were without any guidance or assistance as regards the reasons for and meaning of the new articles in the order. Therefore, I believe that that procedure should be avoided if possible in future. The Minister was most

  835
  courteous and helpful, when he recognised what had occurred, in obtaining a stay of execution for hon. Members so that we might come to tonight's debate better prepared, and in providing us with some elucidation on the number of new clauses which we had not previously seen.
  The procedure by way of proposal is not an absolute statutory requirement, but I think that it is a procedure which, as long as we must have legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council, all concerned—public and Members of Parliament—find valuable. I hope that in future Departments generally will be scrupulous, when there is major change in an order, not in consequence of parliamentary proceedings, but as a consequence of decisions taken outside Parliament, in proceeding ab initio by means of draft proposals plus an explanatory memorandum. I believe that that plea already has the sympathy of the Minister. It would be helpful if he would confirm that impression which my hon. Friends and I have when he winds up the debate.
  My second procedural comment goes somewhat further. The original explanatory memorandum said—the same words verbatim somehow got into the Minister's speech this evening—that much of what was contained in the England and Wales Local Government, Planning and Land (No.2) Bill
  "is of no application to Northern Ireland circumstances … because of the considerably different system of public administration".
  It turns out from the order, both in its first form and in its second form, that there is a considerable part of that England and Wales Bill that is of application to Northern Ireland, and is being applied to Northern Ireland. As the notes indicate, and as the Minister's remarks indicated, it is being applied to Northern Ireland more or less precisely as it was applied to England and Wales in the Act that was passed Last Session.
  Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell indicated assent.
  Mr. Powell: I have the Minister's assent to that.
  I am afraid that this is not the first time—it may not even be the last time—that I remark how much better it would be if Northern Ireland Departments would keep in touch with their opposite numbers on the mainland at a much earlier stage in the preparation of legislation, and not wait to start thinking about Northern Ireland until the England and Wales legislation has been passed. There is no reason whatsoever why, from the earliest stages of the preparation of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act for England and Wales, the Department of the Environment should not have been looking at it carefully and saying"Bless my soul, it is quite likely that some of this will be applied to Northern Ireland". If the Northern Ireland Departments found, as they have now found, that there were about a dozen matters that should apply, and should apply identically, to that part of the United Kingdom, what on earth could be the objection to their saying to their colleagues on the mainland"Would you kindly arrange for that part of your Bill to apply to Northern Ireland"? That would have saved the House the trouble that it has tonight, it would have saved the repetition of the same explanation and, what is more, it would have enabled my hon. Friends and myself to participate in the debate in principle on many of these matters in the previous Session.
  I refer briefly to fees. I have considerable sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr.
  836
  Concannon) said. It is a serious matter for debate whether fees should be charged for planning applications and what are the theory and morality that lie behind such a proposal. I am sure that that was debated in the context of the England and Wales Bill. Had my hon. Friends and I sought to take part in the debate in the House or in Committee, the general feeling would have been"What business was it of yours?" Our attention would speedily have been drawn to the statement that that part did not apply to Northern Ireland.
  The Minister shakes his head. Of course we have the technical right, which we sometimes excercise, to be heard on legislation which, on the face of it, does not apply to Northern Ireland; but I have a suspicion that, had we discussed the matter in the light of Northern Ireland conditions, the occupant of the Chair would have been fully within his rights in calling us to order.
  Now, faced with the order, we are told that the Department of the Environment has concluded that the same should apply in Northern Ireland. We are placed in a quandary. Either we have to debate the matter for ourselves in principle—incidentally, without the possibility of amendment—and come to our conclusion, with a Division presumably if we disagree with the Government, or we have to conclude, as I imagine my hon. Friends do, that, as the principle has been accepted on the mainland, we had best fall in line with it so that there may not be: inequity and disparity between citizens in identical circumstances in two parts of the Kingdom.
  What I am about to say does not come as news, but it bears repetition and will be repeated. Indeed, it is in the interests of the Government and the House that it should be understood and accepted. Wherever possible it should be foreseen whether mainland legislation is regarded as applicable to Northern Ireland, and that application should, if possible, be made in the initial legislation so that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland can take part from the beginning, with full rights, in debate and in establishing what the law is to be.
  After that double preface, I come to consider the operative and substantive articles of the order in succession. As the Minister explained, and as appears on the face of the article, the purpose of article 3 is to enable the Department to vary, subject to negative resolution, a fraction which at present stands in the law as half for the purposes of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The Minister did not explain—and I simply injected the monosyllable"Why?", which he failed to hear—why the Department should want to vary the fraction of a half as it stands in existing law. If it wants to vary it, why does it not say what fraction it considers right? This is not a quibble. I can quite understand that if the existing law specified a particular figure, such as a sum of money, it might be reasonable, given the continuance of inflation—despite this afternoon's Budget—for the Government to have powers to vary the figure by order, but this is a fraction. As a fraction, so far as I can see, it will be unaffacted by inflation or other economic changes.
  It is therefore necessary for the Minister to justify his contention that, although the 50 per cent, fraction is specified in the existing law, the Department should be able to change it to three-quarters or one-quarter. Indeed, I hope that he will go further and disclose whether the Department actually entertains any such intention and, if it intends to alter the fraction of one-half, in what direction it intends to alter it and for what justifiable reason. Will

  837
  the Minister, when he winds up the debate, therefore please be more candid about the purposes and intentions behind article 3?
  The same objection, or at any rate the same query, applies to article 4. Article 4 makes provision for the Department, by order, to alter a percentage mentioned in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. Why should it wish to alter a percentage, once fixed? Has anything happened in the costs of rate collection, or whatever it might be, relative to the level of rates, which would justify a change in the percentage? And does the Department in fact have any such intentions of which our constituents might be made aware?
  While the Minister is directing his mind to answering, as I am sure that he will, my queries on articles 3 and 4, I must point out that the safeguards that these articles import are by no means what they might appear to be to any innocent hon. Member from the mainland who, whether waiting for the Adjournment debate or otherwise, may be present on this occasion.
  Such a Member, having provided himself with a copy of the order, and seeing the words"subject to negative resolution", might conclude that we could pray against the order. Similarly, looking at article 4 and seeing the words"subject to affirmative resolution", he might conclude that a debate would have to take place upon an affirmative order. He would be mistaken. We have to carry out that transposition, if I may use a musical term, which must always be applied in dealing with these orders. For"negative procedure", read"no procedure at all", and for"affirmative resolution", read"negative procedure".
  In other words, the Department will be quite uncontrolled in whatever it does under article 3. Under article 4 it will be controlled only to the following extent. The previous Administration—and I trust that the same applies to this Administration—by a concession, agreed that, if possible, it would accept, though preferably for handling in the Northern Ireland Committee, a prayer against an affirmative Northern Ireland order. But so rare is it in these enlightened days for even Great Britain prayers to be debated that Members from Northern Ireland would obviously be chary of asking on each successive occasion that the Government should provide time and organise a sitting of the Northern Ireland Committee in order to hear the equivalent of a prayer. Therefore, although there is parliamentary procedure to control the powers taken by the Department in article 4, it is parliamentary procedure which is extremely difficult to use, and which in practice is used only when matters of considerable public importance are involved.
  I pass from articles 3 and 4—leaving aside articles 5 and 6, which we welcome—to article 7. Article 7, although it was in the original order and received a cursory reference in the explanatory memorandum thereto, is of such inspissated obscurity that even with the assistance of both documents I must confess that it defeated myself and my hon. Friends. We have succeeded in attaining to some degree, though only a partial degree, of enlightenment only as a result of a two-and-a-half-folio letter which the Minister was kind enough to send to us at the end of last month.
  I think that some dim notion of what it is about has, as a result of this, dawned upon my mind. Let me try. I think that the idea is, first, that instead of the date of the new
  838
  valuation list being the assumed date at which the properties in it are to be valued, an earlier, and therefore more realistic, date to which the valuation is to relate will be specified. For example, if the new valuation order is to come into effect from April 1984, one would specify a date, say in 1982, as the valuation date, so that the valuers would be working upon real or nearly contemporary values, instead of having to speculate upon movements in the economy over the next two or three years.
  I seem from various signs and winks to have done fairly well so far. So I approach with some encouragement the more difficult part, which is to be found in the latter half of the article. I think that I understand that during the currency of a particular valuation list it is intended to take hold of a group or class of hereditament. That may be specified or unspecified. However, in this context I think that those words are not what they seem to mean, but are terms of art. At any rate, it is intended to take hold of a specific class of hereditament and revalue all hereditaments of that kind. All of them having been revalued, the global valuation will then be scaled down to what was the global valuation of those hereditaments in the existing list.
  The result will be that the relativities between those hereditaments may be altered and modernised, but the relativities between all hereditaments of that class, on the one hand, and all other hereditaments, on the other, will remain unaltered.
  I seem to be getting the most encouraging signs from the Minister. Therefore, I shall now put to him the difficulties that I find. They are to understand for what purpose this second operation, which I have attempted to describe, is intended to be engaged in. For example, do the Government feel that the relative values of domestic hereditaments are getting out of date faster than the relative values of non-domestic hereditaments? Is that what is wrong? If so, will they please say?
  In the note with which the Minister kindly supplied us he says:
  "The distinction between domestic and non-domestic hereditaments is not specifically provided for in the draft order, although in practice it is this distinction that would most likely be made."
  That illustrates the importance of the attention that hon. Members pay to these orders, apparently of a technical kind, when they come before the House. How wrong we would be to treat these orders on a take-it-or-leave-it and semi-formal basis. At about the third time of asking—he will appreciate that this is no personal criticism—the Minister said that it is quite likely, although not certain that it will happen, that if we use these powers we would be concerned with the distinction between domestic and non-domestic hereditaments. I hope that he will not think it unfair that hon. Members should ask him point blank whether there is any intention to take out domestic hereditaments and revalue them in this way. If so, what are the reasons for doing so? If it is some type of non-domestic hereditament, what type of non-domestic hereditament, and for what reasons? In other words, will the Minister, true to his nature, display a candour towards hon. Members and the House which is noticeably absent from what are called the explanatory memoranda which have hitherto accompanied these documents?
  That brings me—the subject of valuation lists is common to these two articles—to article 8. Article 8 is the Northern Ireland version of a well-known and regrettable"Rake's Progress". My hon. Friends and I have the

  839
  greatest objection to article 8. Whenever Governments, at intervals of about a quarter of a century, screw up their courage to the point of having a new valuation for rating, they are full of good intentions. When they do that, they always say"And of course, from now onwards we shall revalue every five years". But before the quinquennium is very old their courage begins to ebb and so the Rake's Progress starts whereby quinquennium after quinquennium the same old valuation lists go on until sooner or later the situation becomes intolerable. Then—and this is the human point about this—all unawares, ratepayers are brought up against the consequences of the economic changes that have taken place, sometimes over 25 years.
  It is not fair that the ratepayer, who recognises his duty to pay rates in relation to the relative value of his property at a given lime compared with other values, should suddenly be subjected to the tremendous changes in burden that take place when there is a valuation after a long lapse of time. We therefore believe that, expense or no expense—after all, this is the cost of justice and the price of fairness to the ratepayer—the valuation ought to take place as provided by the law. Indeed, we have more than a recollection of all sorts of good intentions when the order was passed in 1977. No doubt the right hon. Member for Mansfield will be able to recall them himself, although it was not his own Department. I am sure that his late departed colleague at the Department of the Environment at that time would be distinctly aware of the undertakings that were given—that in future there would be a regular quinquennial valuation so that never again would those unfair, unexpected and unreasonable shifts of burden take place.
  Here we are, subject to an affirmative order—that is to say, in practice to the unlikelihood of any parliamentary procedure at all—saying that the Department will have power to defer the general revaluation indefinitely. I give notice that my hon. Friends and I regard this as a matter that in itself calls for a debate either in the House or in the Northern Ireland Committee. When such an order is made, we shall pray against it and we shall expect the Government to provide time for a proper debate.
  Article 9 refers to the exemption of fish fanning, and it is welcome. It ties in admirably with the new legislation on fish farming—both in the Province and on the mainland—which has just passed through the House.
  I turn to a matter that has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, namely, the imposition of fees for planning applications. Fees will not be charged, as the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently said, for planning permission: a person will pay the fee whether or not he gains permission. That makes it a little more disagreeable. I should like the Minister to confirm that the scale of fees proposed in the paper that he has circulated is identical with that in the regulation for England and Wales, which the House recently accepted. I have done my best to compare the two. Rather uncharacteristically, Northern Ireland has been able to set out the table with greater brevity. As I suspect the Northern Ireland legal department has always thought, Northern Ireland must have better draftsmen than has the mainland. At any rate, we shall be satisfied with the Minister's assurance that the fees—whether right or wrong in principle—will be levied in an identical way on both sides of the Irish Sea.
  No proper objection can be made to the increase in fines contained in article 11, because of the fall in the value of
  840
  money and because of the complete assurance that the Minister gave to the effect that there would be parity with Great Britain. However, at that point the Minister slipped in a sentence—a significant sentence—when he said incidentally that the procedure for enforcement was the same in Northern Ireland as it was in England and Wales. Thereby hangs a tale, a little of which should be put on the record of the House, because it is a matter of public importance and concern.
  It may be—indeed, it must be, since the Minister says so—that the enforcement procedures in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales are identical. However, having some experience of both sides of the Irish Sea, I do not believe that the enforcement procedure works as effectively in Northern Ireland, either as it does in England and Wales, or as it ought to do. In six years I have come across too many cases, far more than I like, of development taking place, either without permission or in contravention of permission or in contravention of conditions, and things then beginning to happen in such a way that eventually a new application was put forward which was granted, which made an honest woman of something that started with a very different character.
  I know that the Minister has been made aware of the anxiety that my hon. Friends and I have and that he will direct his mind to ascertaining why, if the legal procedures are identical in both parts of the kingdom, they should apparently produce such different results. Of course, there is a difference in the system of adminstration in the two parts of the kingdom, but that does not necessarily contain the explanation. So perhaps it is not unreasonable, in talking about the fines imposed upon those who are the subject of enforcement, that hon. Members should notify their anxiety about the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of enforcement in Northern Ireland.
  Article 12 relates to the disposal of land which is no longer required for the purposes of new towns. The only point that I wish to raise here is to ask for an assurance from the Minister that the Crichel Down rules will apply to those disposals. Of course, the Crichel Down rules are not embodied in legislation in Great Britain, but they are a convention which has been treated as binding upon successive Governments. I have been assured by Northern Ireland Ministers that they are regarded as applicable in identical terms in Northern Ireland. I confess to some unsureness about whether that is absolutely honoured to the letter. However, that is a matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will address the House later with a greater wealth of argument and illustrative material than I can command. I simply leave the query there and express the hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy the House that Crichel Down rules will apply to disposals under article 12.
  You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that the number of operative articles of the order does not exceed the number of 13, and that therefore I have now come to the last.
  The explanatory memorandum told us—and the Minister repeated the statement in introducing the order this evening—that"the powers being taken are not of a general kind". I must say that, on reading the article, I find that a very strange statement. If the Minister will be good enough to look at paragraph 1 of article 13 he will see that the power conferred by it is very general indeed. I admit

  841
  that it refers only to the corporation, but beyond referring to the corporation it is to all appearance entirely general. It says:
  "The Corporation shall be deemed always to have had power to hold and develop land as an industrial estate."
  If it is deemed always to have had it, I presume that it is deemed to have it.
  The rest of the article, I quite understand, is restricted to the treatment of the lands referred to in paragraphs (3) and (5).
  Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Powell: Clearly, the Minister has the answer, and if he has, I am willing to accept the discharge at the moment. But he has at any rate grasped my difficulty, which is that apparently article 13(1) is at large, even though the remainder of the article appears to be specific.
  The Minister has at least had this advantage under the shower of interrogatives with which I have sprayed him—that, if in a briefer form, they had already been placed at his disposal some time ago. So I hope that he will not feel himself hard done by in being invited, if possible within the limits of the debate this evening, to satisfy them.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I rise briefly to reinforce the objections by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the reservations put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in relation to the principle of the payment of fees for planning applications. This is a completely new departure. We have never had it in Northern Ireland before and I was completely unaware of it until I read the order this evening. I am certain that the general public in Northern Ireland are unaware of the proposed legislation. If they were aware of it they would be objecting to it, as I am objecting to it this evening.
  I ask the Minister to tell us the reason for the decision to charge a fee for planning applications. I repeat that it is a new departure for us in Northern Ireland. Has it been found that the existing law has been abused to some extent and that therefore some restriction needs to be placed on frivolous planning applications? Has it been found that the applications dealt with have led to a good deal more work for the staff who deal with this type of application? One would have thought—I speak specifically in relation to Northern Ireland, and more particularly in relation to Belfast—that there would be adequate numbers of civil servants to deal with the planning applications brought to their notice.
  I find it very difficult to understand the need for the order. It may be that the Conversative Government are seeking a new means of bringing in revenue, under whatever guise. We know from the Budget Statement today that they will get more revenue by way of taxes on cigarettes, petrol and other commodities, but the provisions in the order seem to be a rather hidden way of trying to get more revenue.
  Some of the people concerned may be in very humble circumstances. There are some ordinary people who do not have a great deal of finance behind them but may want to build extensions to their houses. There may have been additions to their families, or they may simply wish to
  842
  carry out extensions to their properties. I cannot see why they should be asked to pay a fee to authorities when they make planning applications. The wording of the order says that the authority or Department"may", but we have seen that word before. One often sees it transformed to"shall". I am sure that the word will become"shall" when the order becomes effective.
  Have the Government made an assessment of how much money would have been collected for the past year if the proposed fees had been in operation? How much money would have been collected last year, or the year before? How much money will be collected in the forthcoming financial year? If the figure were thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds, my party would still object, but the Government might justify it. If the figure were small, it would be utterly unjustified to establish such a principle.
  I do not object to that kind of tax under this guise—we have heard enough this afternoon about what the Government will do—but I wholly object to the principle that people should be forced to pay fees for planning applications to carrying out essential improvements to their properties.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish to dwell on article 10 of the order and I shall not take much time, because what I intended to say has already been said most eloquently. I want to put on record my objection to the principle of imposing charges for planning applications.
  Development is vital for the whole community. Planning authorities perform an essential service, not just for the person who makes an application but for the whole community. It is wrong that the Government should seek to impose charges on a person who makes a planning application when the function of the Department of the Environment is to protect the environment.
  As we have heard from the Minister, the reason why these charges are being imposed is to bring in revenue to pay for the bureaucracy which already exists in Northern Ireland. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), we had an example this afternoon in the Budget which showed that the Government are out to penalise people as much as possible. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are being penalised are the ordinary men and women in the community. Planning consent is not a privilege. Everyone has the right to make a planning application, but no one may erect or extend a building without obtaining planning permission. Therefore, it is not proper for the Government to charge people for fulfilling an obligation that is imposed by law. That is wrong in principle, and I take strong objection to it. It is necessary to protect the environment and we must, therefore, have proper planning. It is right that plans should be submitted to public scrutiny. We must ensure that a building or extension will not be offensive to residents or the environment.
  I concur with the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that the charge for planning appeals will penalise aggrieved applicants. In many cases a charge will deter an appeal. The applicant will have already faced officialdom and had the application rejected. Unless the applicant has plenty of money to throw around, he will have to think carefully before appealing.
  That will strengthen the bureaucracy, which is already too strong. We should be curtailing bureaucracy. It is

  843
  wrong to give this power to the planning authorities. The measure will add to the cost of buildings for industry, farming and horticulture. That is at a time when in Northern Ireland we need more industry and more people developing free enterprise. More people should be erecting buildings and promoting industry. The order imposes a penalty on that activity.
  It also imposes a penalty on ordinary people who wish to build their own home or an extension. Costs are already too high. Many young people find it impossible to meet mortgage repayments. It is wrong that the cost of a home should be increased as a result of the charges.
  The planning authorities will gather large sums. I shall be interested to hear exactly how much the Minister expects will be collected. As a result of collecting the large sums involved, officials will have less incentive to maintain efficiency and curtail bureaucracy. The Government will defeat their avowed purpose. There will be an increase in the number of people working in the planning offices and a delay in processing planning applications. I shall regret that.
  An applicant will have to pay £20 or more for permission to build a home. As a result he will take time consulting the planning authorities to ensure that he does not throw away his money. He will have to go carefully through the plans with the officials to avoid the official throwing the application out of the window. That will lead to more work. It will mean delay and an increase in costs. In addition, planning officers will have a sanction. They will be able to threaten an applicant who will not give in to demands about where a house should be sited, how it should be built, which way it should face, or the way in which the roof is built. Planning authorities impose many niggling requirements. Some of them do not make sense, although many do. Some authorities are difficult with applicants.
  I do not believe that the imposition of charges will bring any improvement in planning in Northern Ireland. A number of cases have been brought to my attention where planning permission has been given where it should never have been given and also a number of cases where planning permission has been refused where I felt it should be given. In one case, where planning permission was given, I felt that it was diabolical that the authorities should grant such permission to a speculator to build a house right in front of an existing house, thereby adversely affecting the value of the house and the enjoyment of the house by the residents. They protested, but there was nothing that they could do.
  I should like to refer briefly to article 11, which increases the level of fines under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Until now, where someone has defied the planning law in Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment has seemed impotent or unwilling to enforce the law. I have one case with which I have plagued the Minister and his predecessor where an industrial activity is being carried on without planning permission to the annoyance of residents in the area. I have not yet succeeded in persuading the Department of the Environment to stop that activity and to make sure that the building reverts to its former purpose. I hope that when this order takes effect the Department of the Environment will ensure that the planning law is enforced for everyone.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Wm. Ross: The measures in the order fall under three headings—valuation and rating, planning, and land. It is rather obnoxious that three such separate subjects, with their roots in separate pieces of legislation, should be bundled together in a single order. I would have thought that for the benefit of everyone concerned it would be better to have three small orders that related more easily to the parent legislation in each case. In future, confusion is bound to be caused to hon Members or others who start to look through the various laws governing valuation and rating, planning, and land to try to find the subject matter that they seek.
  I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in drawing attention to the fact that four new articles had appeared between the proposal for the draft and the actual draft. If I had thought that the order could be expanded in the way that it has been expanded, I could have brought up a few more matters to be added to it. There is an embryo transfer centre at Coleraine, about which I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, which is bearing heavy rates. If it were located on this side of the Irish Sea, no such rates would be charged. I would have thought that this was an excellent opportunity to clear up the law and to relieve my unfortunate constituent of the problem that he faces. I would have put that matter to the Minister if I had thought it possible that the order could be extended. I see no reason why it should not have been extended to the producing organisation of fish farms, so closely connected with a new branch of agriculture.
  I wish, above all, to direct my remarks to the problems that arise under the powers being taken to dispose of land no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally vested or acquired. This order raises the apparently dormant but hotly smouldering question of the disposal of such land. I am not sure whether the Minister is a willing volunteer or a reluctant conscript. I know that he mounted the horse in mid-stream, and it may be that once he was mounted he found this flaming fire ahead of him. Of one thing I am absolutely certain: heaven help him if he does not get it right.
  I assume that the area of land affected in Londonderry city is relatively small, as no one has been able to identify it. There is the problem of Antrim, which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) will raise if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. There is the problem of North Antrim, which apparently will not be raised by anyone, and there is the problem faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who, unfortunately, is not able to be with us, in relation to Craigavon new city.
  That is a hideous problem, and I am keen to know how the Minister will resolve it. Originally the land could be sold only for new town development, but the order alters that. The land can now be disposed of to anyone.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South said that he hoped that the Crichel Down rules would apply. I hope that a much more generous spirit will be shown in the disposal of these lands. The problem is not quite as it was in the case that gave rise to the Crichel Down rules. In Craigavon there are 3,000 acres of surplus land. I want to know, as do the people living on the land, how much of that land will be released. Will part of it or all of it be

  845
  released? What are the criteria for deciding which lands shall be released and which shall be held? Who will be given the opportunity to purchase the land?
  We must consider the serious facts surrounding the land. Some farmers settled 15 or 16 years ago. They received a price for the land which at that time was a tiny sum compared with today's values. They settled because they were told that the land would be required in the almost immediate future, but to this day they are still living on their holdings, paying rent for land that they probably inherited. There are other farmers who did not settle, who have never been paid for the land, and are still farming the land as their fathers before them did.
  Will the Government now say to either of those two classes of people, because of the creation of Craigavon,"You are living on your own land. We vested it 15 years ago; we did not pay you for it; it was worth £500 an acre 15 years ago; it is worth £2,500 an acre today. If you want to stay you will have to give us £2,000 an acre for your land"? To say that that would be the morality of the cesspool would be to praise it. A much more generous spirit than the Crichel Down rule will have to apply to both those classes of landowner who have been placed in this position through the bungling, the delay and the misapprehensions that have surrounded the whole Craigavon project.
  I need not enter into the argument whether it could have succeeded. What we do know is that it has fallen far short of expectations and that a dreadful situation has been created for the people who live there and have owned this land in many cases for generations, and who now, through no fault of their own, will find themselves in the greatest difficulty—and in circumstances in which the Government cannot win, for if the Government try to apply the legal framework that has been applied elsewhere, they will come out of it with the muckiest faces that any Government ever had. I hope that the Minister understands that; I hope the House understands it; and I hope that when the Minister deals with the matter he will take account of the feelings of those who live there.
  Let us look for a moment at the Crichel Down rule. It says, in effect, that agricultural land should be sold back to the former owner when it is no longer required for public purposes. Normally, when land is being sold back it is land that has been used for the purpose for which it was first acquired either by vesting or by other means; the public use has disappeared and the land has now become available. This is a difficult and intricate subject, which arouses the most ferocious emotions among those who are involved in it.
  I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times on the Bloomsbury case last year in regard to the publishers, George Allen and Unwin. The article recalls the words of a previous Home Secretary—Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe—in winding up the debate in the Crichel Down case, when he said:
  "'Every citizen of good will sees his land go in time of emergency for Government requirements with as much good will as he can muster;'"—
  generally speaking, there is not much good will in it—
  "'but it is taken for a specific purpose, for a specific need of the State. When that purpose is exhausted, when that need is past, what is wrong, on any consideration of morality or justice, in allowing the person from whom the land was taken to have the chance of getting it back?' Crichel Down was not an issue of land
  846
  as against buildings, but of morality and justice against administrative oppression."—[Official Report, 20 July 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1292.]
  I think there is no one in the House who could disagree with the last part of what I have just read, but I draw the attention of the House to what the Home Secretary of that time was saying. He was generous in his attitude and went very much further than the Crichel Down rule, because he said that the land that was taken for a specific purpose—he did not add the requirement that it must be agricultural land, he said"any land"—should be returned whenever the purpose for which it was taken was exhausted. That is something that has never been put into effect.
  Land is not returned whenever the specific purpose for which it was taken is exhausted; it is offered to other Government or local government bodies. In other words, land can be taken for a specific purpose and can be used eventually for a totally different purpose and never returned to the person who at one time owned it and lost it.
  This is the first opportunity there has been to consider this matter in the Northern Ireland context, and I hope to raise another matter in that context, too, on another occasion. I hope that the Government will have the courage to reopen the whole Crichel Down settlement, because I believe that full justice for the citizens who suffer is long overdue. There is perhaps no better opportunity than the Craigavon case to start looking again at the rules that surround the return of land to its former owners.
  The order is narrow, because it refers only to new towns. I want a far more detailed examination of the whole planning scene. That is overdue. I wish to digress a little, but remain within the rules of order, and illustrate the problems that can arise. I draw attention to article 11(2)(f), which refers to
  "knowingly making mis-statement when required to give information as to land."
  That relates to the Critchel Down theory when land is taken for specific purposes. There are times when land is taken for specific purposes, and its use is then subtly changed so that the original planning application does not apply the end use.
  In my constituency there are two such instances that may be of interest to the House and that are relevant to the general point. One is the proposal to play Gaelic Athletic Association football in the Waterside, in Londonderry. There is a change of use from one game to another, but in planning terms there is no change, as they both come under the heading of recreation. Yet no one who knows the position in Northern Ireland could deny that it involves a major change of use.
  I wish to quote from the charter of the GAA. It states:
  "The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic games and pastimes."
  Rule 26 states:
  "British soldiers, navy men, and police shall not be eligible for membership of the G.A.A.
  A member of the Association participating in dances, or similar entertainments, promoted by or under the patronage of such bodies, shall incur suspension for at least 3 months."
  Rule 10 states:
  "The National Flag should be displayed at all matches."
  That refers to the flag of the Irish Republic. The general foreword states:
  "Those who play its games, those who organise its activities and those who control its destinies see in the G.A.A. a means

  847
  of consolidating our Irish identity. The games to them are more than games—they have a national significance—and the promotion of native pastimes becomes a part of the full national ideal …"
  It continues:
  "Those who are unaware of the conditions that called the G.A. A. into being, and of the national significance that attaches to the native games may be forgiven if, to them, one game is as good as another. But those who know our country's history and understand the role that the G.A.A. has played in it will see that …"
  Anyone reading that charter soon understands that the GAA envisages its aims as more than playing games. It says that in the plainest language. Who are we to disagree with those who belong to, organise and run that association? Yet in planning law that difference from other games is ignored. The games played by that association, the emotions aroused by it, and all the hullaballoo surrounding it, are set at naught and treated as normal sporting activity. It may be law, but it cannot be a good standard of morals. The Minister should bear that in mind when considering such matters. The type of game changes the circumstances. It changes the attitude of people towards the use to which land is put. If those changes are to be introduced, the planning laws should be changed to take account of that.
  The same criticisms can be levelled at a new school. Strangely enough, it is in the immediate area that featured in the original plans, which were changed on a subsequent application. The Minister is aware of the school that I am talking about. An amendment was made under the subsequent planning application that might well have given rise to objections if it had appeared in the original application. The Minister is well aware of that. I regret that he has accepted the case of those who wanted the change made. However, the change could not eventually be challenged on planning grounds. As I said, it may be lawful but it is not good morals.
  These actions have opened doors that should now be closed firmly and decisively. That can be done by changing the law or by the Minister remembering that he operates a Department in Northern Ireland and not in
  848
  England. He operates a Department that has to be much aware of the social and political complexion that will be attached to his decisions.
  Planning law is difficult and complex enough, and it needs to be opened up, not only for the reasons that I have submitted but because of the developing interpretation of existing legislation. I was approached some time ago about the provision of a bus shelter. That was not a big event. The provision was sought in the village of Ballykelly. Until recently the planning authority had to consider bus shelters, but under the 1973 order such development is now entirely in the control of district councils. Apparently, it has been in that control since the order became effective, but that was not appreciated until fairly recently. That is a small development, but it is a happy one. It is a road along which the Minister could properly travel. He should go not a short way but the whole hog. It is time that people in Northern Ireland and councils were given some responsibility for something.
  Another unusual development has arisen, strangely enough, in the Ballykelly area. It is one that I find rather disturbing. A chap wanted to build a house on a farm lane. He would not have been allowed to so so before the relaxation of the planning rules some years ago. However, whenever he made the application he was told that if he built his house there would be one house too many on the lane. He was told that the public street legislation would come into play and that before he built the house he must bring the lane up to the standard required by that legislation.
  That appears to be a rather unusual use of existing law. I wonder how widespread that application of the public street legislation will be. Apparently, it will cost £30,000 to satisfy the requirements of the legislation. In other words, the applicant will be unable to build his dwelling.
  I hope that in discussing the order and the planning law that is embodied in it we are firing only the opening shots in what will be a long examination of the detail that is involved in planning law. I hope that it will not be long before we have a debate on planning controls and the relaxation of planning controls that apply to minor developments.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I shall be brief in complementing what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The new town of Antrim is mentioned in the explanatory document of the order. Although the reference is to some extent qualified, the document states that
  "Actual progress, except in the case of Antrim, has been at a much slower rate than originally anticipated".
  In the same paragraph, it is said:
  "with the possible exception of Antrim."
  No one considering the growth rate in the town of Antrim at the moment would draw a great distinction between it and the town of Craigavon. They have both come to a standstill for roughly the same reasons. I accept that the problem exists in Craigavon on a greater scale than it does in Antrim, but in Antrim there are one or two points which I hope will receive the attention of the Minister. I do not expect him to reply in detail tonight, but I am sure that he will wish his Department to consider the matter in detail.
  There are two aspects of the Antrim problem. First, as in Craigavon, there is the land which one would call the"green field" category, which has not yet been touched or developed. The second aspect is land on which there is property, some of it of a fair age and at various stages of disrepair. Some of it is still usable and some of it is being used to carry on profitable business.
  There is a mystery over what is known as site B. I know that the Minister has a map and that he looked at the site when he visited Antrim. Site B is distinct from site A. It has been earmarked for what is termed in the Antrim town to which I referred as an area to be used for cultural and entertainment purposes. We are talking about public money, not developers' money. I am not certain that we will see the day when public money will become available on a sufficient scale to provide for cultural facilities. A cinema and some kind of assembly hall are listed. However, the town of Antrim already has a reasonable number of such buildings and cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination to be deprived of places of assembly, particularly as the population is relatively small and as there is not much prospect of it growing to a great extent in the near future.
  The Minister should persuade those who make those decisions to face up to that big question and see if a decision can be made. If they can make a decision that in the foreseeable future public money is not likely to be available to be spent on such projects, the present occupants and owners of those businesses should be put out of their misery and should be told that their property will not be required in the foreseeable future. If their property has been vested, it should be handed back to them. If the property has already been purchased by the Department of the Environment, it should be sold back to them on the terms already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross).
  I hope that the Minister can ensure that action is taken. All it needs is for a decision to be taken, because site B should not deteriorate while people are struggling to carry on their businesses, having no idea of what the future holds in store.
  The development in site A—the larger site—is fairly well advanced. On a recent visit to Antrim, I noticed that
  850
  many new shops were nearing completion. However, I fear for the future of even that development. Those shops have been erected by a developer who has been commissioned to do so by the Department of the Environment. However, the other day a table of scales of charges for the new shops was circulated. It will probably come as a surprise to the Minister to find out that the charges for those shops in Antrim are over twice those quoted for the Croydon shopping centre, which is in the middle of an area with a population of approximately 1½ million, whereas in Antrim we are proud that the population is 30,000. There is a difference between 30,000 and 1½ million. Antrim, with its 30,000 inhabitants, is charging fees double those of the Croydon shopping centre.
  I hope that prosperity will return to Antrim. I hope that the Minister responsible for commerce will ensure that the Enkalon factory is preserved. However, everyone regretfully accepts that the labour force will be reduced dramatically. As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) knows, there is no alternative source of employment within reach of the town of Antrim. If Enkalon is scaled down—worse still, if it goes—the Minister will have to face the problem of what will happen to the hideously expensive development in the town. There will not be sufficient income for the shops.
  In the older part of Church Street, we have family businesses, such as a widow and her daughter selling paint and wallpaper. The Antrim development commission told those people that they would be vested, with compensation. They were told that they would be guaranteed the option to tender for one of the great new shops to be erected. However, the shop would cost between £10,000 and £11,000 a year, plus rates, the cost of shopfitting, which is not included in the initial rental, the cost of installing heating, and so on. The proposition was, therefore, not particularly attractive.
  The Department of the Environment stands to lose a great deal if the scheme collapses. I hope that it will, therefore, persuade developers to adopt a more realistic attitude.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware of the large development at Richmond Street in Londonderry. Perhaps he will ask the Minister whether similar financing arrangements were arrived at for the Antrim development, and what is the standard of the building.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I can quite accept that my hon. Friend has the same problem in his constituency. In the days when he and I served in local government those of us who had our feet on the ground warned the starry-eyed planners that they would come a cropper. Even in those days of relative prosperity, we could not see where the money was to come from to flesh out the marvellous plans. We are now reaping the consequences of decisions that were not realistic even then. In present circumstances they are even more unrealistic.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew attention to the unsatisfactory method of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. I remember that when the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill was being debated we took the attitude that it was none of our business. Hon. Members from Great Britain would have been gracious enough to permit us to participate, but

  851
  they could not have been blamed for feeling that it was none of our business. We did not participate or vote. I remember even more vividly the short debate on the two orders for England and Scotland implementing the decision provided for in the Act. The Minister, who had come recently from the Northern Ireland Office, explained to the House that he had started with much larger fees, and he gave two examples.
  The Minister said that in the case of outline planning permission applications the original maximum fee had been fixed at £20,000, but—and this was the significant part—as a result of representations made during the passage of the Bill, and, more importantly, representations made by individuals and interests affected, he had reduced the fee from £20,000 to £1,000.
  At the other end of the scale, the Minister gave an example which was perhaps not quite so dramatic. At the lower level of the common or garden type of application—say, the extension of a bungalow or something of that kind—where the flat rate had originally been £30, as a result of expressions of opinion and objections from smallholders that fee had been reduced to £20.
  The Minister may well say tonight that, although in the consultative paper his Department had not set out the fees that it proposed to levy, it had at any rate indicated clearly that it intended to impose such fees. He may therefore ask why representations were not made to his Department on the proposal.
  The answer is that the general public, beyond the fairly small circle of people to whom the memorandum was circulated, had no way of knowing because there had been no preliminary debates in Parliament on the matter to give them an opportunity to express their views while there was still time to amend the legislation.
  Again, I hope that this reinforces the plea made both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Belfast, West that we should examine the whole problem of legislation for Northern Ireland and treat it no differently from that which obtains in the rest of the kingdom.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. David Mitchell: The House has had a very interesting survey of a major area, which is perhaps bigger than I had anticipated when I first introduced the order. I shall endeavour to deal with the many subjects raised by hon. Members during this short debate. If I fail to cover any points I shall write to the hon. Members concerned afterwards.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the late introduction of new articles and sought assurances that, wherever possible, draft orders should not be extended without adequate opportunity for consultation. I could give him an explanation of the lack of time involved in this case after the House of Lords finally made the additional changes to the Great Britain legislation, but I think that it might be better if I accepted that the situation was not entirely satisfactory in this case and said that I shall endeavour to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for public discussion on future occasions.
  The right hon. Gentleman then suggested that much of the draft order could have been introduced in the Great Britain legislation. That would have been complicated and difficult in this case. The use of the Order in Council has been preferred, since, apart from article 13, the substance
  852
  of the order is in the form of amendments to legislation contained in the Northern Ireland series of statutes. It would be confusing for a number of amendments to the corpus of Northern Ireland law on local government and planning to be placed in the United Kingdom series rather than in the Northern Ireland series of statutes. Therefore, while I entirely accept the concept that the right hon. Gentleman put forward, I hope that he will accept that in this case it would not have been appropriate.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask some specific questions about the articles. He began with article 3, and wanted to know whether we intended to alter the 50 per cent. rate now chargeable. This has been taken as a power because some people have availed themselves of the opportunity to challenge an assessment, have paid only half the rate pending the appeal, and in one way or another have extended the period of appeal so that they have given themselves an unfair advantage. In this case, power is being taken but no specific proposals are being brought forward at this stage.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do I gather from that that the purpose is to enable the fraction of one-half to be increased? If that is so, would not it be proper for the Government, in asking for the power, to indicate what they have in mind? Presumably, they have something in mind, such as three-quarters. The reason seems to me to be a perfectly satisfactory one, but would not it be more proper for the Government to come cleaner still?
  Mr. Mitchell: It is our intention to follow the Great Britain legislation. We are not yet in possession of the full thoughts of the Secretary of State as to when and how he wishes to move.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the alteration of the existing percentage figure in relation to commission to owners for the collection of rates on behalf of the rating authority. This is part of the extending of powers to local government in Great Britain. We have no immediate plans similarly to follow in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to article 7, which he described as obscure and obfuscated. He explained with his usual lucidity exactly what that article was intended to do. As I followed his explanation, I think that I can audit it as being an accurate portrayal of exactly what is intended. He asked specifically why we should seek power to revalue certain separate classes, and what was intended. The intention of the Great Britain legislation has not yet been made known, although one might suppose that in the longer term it is related to the intention to reform or abandon domestic rating. Hon. Members will know that this matter has been with us for a considerable time. There is widespread disquiet about the operation of the existing rating system on the mainland. Power has been taken to deal with changes, should they occur.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about article 8. He objected to the failure to update the valuation and to the lack of consultation. As for the quinquennial rule, a statutory rule was made on 27 August 1980, which was circulated on 9 September to all those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. It suspended the 1981 quinquennial review until 1985. Therefore, we are bringing ourselves into line with the situation in Great Britain. I refer to revaluation by order subject to an affirmative resolution. There was an opportunity to pray against that statutory rule. Although that was before my

  853
  time at the Northern Ireland Office, I understand that the opportunity was not taken. The Government brought forward that proposal with the objective of saving 1,000 staff on the mainland. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the important financial saving involved.
  Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but will he clarify the point that the power to defer the valuation—and specifically to do so—already existed and had been exercised and that this article merely makes a permanent change in the quinquennial law? Is that the case?
  Mr. Mitchell: No. The change in the statutory rule extended the requirement to 1985. The order extends that further, subject to an affirmative resolution.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Down, South, referred to the Crichel Down principles and to the return of land that was compulsorily purchased or vested for public purposes and that is now surplus to needs. Several hon. Members doubted whether the convention was being properly applied. I should like to know of any cases in which it is thought that it is not being properly applied. It is our intention that the Crichel Down principles should apply to surplus land in new towns. Indeed, there is considerable interest in relation to surplus land at Craigavon and Antrim.
  I was asked by the right hon. Member for Down, South for assurances about article 13. He said that it appeared to give a general and retrospective legislative power to the city council for industrial development purposes. It confers the power not on the city council but on the former city corporation. Nothing more serious is involved than the uncertainty that arose on that question whether the city corporation was, at one stage, ultra vires. This provision puts that matter beyond peradventure.
  The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) asked me questions about article 10 and sought clarification about planning appeals and the fees involved. He asked whether there was a discrepancy between my introductory remarks and the power contained in the order to charge for planning appeals. I well understand the potential for misunderstanding. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for probing and for having given me the opportunity to clarify the situation.
  A charge of £3 per planning application is made for advertising an appeal. We have had to word the provision so that we can continue to make that charge. However, we do not intend to charge a fee for planning appeals. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that he had only just become aware that fees were to be charged for planning applications. He wished to know the principle that lay behind that concept. The principle is that, when a planning application is made and processed, certain costs are incurred by staff, and so on who should meet those costs? Should they be met by taxpayers who not interested in the planning application and who may, indeed, not want it, or should they be met, at least in part, by those who seek, and will benefit from, planning permission? I see a good deal of logic in the concept that those who benefit should meet at least part of the costs.
  Mr. Powell: Surely the logic of that is that the fee should be charged for the permission and not for the application. There is no benefit if the application is refused.
  Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman has a certain logic on his side, but I have to tell him that the staff costs of processing the application are incurred when an application is made, whatever the result may be.
  Mr. Fitt: The Minister says that certain costs are incurred when an application is made. The applications are vetted by people who are already in the employment of the planning division of the Department of the Environment. If they were not looking at applications, what else would they be doing—drinking tea? Surely that is their job. What extra costs are involved?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman asks me what extra costs are involved. There is the cost of running that service. The question is whether the cost of running that service should be met by the generality of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the rest of the taxpayers and ratepayers in the Province or should be met at least in part, or contributed towards, by those who are to benefit by it.
  Mr. Fitt: Is the Minister suggesting, then, that someone who has a family allowance book, or who is on sickness or social security benefit, should pay the people in the post office for the service rendered? The people working in the post office are surely acting in the same way as civil servants. They are doing a particular job in the interests of the ratepayers or taxpayers. If the Minister carried his present argument to its logical conclusion, nobody would be paid for by the Government.
  Mr. Powell: They would have to pay them if they were refused the benefit.
  Mr. Mitchell: I was also asked how much money would be raised by the proposal. It is estimated that approximately £1 million will be raised. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)—
  Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister state how many applications for planning permission have been refused in the last year by the Department of the Environment? How much money has been thrown away on that account?
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not happen to have in my head the number of planning applications that were refused before I arrived in the Northern Ireland Office but I shall write to the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member for Down, North objected to the principle of planning charges and feared that charges would inhibit building or extension. Improvements and extensions will in general be excluded because of the extension of the concession about not requiring planning consent in relation to small developments, but the cost of a planning application is estimated to be about £40 for an ordinary house.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister saying that if a family wished to have a flat built to accommodate a mother or father or relatives planning permission would not have to be paid for?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the result of the consultation that is now going on as to the size of extension that should be permitted. He should have among his papers a consultation paper on planning

  855
  controls over minor development that has just been issued. Responses should be addressed to the planning division of the Department of the Environment in Belfast. A charge as small as that against the cost of the whole of a house will certainly not prevent building taking place.
  The hon. Gentleman sought stronger enforcement of planning controls. I shall keep in mind the point that he made in discussing that with my advisers.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised the question of land acquired for public purposes that is now surplus. That was somewhat related to the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South over the Crichel Down principles. The hon. Member for Londonderry asked for two assurances. The first was that land would be offered back to the former owners, if traceable. I give that assurance. The second assurance concerned technicalities of valuation. I entirely agree that that was a hot potato.
  Clearly, one is involved in very complex technical matters of valuation, which have the additional complexity that wherever one draws the line to make a consession for one group of people, one is immediately placing another group in a position in which they, too, feel that they should have a concession. Lying behind all that are the twin problems of land, the value of which has been enhanced by the fact that it has been assigned to be part of and is close to a new town—in other words, where a public decision, public money and public purposes have enhanced the value of the land. Those who have been compensated and received money some time ago may feel that if one were to return the land to the original owners without taking note of the enhanced value they, too, would have a claim for some compensation.
  I agree that this is an area of extreme complexity in which there are likely to be strong feelings. We must consider carefully a fair and acceptable solution to the problem, one in which public assets are not given away at prices and values that would lead to the Public Accounts Committee objecting to the terms that have been allowed.
  I join with the hon. Gentleman in agreeing about the complexity and sensitivity of the matter and wishing to have time for consultation with hon. Members about the best way to proceed with the minimum of unfairness and with some underlying principles against which subsequent problems that arise can be measured. I wish to discuss them with hon. Members with a view to agreeing what the principles should be and how we should apply them.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry raised the question of change of use of a playing field from one form of sports field to another, involving, in this case, the Gaelic Athletic Association, from the rules of which he quoted. Lawfully, there is no change of use. I think that he agreed with that. He said that there was a change of morality. But morality is not a planning matter. The question of the Gaelic Athletic Association rules is not a planning matter. If I
  856
  were to take sectarian matters into account I should be forfeiting the impartiality essential to secure respect as the basis upon which planning decisions are taken.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: The hon. Gentleman misses the main thrust of my argument, which is that if the people in that area had known that eventually the land would be for a use different from that which they perceived when it was first set up for soccer and cricket there would have been serious objections. The change is to another game which is, in the eyes of the game's promoters, more than a game. That alters the concept behind the original application.
  Mr. Mitchell: It might alter the concept behind the original application. It might give rise to considerations whether the rules of a particular association are acceptable or unacceptable. However, those are not planning matters. There are other ways of dealing with them apart from seeking to inject into planning considerations matters that are not related to planning.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) wondered whether the town's development would come to a halt because of the substantial number of redundancies in the area. I place on record how impressed I was, when visiting the town, by the determination of the mayor and the members of the council to ensure the success of what they have put their hands to. I was also impressed by the tremendous emphasis on sporting and recreational facilities in and around the town.
  I was asked about site A—the shopping centre that I visited. I understand that public money is not involved. It is a private development. The judgment about the level of rents and potential occupancy is a matter for the private developer.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South asked whether public money would be available for site B. I should have liked notice of that question. I shall write to the hon. Member. I am happy to be identified with the principle that wherever possible we should persuade private sector funds to be used and so prevent unnecessary and avoidable use of public funds. I intend to do that throughout the activities of my Department in the Province.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South was also worried about dispossessed shopkeepers who are offered expensive alternative premises. I have much sympathy with such shopkeepers. If the hon. Member writes to me I shall examine the particulars of the case that he raised.
  The House has covered a substantial amount of ground. I believe that I have covered all the points raised. If I have missed any I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Local C5ovemment, Planning and Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.

  Magistrates' Advisory Committees
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject on a day which is cloaked by somewhat more widely publicised events.
  Advisory committees for magistrates have the function described in the Central Office of Information pamphlet on Justices of the Peace in England and Wales published in 1976. The document states:
  "About 1,500 appointments of men and women are made every year to the Commissions of the Peace. It is not possible for the Lord Chancellor to have sufficient knowledge of individual people and conditions in all parts of the country to enable him to select suitable candidates for this purpose. In practice therefore the Lord Chancellor appoints Justices on the advice of Committees which have been set up throughout the country. These Advisory Committees were first established following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace of 1910. The present system is based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace which reported in 1948. There are about 100 Advisory Committees … Final recommendations of the Lord Chancellor are the responsibility of the Advisory Committee.
  Members of Advisory Committees and Sub-Committees are drawn from all sections of the local community. Their identity is not disclosed, in order that they may be shielded from undesirable influences in performing their duties. Each committee, however, has a secretary whose name and address is published and is obtainable on application to the Clerk of a local authority and from any Clerk to the Justices in the area concerned."
  The Royal Commission recommended that the advisory committees should consist of about six or seven members. I assume that this has not changed.
  Clearly, advisory committees are important because they shape the local magistrates' bench. In my view, such an important function should not be conducted in secret. Secrecy gives rise to the possibility of abuse. For example, one political party can gain dominance. People can use their membership of the advisory committee to gain influence behind the cloak of secrecy. Can the Minister confirm, for example, that a previous Lord Chancellor suggested that the Keighley bench was not properly balanced in its representation of the two major political parties?
  Normally, members remain on the advisory committee for six years, half the committee retiring every three years. Sir Thomas Skyrme, in his somewhat complacent book,"The Changing Image of the Magistracy", says about the advisory committees on page 42:
  "With a view to ensuring that appointments do not become the perquisite of any one political party each committee and subcommittee includes a number of recognised supporters of different parties, though it is a condition of appointment that they must not regard themselves as representing party interests. Every committee contains at least one Conservative and one Labour member and most also have a Liberal. During the past few years a Plaid Cymru supporter has been added to some of the committees in Wales."
  Until 1948, the Lord Chancellor usually checked that members being appointed to the advisory committees were, indeed, members of the appropriate party. But the Royal Commission of 1948 somewhat supinely recommended discontinuance of the practice and the Government of the day supinely accepted that recommendation. However, it is worth noting that there was a note of dissent on this issue and one of the members of the Commission recommended that the practice of informing
  858
  the political party and confirming the person being nominated to the advisory committee was a member of that party should continue. Hence, today, appointments are made in secret without apparently any reference to the political party concerned.
  On the Keighley advisory committee which, I understand, is chaired by Sir John Taylor, a prominent Conservative, knighted for his services to the 1970 Conservative election victory, a person whose name I have but do not propose to reveal was introduced to the advisory committee as the Labour representative. The person concerned was not a member of the Labour Party in the year in question and was chosen presumably under the advice of a local prominent Conservative. I regard that as an unsatisfactory and untenable position which is made the more unsatisfactory by being cloaked in secrecy.
  The secretary of the Keighley Labour Party was never approached about the matter and sought further information today but was unable to obtain it. I therefore wish, first, to urge the Minister to restore the pre-1948 position so that the political parties are approached for a member to represent them on the advisory committee instead of this secret method which gives rise to a possible impression of unfairness and which, for all I know, because of the secrecy, may be used to retain the dominance of a particular political party in given circumstances.
  My suspicions about advisory committee secrecy and its unsatisfactory nature was given further confirmation about 10 years ago when my wife was nominated to the local bench. She was rung up and informed by a person that she stood no chance since it was understood that I intended to be nominated as the prospective parliamentary Labour candidate for the Keighley area and the Lord Chancellor would not accept political people in that situation. The person who made the telephone call was a magistrate and, I believe, was at the time a member of the advisory committee. I do not know and I cannot confirm that because of the secret nature of the circumstances. I think that the whole gist of that conversation was very unsatisfactory. Whether I stand for a particular party in any capacity has nothing to do with whether my wife should be nominated.
  Yet a further person was interviewed by the chairman of Keighley magistrates at the time, and when asked what activities he was interested in pursuing, among other things, in a general discussion of a background nature, he said that he was a supporter of the League against Cruel Sports. He was never asked to become a JP and to this day he wonders if his membership of the League was the cause of his failure to be nominated to the bench.
  In a parliamentary answer on 11 December the Attorney-General said of the criteria for the use of magistrates adopted by advisory committes:
  "The primary consideration is personal suitability in character. Subject to this, it is sought to ensure that so far as possible benches throughout the country are so composed as to reflect a fair balance of the various sectors of the community they serve, as regards age, sex, occupational background, political affiliations, area of residence, and other similar matters". —[Official Report, 11 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 733.]
  If the advisory committees do not reflect these characteristics also it is unlikely that the bench will reflect them.
  I well recall being prosecuted in 1978 for speeding, when I pleaded guilty. It was a routine affair and I make no criticism whatsoever of the bench at that time. I was

  859
  intrigued to learn—and I made no issue at the time, because I was personally involved—that the bench consisted of the former president of Keighley Conservative Association, the former chairman of the National Union of Conservative Associations and a former Conservative councillor, In my view, such a composition of the bench should not have been allowed to hear cases, because it did not reflect the balance which should exist between all the sections of the community. It certainly did not meet the criteria laid down for the section of magistrates by the advisory committee. It may have been a fluke for that particular day, or it may have been a reflection of the composition of the Keighley bench.
  I first raised the issue of the secrecy of the advisory committees in the House in December 1979, because I was concerned about the lack of appropriate representation on the bench of a cross-section of the community, caused, I believed, to some degree by the unjustifiable secrecy surrounding the advisory committees. My local weekly paper, the Keighley News, ran an article headed:"Is it a fair system?" which seemed to me to be a very useful contribution to the debate. Although I welcomed that, I must point out that I disagree frequently with the views of the editor of that paper, but it plays an important role in contributing to this sort of discussion.
  The clerk at that date said in answer to my criticism that there was a preponderance of directors or housewives who did not have to go out to work and therefore had the time to contribute to the bench and:
  "That out of 77 magistrates in the district only half-a-dozen are company directors—of breweries or anything else."
  If that is the case, I must point out that they are very much over-represented as a proportion of the population, because about 8 per cent. of the population at large by no means consists of company directors.
  The clerk went on to say:
  "There are housewives, quite naturally. But also represented on the list of Justices of the area are people from the textile industry, a fireman, bus drivers, school teachers and college lecturers, representatives, estate agents and others. I would have thought that was a cross-section of society".
  The reporter went on:
  "While the membership of the local advisory committee is confidential—it is hardly the secretive organisation which Mr. Cryer would suggest.
  "For instance, [the clerk] is well enough known as being the secretary of the committee, and he can be approached at the Magistrates' Clerk's Office at Bingley court house by anyone who is interested in putting forward nominations."
  That is the constant argument put forward, that the clerk is known, but the advisory committee itself is highly secret. I know of one magistrate who was actually appointed to the bench and was serving without any knowledge whatsoever of an advisory committee even being in existence.
  When I raised this locally, as I have demonstrated, Keighley Conservatives were very keen to find fault with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party as regards open government or, as they claimed, the lack of it. But they seemed to be very shy of their own position when I raised the situation with them of the advisory committee and whether they feel that the advisory committee should be open, in the interest of open government.
  The article in the Keighley News said that the clerk
  "agrees that to some extent Mr. Cryer has a point. 'But I would still claim the system we have has a lot of merit. While the local advisory committee is very confidential, that is as it should be or it could be subject to pressures,' he says."
  860
  It has been claimed that the advisory committee would be subject to pressure if made public. That claim was made by the Royal Commission in 1948. Paragraph 58 states:
  "The reason for keeping the membership and proceedings of these committees confidential is to prevent canvassing of members and public discussion of their proceedings."
  It is easy to deal with the canvassing of members. Local bodies, for example councils, make many hundreds—probably thousands—of public appointments every year. They have the invariable rule that canvassing is a disqualification. That could easily be made a rule for the membership of advisory committees.
  There is another example of where the claim that pressure would be applied is fully answered. I tabled some parliamentary questions on the issue. On 1 December 1980 I asked the Attorney-General:
  "what are the two areas where advisory committees on magistrates are published; what adverse or beneficial effects have resulted; and whether any further areas propose to follow suit."
  The Solicitor-General replied:
  "The names of the members of the Inner London Advisory Committee have been published in the Magistrates' Year Book since 1970. No significant benefits or adverse effects have come to notice. The Lord Chancellor has approved a proposal by the Essex Advisory Committee to have its membership included in a similar publication which will be available in 1981. No other committee has expressed a wish to do so.—[Official Report, 1 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 36–37.]
  On 11 December I asked the Attorney-General
  "whether he has received information that any members of the published magistrates advisory panels have faced undue pressure as a result of their names being published; and what is his policy towards the publication of names of the advisory panels."
  He replied:
  "So far only the Inner London Advisory Committee has published the identity of its members. No information of undue pressure has been received by Her Majesty's Government. The policy regarding such publication is that contained in the reply to the hon. Member on 12 November 1980.—[Vol. 992, c. 217–18.]—[Official Report, 11 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 733.]
  That procedure has been carried out for 10 years in a large and important city—one of the largest in the world—and no information of undue pressure has been received by the Government. Surely that example completely negates any claim that publication of the advisory committees would result in their members being subjected to undue pressure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) intends to intervene briefly. I conclude my remarks with a number of brief points and requests. We accept that magistrates do an important job. As I have demonstrated openness in selection has not led to pressure. Openness of advisory committees will remove any doubts about membership, any secret influences, a domination of any political grouping or any undue pressures behind closed doors. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor should not simply say that he has not received any requests from committees. He should positively encourage them to publish names.
  The varying sentencing and bail policies between benches suggest that a further Royal Commission on the functioning of the magistracy is now due. The 1948 report is well out of date and in sections is quite quaint. I do not have time to quote it, but in page 22 the Royal Commission recommends that members of the bench should become acquainted with the poorer classes. That is. an indication of its lack of modernity.
  It is important that allowances for loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expenses should keep pace with inflation,

  861
  especially after the swingeing petrol increases announced today, to allow ordinary working men and women to take their full share—that is a majority of places if they are to represent their position in society—on the Bench. Members of the Labour Party and Labour Members of the House of Commons have often been suspicious of the selection process, and openness would rebut those suspicions, which are based on experience.
  Employers should be encouraged to release employees. Public bodies already have fairly clear and open rules laid down for service on the Bench, but some private employers do not recognis that they have a public duty to allow and encourage their employees to take their fair share on the magistrates' bench.
  I urge the Minister to take serious consideration of the recommendations that I have made. This subject is not often discussed in the House. The magistrates fulfil an important function and we must examine these matters afresh.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for giving me an opportunity briefly to participate in the debate. I shall be brief, so that the Solicitor-General may answer my hon. Friend's questions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the fact that it was only at the last minute that I requested the opportunity to intervene.
  I am concerned about the appointment of magistrates in the Jarrow constituency. There has been concern for a considerable time. It is an issue that was taken up by the previous Member for Jarrow, Mr. Ernie Fernyhough, and it was taken up by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) when he was the secretary-agent for the consituency. We have never been satisfied with the appointment of magistrates in the constituency.
  As my hon. Friend said, magistrates are supposed to be representative of the area in wich they serve. That is not so in South Tyneside. Most of the magistrates who are appointed to serve in the Jarrow constituency live in one area where the housing is predominantly private. The area where the housing is 90 per cent. council controlled has a minority of the magistrates for the Jarrow constituency.
  I wrote to the clerk to the magistrates for South Tyneside in April 1980 about an appointment. I eventually received a reply after writing a second letter in July. I referred to someone who lived in Hampshire for part of the year and in Whitley Bay for the remainder of the year. That person was appointed a magistrate to serve in South Tyneside. The chairman of the Jarrow constituency Labour Party, who had lived and worked in the constituency all his life—the only time that he had been out of the constituency was during the war, between 1939 and 1945, when he was injured—had been told unofficially that he had been turned down as a magistrate because he was over 55 years of age when his name was submitted. However, a person who did not live in the district was appointed who was older than the chairman of the local Labour Party.
  I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is an inquiry into the appointment system in South Tyneside. If those who conduct the inquiry conclude that the appointments are proper, let them publish the names of
  862
  those who serve on the advisory committee so that we know who is responsible for the appointments. At present it is a secret committee.
  When I wrote my second letter to the clerk to the magistrates, I was told that, as the advisory committee was appointed by the Lord Chancellor, he was the only person who could give me the information that I requested. That was the final letter that I received from the clerk. That is nonsensical. The clerk lives just down the street from where I live and yet I have to write to the Lord Chancellor to obtain some simple information.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond to the issues raised in my brief intervention.
  11.14 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ian Percival): I am sure that the hon. Members for Keighley, (Mr. Cryer) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will realise that I have very little time.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sorry.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not think that it is a matter for apology. If hon. Members want to raise these matters, it is more important that they should have the opportunity to do so than for me to have sufficient time to reply to them. I can deal later with such matters as I cannot deal with now.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Keighley has stressed the importance of the work done by magistrates. It is enormously important work. Goodness knows what we would do without magistrates.That makes it extremely important that selection is carried out by the best possible method.
  On the two specific points put by the hon. Member for Keighley, I am told that we have no knowledge of any previous Chancellor having said that Keighley was not properly balanced politically. However, that will be checked. If I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman or, preferably, speak to him. I am also told that it is believed that at present, even if there may have been some imbalance in the past, the political balance on that bench as nearly reflects the political situation in the constituency as possible.
  I have no information about the points raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow, but I shall look into them and see that he receives an answer either from me or direct from the Lord Chancellor. I, too, shall be interested in the answer. As these people do such an important job, it is enormously important to get the selection right. In cases where misgivings are felt, I have no doubt that my noble Friend would like to be informed and to have the opportunity to acquaint himself with the facts and give an answer. I do not believe that a formal investigation is necessarily called for.
  The hon. Member for Keighley quoted an article from a local paper asking whether the system was fair. That is the important thing. It will never be perfect. When 1,500 people a year are being chosen by 97 committees and when they are trying to reflect certain balances that are pretty indefinite anyway, the system will never be perfect. The point is that it must be fair and be demonstrated to be fair. The hon. Gentleman would say that if that is to be so one essential is that there should be no secrecy. With respect, that is a matter of judgment.
  The hon. Member quoted two advisory committees that have asked to have their names published. They are

  863
  published in the Magistrates' Year Book, I believe. My noble Friend takes the view that if committees ask for their names to the published, he will consider such a request, but, having regard to the position that has been taken for so long, in particular by the Royal Commision in 1948, he would not be minded to direct that persons who serve in a voluntary capacity should have their names published, unless they so wish.
  The best thing that I can do in the short time that I have is to address my mind to the question of whether the system is fair and to put on record what seem to me to be the essentials of the system, which I should like hon. Members to consider and weigh in the balance against the doubts that they have. It is also important that I should do that so that those members of the public who take an interest in the matter may have a little of the other side against which to balance such considerations. Because of the shortness of time I shall have to jump about a little in what I had prepared, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley will not take me to task for that. I shall try to bring out only those parts that explain what the system is, so that people can take that as the starting point for their consideration of whether the system is fair.
  There are 97 advisory committees set up to advise the Lord Chancellor, who makes the appointments, except in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire, where they are made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In each case it is necessary for the person making the appointments to have the best advisory committees that he can get. Having regard to the scale of the appointments, he cannot know about each one personally.
  The appointments are non-statutory. There is generally one committee for each non-metropolitan county, one for each metropolitan district and, one for the City of London and for some of the larger cities and former boroughs. There are five areas in Greater London, each with its own committee.
  I think that it is fairly common knowledge that the Lord Lieutenant is appointed as chairman of each non-metropolitan county committee. Other suitable persons are appointed by the Lord Chancellor as chairmen of the other committees, but usually on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, who is either an ex-officio member or has a co-ordinating role for the committees in his county.
  The members of the committees are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the individual chairmen,
  864
  usually for a period of six years, with about half the members retiring every three years, so there is a turnover. In general, the Lord Chancellor is willing, on the advice of the chairman, to reappoint members for a total tenure of 12 years, but rarely beyond that.
  It is important that hon. Members should know what is the Lord Chancellor's policy and what he seeks to achieve in the composition of the committees. If it then comes to their attention that this is not being achieved in a particular case, I am sure that my noble Friend would like to have that information. The Lord Chancellor seeks to include in each committee at least one recognised supporter of each of the main political parties and one or more members who are politically uncommitted. Geographical representation within the area covered by the committee is also sought, as well as a reasonable age spread among members of both sexes.
  The majority of the members are usually themselves justices. But again, just as the Lord Chancellor seeks to include people who are politically uncommitted, so he seeks to include people who are not justices. It is thought that justices are probably best qualified to assess the suitability or otherwise of candidates for recommendation for appointment, but the inclusion of some members who are not justices helps both in the obtaining of names for consideration and in providing a balance of opinion from justices and non-justices alike.
  Those are the guidelines that my noble Friend has adopted. That is, in a nutshell, how he would like to see the committees formed and balanced.
  The advisory committees endeavour to achieve the Lord Chancellor's aim of making each bench representative of the community which it serves by seeking and finding a sufficient number of candidates from all sections of the community from which to choose. Again, there is a need for a geographical spread of appointments, as well as balances of age, sex and occupation. Furthermore, although politics play no part in the administration of justice, every effort is made to ensure that there is no undue preponderance on benches of justices supporting any one political party. In order to satisfy themselves as far as possible—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  British Sugar Corporation
  British Sugar Corporation
  Shipping (Flags of Convenience)
  Shipping (Flags of Convenience)
  United Industrial Company Limited (Inspectors' Report)
  United Industrial Company Limited (Inspectors' Report)
  United States (Textile Exports)
  United States (Textile Exports)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Further and Higher Education (Industrial Needs)
  Further and Higher Education (Industrial Needs)
  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Gross National Product (Education Expenditure)
  Gross National Product (Education Expenditure)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Textbooks (Costs)
  Textbooks (Costs)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  16 to 19-Year-Olds
  16 to 19-Year-Olds
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Pupil Numbers
  Pupil Numbers
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  School Meals Service
  School Meals Service
  High Ability Children
  High Ability Children
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Rural and Urban Primary Schools (Closures)
  Rural and Urban Primary Schools (Closures)
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  Mixed Ability Teaching
  Mixed Ability Teaching
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Higher Education (Management Training)
  Higher Education (Management Training)
  Comprehensive Education (Bolton)
  Comprehensive Education (Bolton)
  Burnham Committee (Membership)
  Burnham Committee (Membership)
  A-Level Courses (Costs)
  A-Level Courses (Costs)
  Appeals Committees
  Appeals Committees
  Secondary Grammar and Secondary Technical Schools
  Secondary Grammar and Secondary Technical Schools
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
PRIME MINISTER
  Northampton
  Northampton
  Northumberland
  Northumberland
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Brussels
  Brussels
  President Brezhnev (Speech)
  President Brezhnev (Speech)
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Statistical Information
  Statistical Information
  Security
  Security
  Peaceful Co-existence
  Peaceful Co-existence
WALES
  Council House Rents (Government Subsidy)
  Council House Rents (Government Subsidy)
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authorities (Redundancies)
  Local Authorities (Redundancies)
  Dyfed (European Community Assistance)
  Dyfed (European Community Assistance)
  School Leavers (West Glamorgan)
  School Leavers (West Glamorgan)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Law of the Sea Convention
  Law of the Sea Convention
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Juveniles on Remand
  Juveniles on Remand
  Capital Offenders
  Capital Offenders
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Minimum Use of Force Tactical Intervention Squad
  Minimum Use of Force Tactical Intervention Squad
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  Police and Fire Brigades (Radio Communication Channels)
  Police and Fire Brigades (Radio Communication Channels)
  Terrorism, Radicalism and International Violence
  Terrorism, Radicalism and International Violence
  Subscription Television
  Subscription Television
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
EMPLOYMENT
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Wages (Cash Payments)
  Wages (Cash Payments)
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish Imports
  Fish Imports
  Public Schools (Subsidised Beef and Butter Supplies)
  Public Schools (Subsidised Beef and Butter Supplies)
  Sheep Exports
  Sheep Exports
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Income Supplement (Order Books)
  Family Income Supplement (Order Books)
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Augmentin
  Augmentin
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Fraud Officers (Guidelines)
  Fraud Officers (Guidelines)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  International Year of Disabled People
  International Year of Disabled People
  United Kingdom—German Democratic Republic (Health Agreement)
  United Kingdom—German Democratic Republic (Health Agreement)
  National Health Service Nurses (Industrial Injuries)
  National Health Service Nurses (Industrial Injuries)
  Private Health Services
  Private Health Services
  Prescribing of Drugs (Cost)
  Prescribing of Drugs (Cost)
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants (Legal Aid)
  Supplementary Benefit Claimants (Legal Aid)
  Hearing-impaired Patients (Birmingham)
  Hearing-impaired Patients (Birmingham)
  High-speed Wood Machining (Health Hazards)
  High-speed Wood Machining (Health Hazards)
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Type 42 Destroyers
  Type 42 Destroyers
  Royal Marines
  Royal Marines
DEFENCE
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Guard Dogs
  Guard Dogs
  Chaplains
  Chaplains
  RAF Houses, Dishforth
  RAF Houses, Dishforth
  Chipmunk Aircraft
  Chipmunk Aircraft
INDUSTRY
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Car Workers (Redundancy Payments)
  Car Workers (Redundancy Payments)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  National Enterprise Board and National Research Development Corporation
  National Enterprise Board and National Research Development Corporation
  British-Japanese Postal Agreement
  British-Japanese Postal Agreement
  Industry Education Unit
  Industry Education Unit
TRANSPORT
  Fornham Road-A45 Northgate Interchange
  Fornham Road-A45 Northgate Interchange
  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Stage Carriage Routes
  Stage Carriage Routes
ENVIRONMENT
  Airey Type Dwellings
  Airey Type Dwellings
  Government Buildings
  Government Buildings
  Local Authority Manpower
  Local Authority Manpower
  Tenants (Rent Payments)
  Tenants (Rent Payments)
  Hopwas Quarry, Staffordshire
  Hopwas Quarry, Staffordshire
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (Loans)
  The Black Economy
  The Black Economy
  Debt Interest
  Debt Interest
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Excise Revenue (Glasgow)
  Excise Revenue (Glasgow)
  National Loans Fund (British Gas Corporation Deposits)
  National Loans Fund (British Gas Corporation Deposits)
  Nationalised Industries (Government Lending)
  Nationalised Industries (Government Lending)
  National Insurance Surcharge
  National Insurance Surcharge
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  Civil List
  Civil List
  Distillers and Associated Warehouses (Rayner Scrutiny)
  Distillers and Associated Warehouses (Rayner Scrutiny)
SCOTLAND
  Graveyards and Burial Grounds
  Graveyards and Burial Grounds
  Anglia Building Society
  Anglia Building Society
  Nuclear Generating Stations
  Nuclear Generating Stations
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
  House Improvements
  House Improvements
  District and Island Authorities (Housing Revenue Account)
  District and Island Authorities (Housing Revenue Account)
  Rate Fund Contribution
  Rate Fund Contribution
  Cumbernauld New Town
  Cumbernauld New Town
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Housing Associations (New Projects)
  Housing Associations (New Projects)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Brain Scanners
  Brain Scanners
  Autistic Persons (Glasgow)
  Autistic Persons (Glasgow)
  Alcoholism (Glasgow)
  Alcoholism (Glasgow)
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Kingston and Princes Docks, Govan
  Kingston and Princes Docks, Govan
  Mary Brophy
  Mary Brophy
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Departmental Officials (Government Cars)
  Morecambe Bay Gasfield
  Morecambe Bay Gasfield
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  The Arts (Turner Bequest)
  The Arts (Turner Bequest)
  Pupil Numbers
  Pupil Numbers
  School Leavers (Northern Region)
  School Leavers (Northern Region)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Education Act 1980 (Parental Involvement)
  Education Act 1980 (Parental Involvement)

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

Local Authorities: Planning Appeals
Lord Beswick: 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 what percentage of appeals against decisions of local planning authorities have been upheld by the Department of the Environment in the most convenient period since the issue of Circular 22/80 on development control and whether they will give the percentage figure for the comparable period one year earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the proportion of planning appeals against decisions of local authorities upheld by the department for the two-month period December 1980 to January 1981 was 35 per cent. This compares with 31 per cent. for the same period a year ago.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I offer thanks to the noble Lord for those figures which to some extent suggest that the position is not quite so bad as one might have thought. But would the noble Lord still take into account the feeling that since the issue of Circular 22 to local planning authorities last November the balance of decision in planning applications has been tilted too far in favour of the developer as against the judgment of the local planning authority?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought that it was far, far too soon—after some two months—to come to a conclusion. The figures fluctuate on a month-by-month basis, as I know the noble Lord knows. We shall have to wait a little longer to see what are the real implications. Then perhaps we might have a better picture than we have now.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will not the Minister agree that it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to counter the drab standardisation of many big developments by reflecting local building conditions or by being innovative? Will not being told not to be over-fastidious about the colour of bricks—paragraph 20 of the circular—discourage authorities, which should be encouraged to improve the quality of local life?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a very important point which I readily acknowledge. I would only refer to the circular itself. In the guidance which we give we say:
102
"This does not mean a lowering of the quality of decision but it does mean a greater awareness of the economic costs of planning control".
Lord Beswick: Nevertheless, my Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if he reads further on, in addition to the quotation of my noble friend Circular 22 says that planning authorities should recognise that aesthetics is an extremely subjective matter and that they should not therefore impose their tastes on developers? Similarly, the control of external appearance should only be exercised when there is a fully justified reason for doing so. These and other parts of the circular seem to suggest that speed is of the essence, not the judgment of local people who know the local situation.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, speed is certainly of the essence, but in my experience it is not likely that local people will make a decision against their local knowledge and their local aspirations as to aesthetics as well as to the other aspects we are discussing.

CHP Generating Stations
2.39 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the enormous capital investment and time-delay involved in obtaining an economic return from an optimum sized combined heat and power (CHP) generating station, they will consider smaller CHP stations, given that even low density housing district heating schemes are economic, that CHP stations in Europe are not of optimal size and that industry has found CHP on a small scale profitable.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): The Government's CHP/District Heating Feasibility Programme is designed to identify and produce detailed proposals for one or two locations where there is the potential of early and economic development of large-scale CHP schemes. Any such schemes would necessarily involve the aggregation over a period of 10 to 20 years of a number of smaller schemes. However, as there is little evidence that these smaller component schemes could, in their own right, produce major economic and energy savings, it would be inappropriate for the Government to concentrate their own efforts on them. We would, of course, welcome any economically worthwhile small schemes that were self-financing.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. First, would he agree that the size of power station which the CEGB is thinking of for CHP combined heat and power is never really likely to come into being in the foreseeable future, simply because of the very great costs? Secondly, would the Minister agree that if one is thinking seriously of civil defence, the very limited number of large power stations which we have and which we are planning is not a very good idea? If there is a possibility of

103
creating some smaller ones which are still economic, or reasonably economic, would that not be a matter worth thinking about in terms of civil defence?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I broadly agree with the noble Viscount. The difficulty is, as he says, that there is quite a lot of argument about whether a smaller unit can be economic, particularly in this country where we have other favourably priced sources of supply.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what is the position regarding Battersea Power Station, which had a district heating system? Could he also say whether or not there is a case for using the fluidised bed system in order to resuscitate Battersea Power Station and at the same time burn and absorb a great deal of Greater London's rubbish?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what the future of Battersea Power Station is to be, though as one of the most beautiful industrial buildings in the world one hopes that its future is very secure. On the general issue of using old power stations, refurbished plant may well have a role to play during the construction of the heat network in a major scheme, but the costs of maintaining a power station which has already served its design life would probably in most cases be too high for it to have a long term role.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as the question of old power stations has been touched on, can my noble friend say what progress is being made in selling waste heat from existing power stations, which is now largely heating the atmosphere?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think I need notice of that question.

Gold: Remonetising Proposal
2.43 p.m.
Lord Boothby: 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 realise that, so long as money, as such, remains valueless throughout the world, and consists of nothing but paper, in one form or another, there can be no hope of stopping world inflation; and whether they will now consider consulting the Government of the United States about the possibility and desirability of remonetising gold by the reestablishment of an international gold exchange standard, with gold at a realistic price, and flexible exchange rates.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): No, my Lords.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, arising out of that splendid
104
reply, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that I am not now concerned with the economic policies of the Government, but with the absence of money, without which one cannot conduct international trade, and that when the United States of America demonetised gold and tried to substitute the paper dollar as an international currency it failed hopelessly? Is he aware that we can do very little about it, but that—and this is the remaining point—unless and until some international action is taken rapidly to establish a viable international monetary system, the supply of money will remain out of control and the world recession will deepen? I cannot see any other alternative.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that he gives. He has, of course, campaigned tirelessly on this subject for 50 years and I am sure that he must, understandably, be disappointed at how little progress he has made. The tide of both opinion and policy has continued to flow against him throughout this period. So far as international trade is concerned, one of the problems of the old gold standard was that it did not provide sufficient liquidity. Steps have been taken in recent years to expand international liquidity, for example, by the creation of SDRs. This is a matter of great importance and I appreciate the point that he makes.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not only a matter of great importance but also a matter which, on this day of all days, raises the most fundamental question that can be raised? As the noble Lord has said that the Government have no policy in this direction, will they say whether they have any policy for establishing within the Common Market a currency system which offers hope of being viable, which will not produce a reduction of Britain within the Common Market to a second-class monetary nation by definition and which will give a real hope of establishing a monetary system which is not subject to world fluctuations, but which has the support of all the members of the Common Market on terms mutually and generously agreed?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have policies to deal with all the problems with which we are faced.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as Europe is concerned, the noble Lord will be fully aware, of course, of the European monetary system, and this is a matter that Her Majesty's Government keep under constant review.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept this unique occasion of my agreement with him without embarrassment, and will he further impress upon his colleagues in the Government that, while on occasion inflation may be inconvenient, deflation—that is the writing up of debts instead of writing them down—has been uniformally disastrous in economic history?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord agrees with the policies of Her Majesty's Government. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, of course it ranges over a very wide field. It is important to maintain the value of money and to ensure that money does remain honest money, and neither inflation nor deflation represent acceptable policies.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I should like to ask one final question of the noble Lord, which is simply this: Does he realise that the whole world has never yet been able to get on without some kind of international monetary system until today, when it is not getting on at all?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord has made. Of course it opens up a very wide field of discourse. The breakdown of the Bretton Woods system was in many ways the cause of many of the problems that we face. There are great difficulties in re-establishing an acceptable and workable international monetary system, but it is an objective which we all have in mind.

The Trident I Missile System
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: 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 in what respects the Trident I missile system differs from the Polaris system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Trident I missile, like the Polaris missile, is a submarine launched, inertially guided, ballistic missile. It differs in that it is larger—2 feet longer and 20 inches wider—has three rocket motor stages compared with two, and has a range of 4,000 nautical miles with a full payload, compared with 2,500. It is designed to carry up to eight independently targetable warheads compared with the three warheads in Polaris which are not independently targetable.
We need these differences to maintain invulnerability against increased anti-submarine threats and to maintain penetration against improved anti-missile defences. The future effectiveness of our deterrent depends on this modernisation.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I wonder whether he can elaborate. Is it the case that Trident will enable us to strike enemy missile sites and thus lead to a new strategic doctrine of more feasibility in warfare?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity of going into a fraction more detail than I was able to in reply to the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord
106
Chalfont, on 25th February. The Trident I missile, known as the C4, which the United Kingdom is planning to buy, does not have the precise accuracy needed to engage Soviet missile silos. This was made quite clear in the report to Congress in January of the outgoing United States Defense Secretary, which stated that today's sea-based strategic forces are ineffective against missile silos.
Lord Peart: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain the difference in costs, and how that has been taken into account?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, in the debate on 25th February, and in the debate since then in another place, the question of costs has been gone into in depth. I believe that that is another question, and, if the noble Lord would like to put it down, I should very much welcome the opportunity of once more stating in detail the fact that we believe this to be the most economic answer for maintaining an effective British strategic deterrent through the 'nineties and into the next century.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, will the noble Viscount the Minister be good enough to recall in a recent debate the thoughtful and penetrating speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the subject of the Trident, when he appeared to cast some doubts on its validity and its capabilities? Is it at all possible in an assembly of this kind, with the utmost respect to Members of your Lordships' House, to come to a definite conclusion about the comparative values of the Polaris of the past and the possible Trident of the future without having available every technical and technological detail? Is it at all wise, with all the uncertainty and tension that exists in the international sphere, to spread doubts about the inefficiency, or suggested inefficiency, of a missile, a weapon, which might make all the difference between surrender to an aggressor and our security?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those supplementary questions. We did have a very good and deep debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, a week or two ago. I believe that in this House we should be able to get very much closer to an agreed view, and I shall certainly work, both in the House and with the committees of the House, in trying to arrive at that situation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that there is no need to cast doubt either on the current effectiveness of our Polaris deterrent, or, in my view, on the effectiveness of the modernisation of that deterrent which will come in with Trident.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he will confirm that in his reply he was referring exclusively to the Trident C4 missile? Will he also confirm that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to acquire the D5 missile, which is equipped with ten warheads, not eight?—the Mark 12A warhead, which has an accuracy of 400 feet and is specifically designed for the destruction of point targets such as Soviet missile sites.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has himself intervened. Yes, I am talking of the C4 Trident I missile, which is the missile about which we have reached agreement in principle with the United States, including broad estimates of costs on which our cost estimates are based, for the continuation of the British strategic independent deterrent. The Trident II missile to which the noble Lord now refers—and I am glad to have, if I have it, his confirmation that it was to this missile that he was referring in his debate—is still very much at the development stage. I understand from the United States Defense Department that its full characteristics are not yet entirely decided, and it has not been the subject to date of any discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the United States. I should not like to rule out such a strategic missile for this country for all time, but the decision so far is to modernise, and keep effective to the same degree of deterrence as we have had in the past, through the 'nineties and into the next century.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the submarine being built for the C4 missile be capable of carrying the D5 if Her Majesty's Government agreed that it had become necessary, and would this involve very great extra cost?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that again, if I may say so, is a separate question, and not one to which we have addressed ourselves at this stage.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend, when he comes to answer about costs, point out to the House the cost of the Tornado programme, which appears to be three times as much as the present planned cost of the introduction of Trident? And will he perhaps confirm to the House that this Government will plan down to the cost of £5,000 million while at the same time keeping an effective deterrent through the years until 2010?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to keep my powder dry for a separate question on the matter of costs, I will answer in detail at that time. But certainly the Tornado programme has been more expensive, or will have been more expensive, than the estimates of the Trident I deal overall. Certainly we believe that the Trident I deal is perfectly accommodatable, if that is not a terrible word, in terms of our defence budget as a whole in more or less the same way as we have accommodated Polaris and previous independent deterrents.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there are not three differences: first, is not the cost greater, as my noble friend Lord Peart has indicated; secondly, is it not much more an offensive weapon than a defensive weapon; and, thirdly, will it not intensify the arms race in the world when there is now some hope of disarmament, in the United Nations Geneva Committee, in the Madrid Conference for a European Disarmament Conference, and in the proposals of Mr. Brezhnev for a summit conference?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not accept the
108
noble Lord's premise, any more than the Government did in Lord Chalfont's debate, that the Trident I is a greater cost. It is over a longer timespan and it is for a system to last for a longer period. I do not agree that it is different and more offensive, for the reasons that have perhaps been touched on in the questions today. We shall certainly, as is our constant policy, lose no opportunity to intensify moves towards arms control, and, if they can be made effective on both sides, the cost of investments that have previously been made will not deter us from moving towards a more peaceful world at a lower balance of arms.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. It is proposed that the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill should be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately 45 minutes and that the Carriage by Air Acts Order should be taken during this adjournment.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before we begin proceedings on Report, I think that I should express the thanks of the House to all those who were concerned with the production of today's revised Marshalled List of amendments. Very late last night it seemed impossible that an even barely acceptable form of list could be produced in time and yet at nine o'clock this morning it appeared properly printed and in its normal form. That really was a splendid effort.
It might also be convenient if I say that it is very much the Government's wish to complete Part I of the Bill today. As your Lordships will know, many of the points which are to be debated today were considered in some detail in Committee. I feel that it would be generally welcome if noble Lords could keep their interventions as short as possible and that we can conclude discussion of individual amendments as expeditiously as possible and, if necessary, then come to a decision. I think that this would be both to the greater advantage of the Bill and also very much in accordance with the traditions of this House.
Clause 1 [Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("use") insert ("or being built").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and with this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 17. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested on the first day of Committee on the Bill on 27th January that it would be proper to give protection to the nest of a wild bird not only while it is in use, but also while

109
it is being built. We agree with that suggestion and these amendments will achieve that end. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the next amendment is No. 2. I believe that if Amendment No. 2 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 3.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("control") to end of line 5 and insert—
("(a) any wild bird or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or
(b) an egg of a wild bird or any part of such an egg, then, unless he shows that the bird or egg was killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part or any order made under it or, in the case of a bird, of the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 or any order made under").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment seeks to make three changes. First, Clause 1(2) introduces a prohibition on the keeping of eggs taken illegally as well as continuing the existing prohibition on possession or control of illegally taken or killed wild birds. It now seems that the effect of Clause 1(2) as at present drafted is to make it retrospectively illegal to possess illegally taken eggs. That was not intended, required or desirable. The amendment corrects the situation and accords with our obligation under the birds directive.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested in Committee that Clause 1(2) made mention of blown eggs in addition to eggs. The Government accept that point. However, as a blown egg is part of an egg we have included the words, "part of … an egg" only. Amendment No. 33 will amend Clause 6(2) to accord with this amendment to Clause 1(2). Finally, we have included parts and derivatives of birds to chime in with Clause 6(2). I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Earl for taking up the small point which I raised in Committee. Your Lordships will notice that I have down Amendment No. 3 which will not be called if this amendment is agreed to. It will be seen that there I propose to insert the words, "or nest" after "bird" so that the possession of a nest will also be an offence. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl that Amendment No. 2 should be amended before the next stage so that a nest is included there as well as a bird and an egg.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
3.5 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 9 and insert—
("(a) a bird included in Schedule 1 or any part of, or anything derived from such a bird;
110
(b) the nest of such a bird; or
(c) an egg of such a bird or any part of such an egg").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, about his amendment, perhaps we could speak about it, as I have another solution to propose to him. The effect of this amendment is to include parts and derivatives of Schedule 1 birds and also parts of their eggs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 14, after second ("is") insert ("in").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and I should like, if I may, to speak to Amendment No. 18 at the same time. We all enjoyed my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard's dissertation in Committee on the difficulty of being on a flat surface. The amendment seeks to provide that a Schedule 1 bird receives protection from disturbance, irrespective of what position it chooses to adopt towards its nest. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 17 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who suggested a similar amendment to this one in Committee. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 at the same time. These amendments will ensure that the young which leave the nest very shortly after being born and consequently may not be found in or near a nest, receive the same protection against disturbance as those young which remain in the nest until they are able to fly. I am advised that the term "dependent" does not create difficulties of legal interpretation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( )(a) If any person shoots any wild bird between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(b) This subsection shall not apply to the shooting of any bird included in Part I of Schedule 2 at any time between sunset on the day three clear days before, and sunrise on the day three clear days after, full moon.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A. This is an improved amendment on the point which we discussed at the Committee stage. The amendment down at the Committee stage was to ban all shooting between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise. The argument was that in addition to much extremely bad shooting that occurs at night, causing a great many birds to be wounded, there was the considerable danger of shooting birds, which were on the protected list for one reason or another, by mistake in periods of very bad visibility.
There was some argument in your Lordships' House as to how often that occurred. Some noble Lords said that because of the different flight of various birds, sportsmen who were used to shooting at night could, in fact, distinguish fairly clearly between them and it was very unlikely, particularly as rare birds were by definition rare, that many of them would get killed in this way. I have since received some evidence showing that that is not entirely so, and Sir Peter Scott in particular has written to me about the amount of shot which he has found in some of the birds which get as far as his sanctuary—shot which is likely to have been occasioned through them being shot at night.
There was a strong argument that this was a traditional form of sport and that for a great many sportsmen it was pursued quite fairly and without damage to the endangered species. Therefore, I bring forward this amendment which is, I hope, an improved version and which makes it perfectly legal to go on with night shooting during the period around the full moon when, of course, visibility is at its best and sometimes rather better than it is in one or two of the hours during which shooting would be legal in any case. I hope that, with this concession to those who wish to shoot in the night time, this amendment will prove acceptable to your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to say something at the Report stage, may I echo from this side of the House what the noble Lord the Chief Whip said about the magnificent work that was done last night to get the Marshalled List printed. Having seen what those concerned had to deal with in draft form, I have the greatest possible sympathy for them, and I am sure that we shall make much better progress today. Indeed, the only reason that we shall make any progress today is because of all the hard work that was done.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I also received a letter from Sir Peter Scott about this matter, following our debate in Committee. I think that it is important enough to quote fully two sentences from the letter. Sir Peter Scott said:
"Another British practice that is impossible to defend in the international forum is that of night shooting. Britain is almost alone in permitting this sport, which carries the increased likelihood of protected species being shot by mistake, reduced chances of picking up wounded birds, and particularly in cold weather disturbance of birds forced to feed at night by shooting and other human activities during the day. It also makes wardening of protected areas much more difficult".
He went on to say:
"I believe that night shooting is a major cause why more than a third of the Bewick swans X-rayed at Slimbridge carried lead shot implanted in their tissues, despite their being protected in every country through which they pass to reach us".
I also had some additional evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the effects of this and they say, in contradiction to what was said by some noble Lords in Committee, that it is not a fact that night shooting is confined to the period of full moon, or just before or just after. They say that their wardens and other staff on many occasions have seen night shooting carried out on moonless and even misty nights, and in some cases under artificial lights.
112
Apparently, some reserve wardens have said that shooting after dusk is increasing, and they believe that it is responsible for increasing numbers of pricked birds, including protected species, and is causing severe and sometimes continuous disturbance to roosts used not only by quarry species but also by protected birds.
We went through this argument very fully in Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said, those of us who wish to see night shooting banned have accepted that this simply will not be something that your Lordships will find acceptable. But everyone who spoke about this practice said very firmly that it was something that was only done at full moon, when visibility was good, and was only done by the most experienced and expert wildfowlers. We cannot ensure, without making it a licensable activity, that it is done only by experienced wildfowlers, but in this Bill we can ensure that the practice is carried out only at times when everybody on all sides of the House says it should be; in other words, at full moon or just before or just after, which is what this amendment would do. I hope that it will be acceptable to everyone.
Lord Burton: My Lords, this amendment does not include Schedule 2, Part II, birds, which I think has been referred to as the pest schedule. One of the species of birds which is particularly injurious in the countryside is the hooded crow and the carrion crow. They are one of the latest birds to come to roost, and one of the times that one wants to shoot them is when there is no moon, because otherwise one has to sit up all night, watching in the moonlight and hoping to get them. As they come in to roost so late—an hour after sunset—this amendment would make it impossible to shoot them coming into their roosts, which is one of the most effective methods. How anyone could possibly mistake a bewick's swan for a goose I do not know, but I suspect that any shooting of bewick's swans has been entirely intentional and has not been by mischance, as the noble Lord would like to suggest.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government quite appreciate what the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Melchett, have done since the previous time that we discussed this. We have tried in the Bill to regulate the minority interests and treat birds differently from the rest of the community, but still in the case of night shooting we have not so far been persuaded that the action is required. This shooting occurs only for a fortnight of the year, that is true, but further to restrict the few occasions when it can occur in this way seems to us to be unnecessary.
Given the right combination of cloud and moon, wind and water, competent wildfowlers can shoot birds at night on nights when the moon is a great deal less full than three days either side of full moon. We think that this is a slightly emotional premise which field sportsmen could resent. They do not accept that only the protectionists are concerned with the conservation of species, and the Government receive proportionately as many suggestions for better conservation from wildfowlers as they do sometimes from protectionist groups. Therefore, we do not wish to encourage this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if the Government do not wish to encourage this amendment, they are certainly doing their best not to encourage it. I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, nor myself would want to be understood to say that we thought that wildfowlers did not contribute an immense amount to preservation. We know that over a long period of time that is absolutely true and that those of us who are interested in wildlife owe a very great debt of gratitude to those who, over the years, have been interested in this particular form of sport.
Nevertheless, I regard the Government's answer as remarkably unsatisfactory. It seems to me they could have gone quite a long way to meet us on this point. However, it is not one of the matters in the Bill which is of the greatest importance, and with the agreement, I hope, of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, and with the permission of your Lordships' House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("which is shown to have been")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the discussion in Committee on an identical amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the Government looked again at the relationship between Clause 1(2) and Clause 1(5), as doubt was expressed as to whether the provisions of Clause 1(2) applied to Clause 1(5). We wish to ensure that there is no ambiguity, and I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for the trouble that he has taken to meet us on this point.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are also very pleased that this amendment has been accepted, and it will become clearer later why I am particularly pleased.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 20, after ("bred") insert ("and keep").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the result of the previous amendment, this passage now reads:
"(5) In this section, 'wild bird' does not include any bird which is shown to have been bred in captivity".
The intention of my amendment is to add the words "and kept" after the word "bred". It seems to me to be quite clear that a bird can be bred in captivity but can subsequently escape or be released, in which case it should be included among the wild birds. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree that, in order to escape inclusion as a wild bird, the bird not only has to be bred in captivity but must remain in captivity. This would be achieved by accepting my amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment has the effect of applying Clause 1 provisions to captive-bred birds which escape or are released to the wild. These birds are not covered by Clause 1, because if a clause did apply to them it would mean that a person
114
who loses his bird and retakes it is guilty of an offence. But it would also mean that a person hawking with his captive-bred bird would be guilty of an offence each time he recovered his bird. We consider that in practice a captive-bred bird which was released or which accidently escaped to the wild, would, for practical purposes, be covered by Clause 1. Certainly so far as persons other than the owner were concerned, as such birds cannot be distinguished from wild birds when in flight or otherwise at a distance, neither rings nor, on a falcon, jesses are indications that a bird is captive-bred. It is not considered that their lack of statutory protection puts them at extra hazard. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he is still in doubt I should be happy to write to him further.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I should like to study what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Exceptions to Section 1]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("if that nest is in use by") and insert ("of").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("on Sundays") to the end of line 43 and insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also takes us back to something that we discussed at some length on Committee stage; the question of shooting on Sundays. Again, I have tried substantially to alter the amendment to meet the points made in the debate on Committee stage. First, the amendment does not apply to pest species, so the noble Lord, Lord Burton, need have no fear on that score so far as this amendment is concerned. Nor does it apply to game birds. In fact, it applies only to birds listed in Schedule 2, Part I, which are wildfowl species.
The objective of the amendment is to apply what is already the law in Scotland and a number of counties and areas in England to the whole of Great Britain. My understanding is—and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm it—that the advisory committee in Scotland considered this point and felt that the law should remain as it was in Scotland, and that it should be applied to the rest of England and Wales, which seems to me a sensible position for those in Scotland to take.
Orders prohibiting shooting on Sundays already exist in a number of areas; in particular the counties of Anglesey, Brecon, Caernarvon, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Cornwall, Devon, Denbigh, Glamorgan, the Isle of Ely, Merioneth, Montgomery, Norfolk, Pembroke, Somerset, Yorkshire, North Riding and West Riding, and in the county boroughs of Doncaster, Great Yarmouth and Leeds. So the position is already fairly well covered in a number of areas. This would simply

115
produce the position where Sunday shooting was not possible for wildfowl species only, or those listed in Schedule 2, Part I, alone.
This would have a number of advantages. First, it would make the position much clearer. As noble Lords will have seen from the list I read out, those areas where there is no shooting on Sunday in England and Wales already are fairly dotted about. It would seem to make sense for there to be a uniform provision. The second point is one I made at the Committee stage and I shall not rehearse it at length. There inevitably is some conflict of interest between wildfowlers and bird watchers. It is particularly on estuaries and coastal areas where there is on the whole a great deal of public access, and where shooting will be going on very often over areas where there is public access, where these conflicts will occur.
There are over a million birdwatchers—the RSPB has half a million members on its own—and a smaller number of wildfowlers. WAGBI has about 60,000 But I am not suggesting that the division should be in terms of numerical strength. I am suggesting that it should be an equality over the weekend, with wild-fowlers having Saturday and birdwatchers having Sunday in those areas where both activities take place on the weekend. Wildfowling does of course cause considerable disturbance to wildfowl and waders, including those species which are already protected. That is why it is desirable in areas where there are a large number of birdwatchers out watching birds that there should, if possible, be one day in the weekend where that disturbance will not be taking place and birdwatchers may watch birds in peace.
Another point of which I was not aware at Committee stage is that the British Trust for Ornithology, the RSPB, and the Wildfowl Trust have co-ordinated wildfowl counts which provide the data on which our knowledge of wildfowl numbers is based. Indeed, a number of the discussions we have had on particular species in this Bill have been based on the data gathered from these counts. Those counts take place on Sundays. Of course, when shooting is taking place of wildfowl on a Sunday the counting procedure is either difficult or completely impossible. This amendment would allow those counts to go ahead and would bring us further into line with the rest of Europe, where a number of countries permit hunting on only two or three days a week.
Sardinia is often held up in this country as epitomising bad practices so far as birds are concerned. Noble Lords may be interested to know that there hunting is permitted on only two days a week. Having met the points that were made at Committee stage which concerned particularly pest species, and with the benefit of the considered advice from Scotland where this is already the case, and with the limitation that this amendment applies only to wildfowl species, I hope that this will now be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, nobody could say that the present state of the law with regard to shooting on Sundays in England and Wales is satisfactory. Indeed, it is administered in a strangely inconsistent way, if
116
I may give an example with which I am familiar. In the county of Cambridgeshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has mentioned, it is illegal in the Isle of Ely, but it remains perfectly lawful in Huntingdonshire. But I do not think that anyone in Huntingdonshire would care to maintain that they were less Christian, or less observant of the Sabbath, in Huntingdonshire than they seem to be in the Isle of Ely.
I do not know of any shooting that goes on on Sundays in Huntingdonshire. They are both now part of the great new county of Cambridgeshire, and there may be similar inconsistencies at any rate in other parts of England. The Welsh seem to have gone fairly Sabbatarian over roost of the country of Wales if the noble Lord's facts are right, and I do not doubt them. What I am saying to my noble friend is really that to the extent that the amendment would enable the law to be made more consistent and more rational, I would be prepared to support it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord has met our objection that we would be allowed to shoot pests such as woodpigeon, and he is applying this amendment only to Schedule 2, Part I, starting with capercaillie. In that case, I would be very happy to support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is seems marvellous to hear the names of those old English and Welsh counties rolled off by a Member of the Front Bench of the reforming and modernising party. It seems silly to have a law for one part of the country and not for another, and I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, a lone voice, I rise to oppose this amendment. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I would say that Yorkshire, North Riding, and Yorkshire, West Riding, sadly have not existed since the local government reorganisation, which is a thorn in the side of many of us Yorkshiremen who like that name. I am not certain that I agree with the noble Lord that this does not rule out pest species, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about that.
If this amendment is passed it will take away the pleasure and sport from a number of people whose one chance this is to go shooting. It is all right for noble Lords—perhaps especially for some on this side of the House who have the fortune to shoot on Saturdays and often midweek as well—but for the majority of people who go wildfowling the weekend is their only opportunity. It seems to me that as you can do anything else on a Sunday, including playing football, or perhaps even going to the theatre, that perhaps it is wrong to take away other people's entertainment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I intervene, if the noble Earl will allow me? If he looks at Clause 2(1) he will see that the birds included in that are included in Part I of Schedule 2. It is that subsection to which this amendment refers. Secondly, would he bear in mind that birdwatchers also often can go birdwatching only at week-ends, which is why I am suggesting there should be this division between the two groups.
The Earl of Swinton: I accept that, my Lords, and so far as birdwatchers are concerned, I think it would be easier for them to see the birds if they were disturbed and flying around, having been put up by a shot, than all tucked away in the reedbeds and marshes. I hope the Government will not accept the amendment. The people we are speaking of are not "cowboys" but are organised—they all belong to clubs which have very strict rules—and this is one of the few chances they have to go shooting.
Lord Burton: My Lords, one of the strongest arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was that birdwatchers wanted to look at birds on Sundays. He went on to try to impress us with the number of areas in England which were already closed to shooting on Sundays. It seems therefore that there is already a large part of the country where birdwatchers can go on a Sunday and where there cannot be any shooting taking place.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as has been recognised, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has tabled a modified version of an amendment put down in Committee. It seeks to prohibit the shooting of Schedule 2(1) species in England and Wales which would, as he said, bring the position in line with Scotland. The Scottish Advisory Committee, in considering the Scottish position, suggested no change. But they did not go further than that—they would not advise South of the Border—and the present position (namely, a total ban in Scotland and a prohibition in certain areas in England and Wales), reflects traditional practice and custom, and the Government do not feel there is any reason to alter that position. There is of course no conservation case for any form of prohibition, but we accept it is appropriate to continue to allow for traditional practice and beliefs. We have also retained the power to allow the Secretary of State to make orders prohibiting shooting of quarry species on Sundays in any area and we believe that this reflects the right balance, and I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sorry that more support for the amendment has not been forthcoming from the Benches opposite. I was taught to look to the aristocracy for upholding the sanctity of the sabbath, but since the Lord's Day Observance Society seems to have gone out of business, nobody sticks up for Sundays any more. Look at the Bishops' Bench—completely empty—when we are discussing a question of Sunday observance. It is a dereliction of their duty in this legislature not to be present here this afternoon. We hear from noble Lords that the weekends are the only opportunity that some poor wretches get for shooting birds and other things, which they call sport. It is very nice of those who can shoot any day of the week to be considerate towards those who can shoot only on Saturdays and Sundays. I should have thought Sunday was the most unsuitable day of the week to shoot and kill anything. I should have thought that was one of the last vestiges of the observance of the Lord's Day, but it is obvious that we are in a chamber of heathens!
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, raised one other objection to the amendment—at least, I think it was intended to be art objection, although I would not see it as such—in that he said there were some areas of the country where birdwatchers could go and where there would not be Sunday shooting. That does not seem a point worth while making, let alone worth answering, but as it was the only substantive objection to the amendment, I will answer it. There are a large number of birdwatchers who cannot travel long distances—because they cannot afford to do so, because they do not have any means of transport or, as noble Lords will be aware, public transport on Sundays is not particularly reliable, to put it mildly—and many people will want to go birdwatching in an area close to where they live. The object of bird-watching, I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is not to watch birds being blasted out of the sky but to watch them feeding and acting naturally in an undisturbed way.
The Earl of Swinton: I was not suggesting that bird-watchers wanted to watch birds being shot, my Lords. I was suggesting that if a shot went off, a lot of birds that would otherwise be hidden away in the rushes and reeds would get up and fly around and they would then have a better chance of seeing them.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, areas where people go birdwatching are designed so that people can see birds in rushes and reeds and places like that, and that is what a million people as a minimum in this country like to do with much of their free time. I have no objection in the amendment to people who wish to go wildfowling doing so at the weekend, and it is ridiculous to suggest that people will not be able to do so on Saturdays. In Norfolk, the county where I live, people shoot on a Saturday, whether they work on farms or in other places or whether they are Members of your Lordships' House, and it causes them no inconvenience whatever, and those who wish to shoot pest species like pigeons and crows on Sundays will still be at liberty to do so after the amendment has been passed, which I hope your Lordships will now do.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 129; Not-Contents 64.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Caccia, L.

Amulree, L.

Chelwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Chitnis, L.

Armstrong, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Aylestone, L.

Clancarty, E.

Bacon, B.

Coggan, L.

Banks, L.

Collison, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Beswick, L.

Craigton, L.

Birk, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Blease, L.

Daventry, V.

Blyton, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Bolton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Brockway, L.

De Freyne, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Byers, L.

Derwent, L.

119

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyne, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Newall, L.

Dormer, L.

Northfield, L.

Effingham, E.

Onslow, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fulton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Gage, V.

Peart, L.

Gainford, L.

Phillips, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Plant, L.

Gardiner, L.

Renton, L.

Garner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gibson, L.

Robbins, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Roberthall, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Romney, E.

Glasgow, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rugby, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gosford, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gregson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Grey, E.

Simon, V.

Hale, L.

Sligo, M.

Hampton, L.

Somers, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hayter, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hillingdon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Hunt, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathspey, L.

Janner, L.

Strauss, L.

Jeger, B.

Swansea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Swinfen, L.

Killearn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Thurso, V.

Lee of Newton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Leonard, L.

Vaux of Harroden, L.

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

Wade, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McNair, L.

Westbury, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Whaddon, L.

Matthews, L.

White, B.

Melchett, L.

Willis, L.

Milford, L.

Winstanley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Allerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alport, L.

Inglewood, L.

Avon, E.

Kimberley, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Lyell, L.

Cawley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Melville, V.

De La Warr, E.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Digby, L.

Morris, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pender, L.

Gormanston, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Pritchard, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ridley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Seafield, E.

120

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Soames, L.

Vickers, B.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("section and section 1") and insert ("Part and in Schedule 3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are intended as paving amendments for my Amendment No. 40, and Amendment No. 63 is consequential. I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships if I speak to all four amendments at the same time. The intention of Amendment No. 40 is to change Clause 6(6), on page 8 of the Bill, which lays down the periods during which birds from Part 11 of Schedule 3 may be sold from the single period of 1st September until 28th February to the period of the close season set down for each individual species in Clause 2(4).
I should point out to your Lordships what is the position at present. In Clause 2(4) there are set out four different periods as being the close season for different species of birds. Yet under the later clause it is permitted to sell those birds, whichever species they may be, always during the same period, and in no case does the period of the close season coincide with the period laid down on page 8. For example, at present the capercaillie and the woodcock may be shot only between 1st October and 31st January, but they may be sold one month before and one month after those dates. At present the snipe may be shot from 12th August until 31st January, but it may not be sold until 1st September, and it may then continue to be sold until 28th February—for four weeks after it may be shot. The same kind of arrangement applies regarding both duck and geese, which may be shot from 1st September to 20th February, and sold from 1st September to 28th February. With regard to the only two other species which may be sold, the golden plover and the coot—if anyone wants to shoot the coot—I would say that they may be killed up until 31st January, but they may be sold up until the end of February.
I cannot understand why there is that difference and why the position should not be made so much simpler by making the period during which a bird may be shot the same as the period during which it may be sold. I understand from the noble Earl, who was kind enough to write to me—I think his letter has been put in the Library—that it is thought it would be easier to enforce if there were the same dates when all species may be sold, irrespective of their close season. It seems to me that exactly the opposite is the case, because the local constable, or whoever is responsible for enforcement, already has to know when the close seasons are and he has to know the periods during which each bird may be sold, and, therefore, if he sees one on sale at some different time, he knows that there has been an infringement. My Amendment No. 40, for which this is preparing, would have the effect of making the two periods coincide. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I, too, should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 40 and 63, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has explained, are consequential. The Government (as he has also explained, really) do not accept that the result of these amendments would be better than the present position which is carried forward in the Bill from the Protection of Birds Acts. We regard it as right to provide that the sale season is longer than the open season to allow persons to dispose of birds killed legally, and many of your Lordships would not regard birds killed on the last days of the season as edible until the end of the sale period, anyway.
Having a single sale season for all species means that there should be no confusion over when dead birds may be sold, and we believe that this is important to sellers, to the police and to the general public. Instead of the police having to raid a shop at various different dates, depending on when the season ends, they now have a clear-cut date. Having different sales seasons for species could cause confusion and would not, in our view, confer any benefits. I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord about woodcock, in England and Wales but not in Scotland, and capercaillie. Anyone who has the species hanging in their shop in September would almost certainly be in possession of illegally killed birds. We have no evidence of abuse of this provision, which has remained unchanged for some years. Our view is that it is important to keep it simple and so, we hope, enforceable. I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may say so to my noble friend, I think that there is a balance of arguments here, and on the whole I do not think the one suggestion is that much better than the other. If the Government feel very strongly that things should be left as they are, I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be better to do that.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and therefore, although I think my argument has some force, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 11 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 11A.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("woodcock (except in Scotland)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 59 and 64, which are consequential? There is a little difficulty with the next amendment, because that, too, refers to page 3, line 2, but they are on entirely different matters. I am not sure whether your Lordships would wish to take the two together, or how they should be dealt with, but I should like your Lordships to consider capercaillie alone, whereas the next amendment deals with woodcock. As to how we should deal with these, I must be guided. The object of these amendments is to make capercaillie a game bird. Strange as it may seem, putting these birds under the
122
Game Act is a conservation measure; and, furthermore, the amendment would correct an anomaly in our laws. All the other three species of the grouse family in this country—namely, the black game, the red grouse and the ptarmigan—are already game. I understand that the only reason why capercaillie are not is that they did not exist in this country in 1831, when the Game Act came into being. They were reintroduced, I think, at a later date, some time after, in the late 1800s.
As this Bill stands at the moment it is, first, illegal to take the eggs of a capercaillie. Indeed, if I may go on to explain, if you did take the eggs you would be too late to get a licence, as they would be cold by the time the licence arrived. Secondly, if one hatched and reared the chicks then it would be illegal to release them into the wild unless, again, you secured a licence, which would cause a lot of bother and trouble, for which it appears you may well have to pay and which, indeed, you might or might not get at the end of the day. If, as I have seen happen on two occasions now, a hen caper is put off her nest by a dog, she will probably not return to the nest, and in that case the eggs are lost. If one was to uplift the eggs, which I have done before now, one would not at that juncture have a licence, and one would be breaking the law. If they were to become game this problem would be obviated—an easy and non-controversial solution, I think, which would also regularise the game laws.
There is also a need for some conservation. These birds are very susceptible to disease, particularly blackhead. Our stock of capercaillie was almost wiped out a few winters ago; and, indeed, in 1831 they must have been extinct. They are not numerous, and their numbers are probably less than in the case of some of the birds already proposed for Schedule 1. It is therefore desirable to give them proper control and protection. One argument from foresters may be that there is liable to be damage from these birds to young trees. In the first year or two after planting it is possible that these birds will take the heads off the trees, until such time as the trees come above the head height of the bird standing on the ground. After that very little damage can be done, because they are a big heavy bird and they cannot sit on the top of a tree without breaking it. What they prefer is an old "granny" tree which they can sit on and eat around them. Therefore, they really do remarkably little damage, and certainly less than black game, which are already game.
I wonder, then, what possible grounds there could be for refusing this proposal? If one plays the devil's advocate, the only possible grounds would seem to be that this opens up one more Act of Parliament. We have had the Deer Act and we have had various planning Acts, and so on, opened up, and this, I am afraid, would open up the Game Act. I am not sure that this is a valid argument, because it is obviously something which is desirable. If we do not make the amendment now, I wonder whether there is any possibility of including the caper in any Bill in the foreseeable future? I suspect not. Therefore, to correct this anomaly and also as a conservation measure, I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to support

123
the noble Lord in this amendment. It seems to me that it is an obvious example of a case where an old Act of Parliament should be revised when a species has established itself in Britain since the passage of that Act. The capercaillie is in fact a game bird; it is always considered as one. There is a further complication, which is that it is a member of the grouse family; it is a grouse. Therefore, both under the 1831 Act and under this Bill one could make the case that it is already included as a game bird because it is a grouse. So some clarification seems to be required on that point; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burton.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I, too, should like strongly to endorse my noble friend's moving of this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has taken words out of my mouth. I think the timber question is really quite small. When you consider the damage caused by deer, the amount of damage done by young caper is so infinitesimally small that it is not worth even considering. Just because it was out of the country it is not covered, but I think we should certainly give this bird the protection of the game laws.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say that I am worried about this for a number of reasons. I am not sure that the damage to forestry can be dismissed quite as easily as the two noble Lords opposite have dismissed it. In particular, as I understand it one of the effects not mentioned yet would be that the capercaillie would no longer be subject to the controls on introductions which come later in the Bill, and it would therefore be quite lawful to introduce these birds into any areas where they do not currently exist and where it was possible for them to live. It would therefore leave totally uncontrolled their introduction into a lot of areas in the North of England and elsewhere where there would be a lot of forestry and where at present none of these birds would be living.
I think that a more serious worry is the question of amending the Game Act, which Amendment No. 16 does. As the noble Lord has said, we have raised a number of different Acts of Parliament. At the moment we are likely to amend the Badgers Act, the Seals Act and the Deer Act. I think that one could argue in all those cases that the amendments were conservation amendments to protect or to add to the conservation status of the species or, as in the Deer Act, to improve conservation for birds. That is how it may get past the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Home, about amendments to the Seals Act to which I agreed at the Committee stage and withdrew my own amendment.
If we pass an amendment to the Game Act in this House it seems to me inevitable that a large number of questions concerning those Acts will be raised by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place if not by right honourable and honourable friends of noble Lords opposite in another place. It would open a very major area of debate about which, I suggest, there is even more controversy than there is about a lot of the provisions already in the Bill. I would hope that it might be possible to get at this, if there is a major problem,
124
either by the licensing provisions in the Bill, which are designed to meet these sorts of problem and which make it possible to apply for licences in advance of as well as after the event. It will be possible, given that these birds have a fairly restricted range, for those likely to want to pick up eggs to apply for a licence in advance; or maybe the Government may have something to say about a more substantive amendment to the Game Act. I have been responsible for amendments to the Badgers Act which I hope your Lordships will pass later; but I think it is distinguishable on the basis that, in the other Acts that we are trying to change, we are doing so for reasons of conservation. It is difficult to argue that that is the case for these amendments. If the noble Lord wanted to put this bird into Schedule 1 that would be a different matter, but he has not taken that course.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government do not want to get involved in amending the Game Act and take the point that this is a conservation Bill and should not interfere with the Game Act. I should like to come back to the capercaillie because, if I understand my noble friend Lord Burton correctly, he has an interest in the conservation of the capercaillie and I fail to see why putting it in the Game Act would help to conserve it. If we lengthen the season, it will be shot more and the Nature Conservancy Council have said that that is a bad idea. If it becomes subject to game shooting, probably it will be more widely shot. Bearing that in mind, I should have thought that if my noble friend were to leave it with us it might be advisable to go back to the NCC and get their advice on the capercaillie with regard to making sure that it is not over-shot. With that, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and no doubt that will be the best course. It has been suggested that these birds be put on Schedule 1. That would cause an awful upset in forestry circles.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he is the one who suggested that.
Lord Burton: No, my Lords, I think it came from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I have not said so. To put it on Schedule 1 would cause a lot of difficulties. The amendment is a conservation measure. A number of those who have knowledge of the capercaillie have supported me on this. It is interesting to note that the main opposition came from Lord Melchett. This is definitely a conservation measure and he is leading the conservation lobby and it seems extraordinary that he should be so inconsistent as to oppose me on this. In view of my noble friend's proposals, I hope he will consider the matter and come back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 11A:

125
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("except in Scotland)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved these three amendments in Committee and the noble Earl was good enough to say that he would take them away and ask the advice of the Advisory Committee. The arguments were fully deployed and I do not propose to deploy them again. I had a good deal of support in the Committee on each amendment. The noble Earl has written me a letter which leaves me not at all happy. He says that two points were referred to the Advisory Committee. I do not know whether he referred the third. Perhaps he will answer that. He said:
"The two points were referred … as I promised to recommend that the season for woodcock and snipe be amended in the way and for the reason you advocate".
So far so good!—
"We have given careful consideration to the advice of both committees but note that they did not advise that there is a conservation case which would justify modification to the seasons of these two species".
The Government, in spite of the advice of their committees, have not taken any action, so we thought that the least we could do would be to bring it up again, in view of the support we had in Committee last time.
There are one or two points I should like to add to what was said last time. Noble Lords will remember that the objective is to reduce the period during which you can shoot woodcock and capercaillie to the same level in Scotland as it now is in England. In other words, you can do it for longer in Scotland than you can in England. In order to tidy things up, and for what we believe to be conservation reasons, we think that should be altered. In the case of snipe (which is the second amendment) in our opinion the period has to be reduced to 31st August instead of 12th. There is a good deal of evidence which I have here, but which I will not bother noble Lords with, that fledglings and young birds are found frequently right up to the second half of August. Therefore, to shoot them before 31st August is to shoot them at the time when normally the young ones are gaining strength.
The third amendment is to leave out paragraph (c) altogether which is the paragraph which gives a special longer period of shooting for wild duck and wild geese in or over any area below high watermark. I have the same letter already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, from Sir Peter Scott who knows more about these things than most. He says:
"The present situation, whereby a duck or goose may be shot, 1–20 February, on one side of the high-tide line but not on the other, is an anomaly which derived from some 'deal' made during the passage of the 1954 Act … The argument that it serves to protect paired Mallard beginning to take up breeding sites is set at naught as soon as there is a cold snap, as there often is in February. This drives the inland birds back to the shore and its unaccustomed dangers, making them hungry and therefore easier to shoot … The migratory species are then feeding intensively to lay on fuel for long flights …".
The case is quite obvious. It is clearly a conservation case. I suppose the reason why the Government are not happy about this is that there is no special shortage of the birds concerned. Conservation is not only applicable to birds in short supply; it is applicable to the proper looking after of wildlife wherever it may be. To reject these amendments on the grounds that they are not sufficiently—I cannot think of the adjective of
126
"conservation"—conservational, is very short-sighted indeed.
There is a good deal of evidence that snipe, for example, breed right into August. Woodcock, particularly British born woodcock, are in rather short supply even though a certain number come in from elsewhere. In any case, it must be of advantage to have a similar law all over the country which everybody can understand. We had a good discussion last time, and I do not need to say more, except that I am deeply dissatisfied with the reply that was given and I hope that I can get something more out of the noble Earl now. I beg to move.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. When, in the economy of shooting in Scotland, grouse moors are let, and in quite a considerable number of years there are no grouse, it makes quite a difference to the tenant, who often comes from overseas, if he is able to shoot the occasional woodcock and snipe. When the noble Lord says that the numbers of woodcock are quite small and they may be quite young in August, this is not so. I suppose that the woodcock is the earliest nester in the United Kingdom. They nest in March and by August an enormous number of them are well matured. Most of the woodcock who breed in Britain in the United Kingdom move comparatively early in September to Ireland where they are shot. So there is no case for the date for the present season for the woodcock being altered.
The same is basically true of the snipe. Occasionally you get a young one in August; but again the only chance the average shooting tenant has to shoot the snipe is in August and early September because again they move off. The indigenous snipe population on the mainland of Scotland moves again to the South of Ireland and Spain. They are replaced of course by an enormous number of immigrants. If we were to adopt the noble Lord's idea, quite a number of shooters who do not want to shoot very much but want to shoot a variety of game would be deprived of sport in August and September. I do not think that is really necessary on the merits of conservation.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, particularly regarding the shooting of woodcock in Scotland. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred quite correctly to woodcock leaving Scotland—very wisely—for Ireland, to spend the winters there. Of course a great many more arrive from Scandinavia and the North. I do not see any reason why the shooting of woodcock should be permitted in Scotland a full month before it is in England. That is the situation at present. It means that woodcock can be shot in Scotland from 1st September instead of from 1st October. I would have thought that there were not many birds to shoot at that time—only birds that have bred in Scotland. I should like to think that woodcock at that time should not be shot and that the majority of guns would not shoot them. Therefore I support my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to

127
make two comments. First, I should like to congratulate the social democratic alliance, the Liberals and the Socialists, for all speaking with one voice. Secondly, one should ask the question: Does it do any harm? It has not been shown to do any harm at all and therefore one should not interrupt people's sport.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, when the Minister replies—and this may be irrelevent—I wonder whether he would answer this point. This may be irrelevant but we seem to be concerned about the shooting of certain birds in particular seasons. I am rather intrigued to know that irrespective of seasons in this particular clause apparently one can kill any of the birds on Christmas Day or Sundays in Scotland. It seems as if it cuts right across whether it is the month which is applicable if there is this rather curious clause. I am sure that there is an explanation, but I cannot think what it is, offhand.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that there has not been a case made out for making the changes. May we take snipe and woodcock as one case and then turn to the wildfowl question later. The arguments are different and the noble Lord, Lord Home, addressed himself to only the first of the two amendments. I think that there is a strong case on biological grounds regarding snipe. I have been given some information about various studies regarding breeding snipe and the development of young snipe. For example, in a study on St. Kilda, 12 nests were found between mid-July and mid-August that contained eggs. If nests which contain eggs are found at that time of year, I cannot believe that the snipe are developed sufficiently for it to be justifiable to shoot them at the time when apparently in Scotland a few people think it is right to shoot them
In a more recent and extensive study of the breeding biology of snipe three clutches were started in the first 15 days of July and the birds would not be fully grown until 27th July to 10th August. Two clutches were started in the last 15 days of July and would give birds not fully grown until between 14th and 28th August. One clutch was started in the first 15 days of August and that would not give birds fully grown until 27th August to 11th September. A significant percentage—not a large percentage, I agree, because on the whole they would be breeding earlier—of breeding pairs would have young which were only just fully grown by 12th August.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I have actually shot snipe for 50 years consecutively. On only two or three occasions have I seen immature snipe in August. It is a totally insignificant proportion and certainly not a proportion which justifies altering the present law.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as in all these matters, what is important is what is discovered by scientific inquiry and what the Government's experts on the advisory committees have to tell us. I hope that the noble Lord will pay at least as much attention to that as he would to his own personal experiences. My understanding is that the advisory committees both in England and Scotland, which are made up of those
128
interested in the protection of birds as well as of those interested in the shooting of birds, recommended that these changes should be made. At the Committee stage we all agreed that it would be sensible to refer these matters to advisory committees, and we should not disregard the expert and considered advice that the many people who serve on these committees in England, Wales and Scotland have given us on these two points.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I took the Lord Kilbracken's point. Most of our early English snipe emigrate for him and his friends to shoot in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was insinuating that the ones which are bred later might be shot before they matured. I agree with my noble friend Lord Home; I have seldom seen small ones. The average people who go shooting do not see many of these birds because they are found in awkward places and therefore are not the most popular to get at. Surely a lot of these snipe do not survive into winter, anyhow.
Lord Gibson-Watt: If I may make a "Welsh" remark, everybody has his own experience of this, but perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I do not think he is right. All my experience points to the fact that in mid-Wales all home-bred snipe normally leave the hills about the 20th August and I certainly have never seen an immature snipe—jack snipe, yes, but not immature snipe. In spite of the profusion of scientific evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has given to your Lordships' House on this matter, I must with respect disagree with him.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has a point about trying to reconcile the seasons and get them together; but may I suggest that for once England might come into line with Scotland? So far as I can see, there would be no great objection to removing paragraph (a) altogether, which means that the period with regard to woodcock (and capercaillie too, but that is a minor point) would start in both countries on 1st September. In the North of Scotland I think that even the conservationists would say there has been a steady increase in the numbers of woodcock breeding over the last few years. They are, of course, very charming to see. The numbers seem to increase steadily and it is the same in Scotland, where there is no protection at the moment in September. I suspect that the only reason why the 1st October was put into the English Act was that woodcock would start at the same time as pheasant, and that was the only time when they were likely to be shot in England. Therefore why not scrap (a) altogether?
Lord Peel: My Lords, surely the basic point here is that we are discussing the responsibility of sportsmen. Of course, there will always be cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, when birds will breed late and will overrun the dates of their season. It happens with partridges, pheasants, and indeed most birds. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the snipe. There will always be certain a number of snipe

129
that will be unshootable. Therefore, as I have said, we are really talking about the responsibility of sportsmen. For that reason, I think it would be as well to leave these dates alone: over the years they have been extremely well proven.
I should also like to put in a plea on behalf of myself as much as anybody else in regard to snipe because, living in an upland environment, one finds invariably that snipe disappear round about the 20th August and we do not have the opportunity of shooting these birds, which gives many people a great deal of pleasure. The numbers shot are so insignificant that I do not think they will make much difference to those that will go on to breed—and that, of course, is the essence of all our efforts at conservation.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, a noble friend behind me mentioned that he had never seen an immature jack snipe. But so far as I am aware jack snipe do not breed in this country. They are completely migratory.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if my noble friend will give way, may I remind him that these amendments are not about the jack snipe. We are at the Report stage, and if we could try to speak to the subject, I think it would be helpful. If I may reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who noted the point concerning Christmas Day and Sundays, that is a carry-over from the 1954 Act, and these are the traditional practices carried over into the Wildlife Act. If I could now turn—
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does it mean that you can shoot on Sundays, even though it is in the closed season? I do not really understand what it means.
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords; and what is more the amendment we have just passed means that there will be no shooting of quarry species anywhere on a Sunday. Regarding woodcock, the Government carefully considered the advice given by the NCC but concluded that they could not accept the recommendations as we were not satisfied that an adequate conservation case had been put forward. That is basically what my noble friend Lord Onslow said. We believe it is inappropriate to make a change for reasons other than those concerning the conservation of the species. As regards snipe, again the Government believe it to be wrong that one should extend protection to a species essentially for the protection of others. This is what we believe a major case was made on. I should like to speak only to those two now and to speak again to wildfowl later.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I confess to some disappointment because the last time we discussed this we got support from at least half a dozen noble Lords on the other side; but we seem to have lost that support, I suppose as a result of thinking they know better than the technical advice. In view of the fact that we have aired this twice and we have had strong support from the advisory committee, and the Government have rejected it on grounds which seem to me not to be adequate, and since I seem to have lost the support of the "huntin' and shootin' lobby" which I thought I had on the last occasion, I think I
130
would be wise not to press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11B not moved.]
4.27 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 11C:
Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I have already read a long and moving extract from a letter from Sir Peter Scott. I do not know that we want to say any more about it, except that it is a rationalisation which I think is important and I should be very interested to hear what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have very little to add to what we said at Committee stage. We do not think that a conservation case is fully proven in this case either, and I said then that licences would be available at this end of the season, though not of course at the other end of the season. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, spoke about shooting in cold spells, which is particularly bad, and we would of course issue a ban under Clause 2(6) to cover this. I believe he also said there was little conservation need, but that it was purely a matter of disturbance of other creatures at this particular stage.
Lord Melchett: No, my Lords, with respect, the case is a great deal stronger than that. As the noble Earl has not been as forthcoming as I, for one, was hoping he would be, perhaps I could briefly state what the case is. First, I think that noble Lords interested in field sports and in particular in shooting in this country are running the danger of making this country by far the worst in Europe from the point of view of the extent to which we shoot things, the length of time for which we shoot things, and so on. Nowhere do our own practices stand out, compared to the rest of Europe, in a worse light than in this case, where we shoot wildfowl so late in the winter.
In December 1979 there was a meeting of more than 60 experts representing 20 states and organisations covering the western palaearctic region, and that included both governmental and non-governmental organisations. A resolution was passed which suggested that Governments give waterfowl populations the necessary protection after mid-winter when determining open seasons. The biological evidence presented showed that hunting after mid-winter may increase total mortality and reduce the breeding capacity of wildfowl populations.
As the noble Lord opposite said when we were discussing an earlier amendment, it is the effect on the breeding population of the shooting season which is all-important. Certainly the shooting of wildfowl at the end of the winter affects the breeding population. For example, after the beginning of February mallard, the principal quarry species of wildfowl, are almost fully paired and would have started their courtship before Christmas. Less than two weeks after the end of the coastal shooting season, mallard should have

131
started breeding and wildfowling in February almost inevitably will destroy the pair-bonds which have been formed since Christmas. If that happens, it is very unlikely that such pair-bonds will be able to be replaced and the birds will not be able to re-pair and synchronise their breeding with another duck in time to hatch birds successfully that year. For those birds which migrate from this country there is a great deal of evidence to show that waterfowl are already paired before they leave the British wintering grounds for their more northerly breeding sites. Of course they need to be fully paired when they arrive at a breeding site, because otherwise they cannot take advantage of the very short Arctic summer in the areas where they breed. Those birds which arrive in the Arctic nesting grounds without a mate—in other words, when the pair has been disturbed by late wildfowling—will almost inevitably fail to breed, because by the time they have re-established a pair it will be too late for the young to survive.
What distinguishes this amendment from the one that affects shooting at the beginning of the season, is that in February what are being shot are the birds that have survived all the shooting that has gone on during the winter; all the hard weather that has occurred during the winter. They are the fittest birds, the birds that it is most important to leave to provide breeding stock for the following year. Therefore, it seems to me that this greatly increases the threats to early breeding duck and, far more than the first two amendments, will affect the success of the breeding.
Of course, shooting at this time of the year is also liable to disturb all the other birds which are protected and which, in the same way as the mallard have done, have formed pairs at Christmas or shortly afterwards and may, indeed, by that time even be starting to look for nesting sites or territories. The noble Earl touched briefly on the problem of severe late winter weather, but, with respect, this period cannot be covered by the orders which are available to prohibit shooting when there is severe winter weather, because the agreed policy on banning wildfowling—that is, the policy agreed between WAGBI, the bird conservation organisations and others—depends on there being cold weather for more than 14 consecutive days. In fact, there has to be freezing weather for more than 14 consecutive days.
If there was freezing weather for the first 14 days of February, then, by the time that period had ended, it would be too late to stop the shooting and it would not be possible, as the noble Earl suggested, to stop shooting in that period under the existing provisions for a cold weather ban on shooting. In other words there are no safeguards for the last two weeks of February—that is, when a cold spell occurs, which is not unheard of in this country—and there is no protection of wildfowl during that period.
This shooting occurs only on the foreshore. Certainly, in my part of the world it is not an area where you can do a very great deal of wildfowling, though I know that in some parts of the country it is considered very important. It seems to me an anomaly in terms of our own legislation on wild birds, particularly when looked at in a European context. It is something which will have to be changed before too long because of international pressure on the sportsmen and shooting
132
people in this country. I hope that we can take the opportunity of changing it in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should just like to say this. There is no pressure on mallard numbers. There is no pressure on several breeds of duck numbers. The noble Lord also said that Great Britain is one of the worst countries as regards the length of seasons, et cetera. But the point is that there are a large amount of game species available in this context. If that is the case, why should we alter it? Let us not alter things just for the sake of altering things. By all means, internally, let us make things orderly, but let us not just for the sake of bringing ourselves into line with not shooting marsh tits in Sicily or something like that, stop people shooting mallard on the Solway Firth.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I made the point that this shooting in February also disturbs all the protected species of waders and wildfowl as well as the quarry species which are shot. That is something which, surely, the noble Earl should be concerned about.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord asserted that, but he has produced no evidence for it.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I really do not think we can accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about the mallard being a faithful husband. It is the most promiscuous bird. I can take your Lordships to see what is going on in St. James's Park on any afternoon.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Melchett, by saying that, however promiscuous the mallard drake may be—and I agree with the noble Viscount opposite—it also starts its courtship extremely early in the year. The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that he thought the woodcock was the first bird to pair and mate, but in my own experience the mallard is even earlier and has already been at it for at least a month. That is a very good reason for following the proposal of my noble friends.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a point. I am quoting from a letter from Sir Peter Scott and I certainly would not want to criticise, in any way, anything that Sir Peter has to say. He said that there was a deal—I think it was the 1954 Act—and that was the reason. Of course there was a deal, because the wildfowlers were losing so much at the beginning of the season, and this was agreed at the end. I shall not repeat all the arguments which I put forward in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made a very strong point on Amendments Nos. 11A and 11B, but what we must do is to support what the advisory committee said and I think they made absolutely no point about the numbers of wildfowl decreasing. The numbers of geese, in particular, have risen enormously, especially the quarry species of geese. I really cannot see any conservation grounds at all for supporting this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I shall probably be shot by some wildfowler for suggesting this, but if the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, are factual, could not subsection (6) of this clause be implemented in any year when the weather might be hard, and would that not solve a lot of his problems?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I clarify one point which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, made about the period? The ban is after 14 days, but we can have a period of restraint after seven to 10 days.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl did not reply to my question as to whether he had acceded to my request to put this suggestion to the advisory committee. Perhaps he can tell us whether it was put. I particularly asked him to do so in Committee.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, as the noble Lord is aware, I replied to the first two—I think probably on purpose. I have in front of me a long paper on this subject, but I am not sure from whom it comes, so I cannot give him an answer.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, on the whole, I should like to take the views of the House on this amendment. There has been such a curious change in the opinion of noble Lords opposite. The very fact that Sir Peter Scott suggests it seems now to put people against it. So I think we must be sure whether they are serious. It seems to me, when the advisory committee is not asked, as I requested it should be, when it has agreed to both of the first two amendments which the Government have refused to accept and when there is a very powerful letter—I did not read anything like all of it, because we are trying to restrict the time—from Sir Peter Scott, who even wildfowlers think knows more about the matter than anyone, that this is a case on which I should like to test the views of the House. I very much hope that there will be as many people who agree with Sir Peter Scott as disagree with him.
4.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 111.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Caccia, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Amherst, E.

Chelwood, L.

Avebury, L.

Chitnis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Collison, L.

Bacon, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Balogh, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Banks, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Birk, B.

de Clifford, L.

Blease, L.

Denington, B.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Dulverton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Byers, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

134

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B.

Gisborough, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gosford, E.

Romney, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Sligo, M.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ilchester, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Strauss, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kimberley, E.

Thurso, V.

Leatherland, L.

Wade, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Leonard, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Maelor, L.

Wise, L.

Melchett, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Milford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Allerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alport, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Killearn, L.

Armstrong, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Avon, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Loudoun, C.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Burton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Mansfield, E.

Cawley, L.

Margadale, L.

Chesham, L.

Marley, L.

Clinton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Melville, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Middleton, L.

Craigton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Daventry, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Newall, L.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peel, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Pender, L.

Exeter, M.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Forester, L.

Ridley, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Selkirk, E.

Glendevon, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gormanston, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Somers, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hayter, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Swansea, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinfen, L.

135

Swinton, E.

Ullswater, V.

Terrington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Teviot, L.

Vickers, B.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

Tryon, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("period") to ("as") in line 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2(6) allows the Secretary of State to declare a period of special protection for any bird, and it is stated that such a period shall not in any case exceed 14 days. I was of the opinion that the purpose of making such an order would be to extend the close season of birds. I felt that it should not be limited to the period of 14 days by which such protection may be extended. That would have been the purpose of my amendment. I now understand that this period of special protection is for cases where some calamity arises, either due to pollution or to cold weather, and that close seasons may be extended as the Secretary of State desires by means of the preceding subsection. Unless therefore any noble Lord has a point which he wishes to make, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 14A.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, leave out lines 29 to 32.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, since the Committee stage we have been endeavouring to tidy up the consultation procedures in Part I of the Bill. A number of changes are proposed to Clause 25. Clause 2(7)(a) is a duplication of Clause 25(2)(a). Clause 2(7)(b) we now see as unnecessary. It is the only paragraph on birds in which the Nature Conservancy Council are mentioned, though as they are to be the nominated wildlife advisory body it will continue to be the practice to consult them on all bird matters. I suspect that the noble Lord opposite may wish to speak to his amendment at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am quite happy to let Amendment No. 14A fall because later we shall come back to a similar point. However, I should like to ask the noble Earl where it is said that the Nature Conservancy Council will always be consulted. I know that from now on they will themselves appoint the advisory committees, but I thought it was a printing error when the noble Earl indicated that he was deleting lines 29 to 32. I could not understand why he was deleting the Nature Conservancy Council and assumed that he had done so by mistake. But obviously he has not. Where does it say in the Bill that the Government will consult the Nature Conservancy Council? It may
136
be that we shall need rather more than simply the noble Earl's assurance, valuable though that is.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is a duplication of Clause 25(2)(a)—or that is what it says in my brief but I do not think that is quite right, so I may have to come back to the noble Lord on this!
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl is obviously still making his speech, in which case perhaps I may intervene in it. I am not sure that he is right; I think that Clause 25(2)(a) might well cover it but I think it would be simpler if he were to continue his speech and then he could write to me, if he wants to, but I am probably happy about Clause 25(2)(a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14A not moved.]
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a drafting amendment to convert "species" into "kinds" in Claus 2(7) so as to chime in with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I quite understand that what the noble Earl is doing here is to conform with the usage in the rest of the Bill. I myself regret this. I wish, rather, that he had left out the word "kind" throughout the Bill and inserted the word "species". The word "kind" is an extremely vague term. There are all sorts of different kinds of birds, including those that can fly and those that cannot fly. I do not understand the shyness that has been shown throughout the drafting about the use of the word "species", which is an exact and scientific term. Therefore although I shall not oppose the amendment I think it would be very much better to use the word "species" instead.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
("; and
(d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the protection of birds of the kind proposed to be protected by the order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.14A, which fell, was a paving amendment for this but I think that, on page 3, subsection (7), which these amendments affect, would be quite reasonably worded if this amendment were accepted, although we might need the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c), which of course will presumably not be transformed into "(a)" unless my amendment goes in but will simply carry on from "consult".
As we have it at the moment, before making one of these hard-weather orders the Bill says that the Secretary of State shall consult,
"a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species proposed to be protected by the order"—
and that is it. Noble Lords who were present at the Committee stage will remember that one of our

137
problems in debating this particular subsection was that we got to the stage when it seemed that there would be far too many people for the Secretary of State reasonably to be able to consult in time to make an order. It seems to me that is not now an argument because we are simply left with somebody who is representative of persons interested in shooting but that seems to me to strengthen enormously the argument for our amendment; representative of persons interested in birds of a kind which it is proposed should be protected by the order. One of the arguments that was put up against this at the last stage was that the Secretary of State would have to consult too many people. I think that is now cleared out of the way. All that this would suggest (if my amendment is carried) is that the Secretary of State should consult two people; one interested in shooting and one interested in protection. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.
The second argument that was put up against it was that those who were interested in protection were already going to be consulted, either by the advisory bodies or the NCC. In the first place neither of them is now mentioned in the subsection but even if the noble Earl is right and the NCC would always be consulted, that does not seem to me to be an argument against my amendment—because advisory committees, as 1 understand it, in the first place do not have representatives of those interested in the protection of birds sitting on them, if they are like the existing advisory committees, and we have been told that they will be. They have individuals who are there in their own right as individuals, not as representatives of particular organisations and there are on the whole individuals there from organisations like WAGBI, in the same way as there are individuals there from organisations like the RSPB. WAGBI is one example, and I think it is quite right that they should be on the advisory committee and that they should be consulted under subsection (7). I think that is absolutely right and I make no complaint about that, but if they are to be represented on the advisory committee, as I hope they will continue to be, and if they are to be mentioned in subsection (7), I cannot for the life of me see why the bird protection people should not also have one of their members on the advisory committee and also be mentioned in subsection (7). All I am really asking for is some even-handedness.
I think this is particularly important because, after all, these orders on the whole are requested by bird protection organisations, although of course wild-fowlers often join in and there may well be complete agreement between all concerned. But the one case where a bird protection order was made recently was in fact requested by the RSPB and opposed by a number of other people and eventually the government made the order which the RSPB had requested. So it seems to me to be vital that somebody representative of the protection of birds should be mentioned specifically in subsection (7), in particular because now even if an advisory committee, which will have the interests of bird protection at heart, advises in favour of an order, it is always open to the NCC to ignore that advice and to tell the Government not to take that action. In those circumstances the people who have asked for
138
the order would not have to be consulted by the Government and that seems to me to be wrong, particularly if the Government are (quite rightly) required to consult somebody representative of those interested in shooting. Having got rid of a lot of the arguments against this which were raised at Committee stage, I hope it will now be acceptable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government continue to resist this amendment for the reasons given at the Committee stage, on the grounds that we want shooting to be included here because it is specifically the shooter that we are intending it against; the basic point being that the Nature Conservancy Council is the adviser throughout this Bill. However, in view of my unsatisfactory reply on the previous amendment, I should like to take this back and look at it again.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful. I think it would be worth looking at this again. It is a small matter. The subsection has to be re-drafted as a result of the Government's amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord's advisers will consider this from the viewpoint of those interested in bird protection as well as those interested in shooting. I think it is excellent that the shooters are to be consulted, and it is excellent that they are on the advisory committees; but if that is to be the case, as I hope it will be, I think it is only right, in the case of these particular orders, especially that the bird protection people should also be (a) on the advisory committees and (b) mentioned in the Bill along with those interested in shooting. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look at this again. I hope we can clear up this minor matter at Third Reading—it will be one of the few that we shall actually have to do then, and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Areas of special protection]:
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert ("or being built").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 5, after ("is") insert ("in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 8 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 26, leave out second ("the") and insert ("dependent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also is consequential upon Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 1 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 20A:
Page 4, line 28, after ("(3)") insert ("where").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment brings us back to the subject of bird sanctuaries in Clause 3. Noble Lords will remember that we had a considerable debate about this at Committee stage. With this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 20B, 20C, 20D, and 21A and 21B because they all go together. The effect of thes amendments, or at least the intention behind these amendments, would be to remove the power of veto which could be exercised by one owner or occupier on a bird sanctuary being set up. I think it is worth while saying right at the outset, because we had some confusion in this debate at Committee stage, that bird sanctuary orders do not prevent owners and occupiers from converting land from one use to another; they do not interfere with agricultural operations; they do not interfere with things which are subject to planning control. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will take this in, because I am particularly making the point that bird sanctuaries are no threat to farming or forestry interests or economic interests on the land at all. That is a different part of the Bill which we do not have to deal with today; but, as I say, there was some confusion at Committee stage in the minds of some noble Lords who spoke on the amendments, and I hope we can avoid that confusion today. Bird sanctuary orders would control the shooting of birds in those areas. Under the Bill as it has been presented by the Government, it would not actually prohibit the shooting; it would, for example, allow wildfowling to take place in a particular area during the winter but there would be no disturbance of the birds during the summer breeding season, if that was the particular reason for the sanctuary being set up.
What worries a lot of people, and it certainly worried noble Lords opposite at Committee stage, as well as some on this side, is that at the moment all bird sanctuaries can only be set up if there is complete agreement among all those concerned. In other words, if there is a large area where people want to set up a bird sanctuary, and a number of owners and occupiers are involved—let us say, half a dozen or a dozen—and one of those refuses to accept an order, then the whole thing falls and cannot go ahead. It seems that, for this relatively modest provision for increasing protection for birds, it would be very useful to have a provision in the Bill which allowed the Secretary of State, if he saw fit, to ensure that the one maverick (as I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, called the individual concerned at Committee stage) who was not prepared to accept the order could be compelled to do so, with, of course, adequate compensation being paid. That is what the amendments, particularly No. 21B, would provide for.
There are important bird sanctuaries, in particular in estuaries, and particularly in Scotland, where there is an unrestricted right of access to the foreshore and it is not possible to control shooting on estuaries in the same way as it can be done in England and Wales. Noble Lords may have seen some recent correspondence in magazines such as the Shooting Times.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said it could not be controlled in Scotland. Am I not right in thinking that the local authority can impose by-laws? In fact, I think they have done so in a number of areas.
Lord Melchett: Not as I understand it, my Lords. As I understand it, it is not possible to pass a by-law in Scotland which would prevent somebody shooting on the foreshore, as they are now able to do. Part of my authority for this comes from correspondence in the Shooting Times; there have been some very vociferous complaints from members of WAGBI and wild-fowlers about the unrestrained and unrestricted shooting on estuaries in Scotland and the fairly horrifying consequences of that, which these members of WAGBI reported on in this letter. I will not go into all that; if noble Lords want it I can do it when I wind up the debate. I hope that the modest proposals which we now have will be acceptable.
As I say, we are not interfering with farming or forestry. This is simply to try and make bird sanctuary provisions effective. There have been only 30 set up under the existing provisions, and almost all of those, I think I am right in saying, were set up very soon after the Act came into force. Since then it has proved virtually impossible to get bird sanctuaries set up. I do not believe the changes the Government are making will necessarily make it any easier, but I believe this amendment would. As bird sanctuaries are something which I hope all of us on all sides of the House support, I hope these amendments will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, once again I am afraid I cannot support the noble Lord on this. It poses the question of compulsion to start with. I am not in favour of compulsion. Once you start compulsion you will lose goodwill. I am all for seeing these sites set up, but if you compel a farmer or owner to take part I am sure you will somehow or other lose the site. Apart from that, if you are going to have compulsion I think you should have an appeal; I do not think this amendment does allow that, although I am sure the noble Lord will put me right if I am wrong. Lastly, there is the question of compensation. I do not know how you are going to compensate. Technically it is very difficult. What do you compensate him for? The last point is the one which the noble Lord made specifically to me, that it is not going to affect farming operations. I really cannot quite understand that. You are not going to be able to disturb the area, and neither should you if it is a bird sanctuary. You must not go in during the nesting time. This may well affect farming operations. You might want to plough it; I know that is rather an extreme case, but you may want to go in and spray for some reason. So I do think there is an agricultural content, even though

141
not directly. I do not think I can support the amendment as it stands.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is one of a number of cases in the Bill where this question of ultimate compulsion comes up. It is a question which in principle was settled about 150 years ago, when the railway Acts first started coming in, that where one person wishes to hold out among a large number of others who are prepared to be compensated for something which is for the public good there should in the last resort be an element of compulsion. All parties have gone along with this. This is not a very extreme case. What we are talking about is basically shooting rights, and I would not have thought there would be any difficulty, with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in putting some kind of figure on that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, however, that I think possibly there should be some appeal, and maybe that could be looked at again if your Lordships pass this amendment; it is something which could be put in at Third Reading. It seems to me that there is a strong case here for having an ultimate compulsion to take away a small part of people's rights, in a case which really seems worthwhile for the benefit of the whole. I think this should be supported.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, basically I cannot support this amendment on the grounds of the compensation. I think that the amendment is technically inadequate because it does not specify what the compensation is for; how it will be assessed; who it is going to; and what rights those people have. That is a fundamental part of compensation law and I have experienced cases where the clarification as to what the compensation is to be assessed on has been vague and that has led to all sorts of problems from the district valuer right through to the agent acting on behalf of the owner-occupier. The amendment could lead to serious areas of difficulty.
The second point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has underestimated is, of course, the effect on agricultural operations. I do not think that I am at all confused, as he suggested I might be, as regards this matter. There is very clear evidence in the wording of the Bill as drafted at present that people will feel restricted, that this will mean a restriction on agricultural operations and I think that, without any form of appeal or a more sensible basis of looking at this, the House ought to reject the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am very surprised at the farming objections to this amendment. Last time we discussed this matter we became rather confused and talked about habitat protection where there is, of course, an interference with farming. It seems to me that it is not an interference—and by far the most likely example here will be shooting rights—if it is required that the sanctuary should not be shot over. Shooting rights are perfectly easy to value—there is no problem about that. They are often let and people pay so much a gun. It is not a difficult problem. It is perfectly simple to say what the farmer is giving up if he is told that he must cease exercising his shooting rights.
142
I cannot see the problem. I cannot think that any other aspect of farming will be affected at all. He could even plough permanent pasture or moorland. There is nothing in this amendment, but there is something in the habitat regulations which arise later. I think that very heavy weather is being made of this matter. It is perfectly simple and it is important that if we are to have an element of compulsion—which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is very much against—at least we should freely give compensation for what the owner is forced to give up.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I think that there is an element of damage to the farmer—which is not recognised by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—certainly in ploughing, probably in re-seeding and very possibly even in the making of muirburn. The very fact that there is an element of damage and interference with the farmers' existing rights is recognised by the suggestion that there might be compensation. I feel that the strongest objection to this particular clause must be the fact that a compulsory order can be introduced without any form of public hearing being provided for, and that to me is the one reason why I cannot possibly support these amendments. However, I think that there are flaws in the amendments anyway as regards the way in which they are drafted and I personally shall resist them if they are moved in your Lordships' House.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, are we speaking to all four amendments? If that is so, I think that it would be quite impossible to support Amendment No. 20D. That would be quite absurd and extremely unfair. Why should you not consult with the local authority in whose area the order is to be made? Of course, you ought to notify the owner or the occupier of the land and, if he cannot be traced, you should advertise in a local paper in the area. I really cannot see how we can strike that out. It seems extremely high-handed.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, these amendments are the same as the ones which were put down in Committee and it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords that the power of veto to owners and occupiers has done a good deal to emasculate the sanctuary order provisions of the 1954 Act and has led to only 30 sanctuaries under the present Act—I think that that figure was given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
The Government do not believe, on the evidence of the sanctuary proposals put forward, that the power of veto is the principal reason for the limited number of sanctuaries being created. In fact, six or seven sanctuaries have been made in the last three years. Shooting rights are not affected and existing vested rights are retained under the present provisions. So this is not a reason for farmers to fear an area of special protection. In any case we consider it important for the proper working of such orders that the consent of the people directly affected by them should be freely given and we believe that that is a cardinal issue here.

143
We understand the concern that frivolous objections might stop an order, but it is our experience that such objections are withdrawn when the objector fully understands the effect and reason for the order. More serious in our view is the fact that, under the present restrictive conditions for sanctuaries, only a limited number of proposals are being made. When we receive objections on a large scale it is normally because the current law on bird sanctuaries prevents activities such as wildfowling although that may not be incompatible with the purposes for which an order is being made—for example, to give greater protection to migrating breeding birds in the summer. We hope that the revised provisions in Clause 3(1) will mean that better protection can be given to birds where and when they need it.
It is important to be clear that Clause 3 is not a habitat protection measure; it is a species protection measure. Neither would it be suitable to adapt this clause to help preserve habitat. Part I of the Bill is concerned with species and I would like to confirm what I said in Committee—namely, that Clause 3 provisions do not themselves meet the requirements of the birds directive and they were never intended to do so. There are already existing powers to meet the directives' requirements on habitats and those will be supplemented by Clause 26, which could, for example, allow the Nature Conservancy Council to identify an area of special concern in the conservation of a species of bird. In such circumstances the failure to get agreement could be followed by compulsion and compensation—indeed, the compensation issue has been raised by my noble friend.
In principle, if shooting were a prime threat an order under Clause 26 could be made prohibiting shooting over land as an operation likely to destroy or damage its fauna. The council would then be bound to pay compensation under Clause 27(2)(b) for the loss incurred. If the NCC did not have sufficient funds it would be open to them to accept donations for this purpose. Accordingly, we could not accept—as we do not consider it necessary or see the need to include—compensation provisions in Part I of the Bill. The provisions of the clause do not seek to prevent an owner or occupier of land from using that land in any way he sees fit. Clause 3 is to give statutory backing to the best kind of protection—the kind voluntarily given by the people concerned.
I was asked about the question of appeal which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I think that it was also raised a second time. No appeal on bird sanctuaries is set out in the Bill: this is an agreement among all parties with regard to the Bill as drafted at present. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, suggested that an appeal procedure might be added at a later stage if the point were conceded in the amendment. The Government do not intend to do that. We do not accept that Clause 3(4) is redundant. Clause 3(4)(b) is a much stronger provision, and in our view properly so, than Clause 25(2)(b). Therefore, I must ask your Lordships to reject all the amendments.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, at times I am astonished at the extent to which Ministers do not appear to
144
understand the Bill that they have brought before your Lordships' House and which we have spent so much time discussing. For a start, I assume that the noble Lord was referring to Clause 27 and not Clause 26, which is a red herring, and which is why I did not mention it myself. The noble Lord saw fit to do so, so I am afraid that I have to respond, although it is a waste of time in this part of the Bill to start talking about Clause 27.
It does not meet the point at all, because even if one of the 30 or 40 orders which the Government have promised us under Clause 27 were simply restricted to an area which was suitable as a bird sanctuary and prevented shooting on it, it runs for only 12 months and after that the landowner or occupier is free to go ahead and do what he wants. It seems to me to have absolutely nothing to do with this clause at all.
Two other points have been made about this. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, came very close to saying, an appeal against the kind of order that I am proposing in my amendments would be available under Clause 25 where appeals are available for any orders that are made. I accept from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the compensation provisions are technically inadequate. I should be astonished if any amendment of any noble Lord, other than those on the Front Bench, and even sometimes theirs, were not technically inadequate. The point of drafting amendments to Bills, whether they are the noble Earl's amendments or mine, is to try to get the House to decide on the principle, and then it is for the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen to perfect them. If any of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, are agreed, I have no intention of mentioning the fact that they are technically inadequate, and I hope that he will extend the same courtesy to me.
On the question of goodwill, which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, raised, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, of course we all want goodwill. But, with respect to the noble Lord, it is no good coming forward to the House and saying that anything we do to change the existing situation will lead to an enormous loss of goodwill and will, therefore, be a step backwards, if we have made no steps forward since 1954, with all the goodwill that there is in existence. It is one thing if we were making enormous progress and if there was no problem in setting up bird sanctuaries where they were needed, where wildfowlers and bird protectionists agreed that there ought to be bird sanctuaries, as I think they do; that there should be a bird sanctuary on every major estuary in England, Scotland and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, is looking horrified; I did not say that every major estuary should itself be a bird sanctuary, but there should be an area on each major estuary which should be available as a bird sanctuary, and I think that that is a widely accepted policy. But that simply is not possible under the existing provisions because of the powers of veto which are perpetuated in this Bill.
There is another reason for thinking that this amendment is a vitally important one. I do not believe that the provisions of Clause 3, as drafted, come anywhere near meeting the requirements of the EEC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds, as it relates to the

145
disturbance and the protection of migratory species. The EEC directive lays on us a duty to ensure that certain migratory species are free from disturbance and are protected while they are in this country. Of course, we have in this country, uniquely in Europe, a vitally important position, because of the importance of the bird estuaries in this country, for protecting migratory species, none of which breeds here but a great many of which winter here, in Ireland and in other countries—they move through and along the different estuary systems.
I believe that these provisions, coupled where necessary with the habitat protection measures—and it is the habitat protection measures which we shall come to and which control farming, forestry and so on—would enable the United Kingdom Government to establish meaningful areas of special protection which would comply with the spirit of the EEC directive and the letter of the directive, but, as drafted, I do not think that the clause does.
As a last attempt to get the agricultural lobby with this farmer over here, may I point out to noble Lords opposite that this clause prevents, first, the killing, injuring or taking of a wild bird, or the taking, damaging or destroying of nests or eggs, or the disturbance of birds when they are building nests. Therefore, it is quite true to say that it would prohibit farmers from ploughing and converting permanent pasture during the breeding season; I suppose that it would prevent them spraying permanent pasture during the breeding season, or harrowing grass during the breeding season. But that does not seem to me to be a major restriction. We are not talking about stopping someone converting permanent pasture to arable; he can do that at any time he wants to out of the breeding season, as he can any other agricultural operation. It is very specific protection, simply to prevent the disturbing or destroying of a nest, destroying an egg or killing a bird, and no more than that; and therefore, would imply any restriction on agriculture for only very limited times of the year, after which anyone could do what he wanted.
Lord Burton: My Lords, has there ever been a case where a farmer has vetoed a bird sanctuary?
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords, there are a large number of areas where bird protectionists would like to set up bird sanctuaries, and where either owners or occupiers—I am not sure about farmers, about which the noble Lord asked me specifically—have prevented the sanctuary being set up. I do not regard sanctuaries as being of any threat to farming and I am trying to persuade noble Lords opposite that they should not be. Having made my case, I hope that they will support this amendment.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 131.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leonard, L.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Maelor, L.

Blease, L.

Mais, L.

Blyton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Meston, L.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Collison, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Denington, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Segal, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L,

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gardiner, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Underhill, L.

Gosford, E.

Wade, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hale, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Willis, L.

Janner, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allerton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Armstrong, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Forester, L.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gainford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Belstead, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glasgow, E.

Burton, L.

Glendevon, L.

Caithness, E.

Gormanston, V.

Cawley, L.

Gridley, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chesham, L.

Clinton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cockfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hertford, M.

Craigton, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

de Clifford, L.

Ilchester, E.

De Freyne, L.

Inglewood, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ironside, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Derwent, L.

Kimberley, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Dulverton, L.

Long, V.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

147

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Seebohm, L.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Simon, V.

Middleton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Soames, L.

Mondon, L.

Stamp, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Moyne, L.

Suffield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swansea, L.

Newall, L.

Swinton, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Terrington, L.

Onslow, E.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Thurso, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tranmire, L.

Peel, E.

Trumpington, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Tryon, L.

Pritchard, L.

Ullswater, V.

Radnor, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vickers, B.

Reading, M.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ridley, V.

Wise, L.

Rochdale, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 20B, 20C, and 20D not moved.]
5.35 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, leave out lines 34 to 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been tidying up the consultation procedures in Part I. Clause 3(4)(a), which requires consultation with any local authority affected by the making of an order, is, like Clause 2(7)(a), for practical purposes, a duplication of Clause 25(2)(b) and as such unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord a question about this amendment? As I understand it, this removes the provision for local authorities to promote bird sanctuaries. I assume that there is still somewhere in the Bill a provision stating that the local authority can do this, because I know they are particularly interested in bird sanctuaries. It would be helpful if the noble Lord pointed out where that arises.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, having checked up on this, as opposed to the one before, I can say that it is in Clause 25(2)(b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21A and 21B not moved.]
Clause 4 [Exceptions to Sections 1 and 3]:
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments, Nos. 22 and 23, and 30 and 31, would be, for the convenience of the House, better moved together. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kil-
148
bracken, may be in agreement with this proposal, and he nods his head. With your Lordships' permission I shall also move Amendment No. 23, which is the substantial one, and speak to Amendment No. 30.
During Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested that it was inappropriate to allow any person, albeit an authorised person, to catch ducks and geese for the purpose of ringing or marking them, as ringing of any wild bird is a skilled occupation. We asked the advisory committees for their advice, and I promised in Committee to obtain their reply. They recommended that the exception should be removed and that it should not be permissible for an untrained person to undertake skilful work of this kind. The Government accept this advice. It is proper that it should only be undertaken under licence—as is the case for all other birds—and after the necessary and, I understand, rigorous period of training that the British Trust for Ornithology require. Amendment No. 30 is for practical purposes consequential on these, deleting the provision allowing the use of otherwise prohibited methods—the cage trap and certain types of net. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment, which covers the two separate points I raised in Committee and which will enable me not to move Amendment No. 31, which covers the same ground as Government Amendment No. 30.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("1976") to end of line 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 23ZA:
Page 6, line 2, after ("necessary") insert ("and urgent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled rather late in the day because it came to my notice that the Government might not intend to move Amendment No. 24, which is down in their name. I thought it an important point—it would apply to mammals later in the Bill but Amendment No. 24 would have applied to birds—and I would have been happy with the wording of No. 24. If I am wrong about the Government not intending to move that amendment, I shall be happy to withdraw No. 23ZA and allow No. 24 to stand, but I see the noble Earl, Lord Avon, shaking his head in dissent, which means the Government are not likely to move No. 24.
It might be helpful if I explained why I feel that my Amendment No. 23ZA would be a useful substitute, and doing that might help us to make progress more quickly. I understand that the Government are happy with the wording of Amendment No. 24 as it applies to protected mammals but not as it applies to birds; in the birds part of the Bill all birds are protected, except those on the pests species list, and it would be necessary for people to have anticipated the risk of damage not just from a few protected birds but from all birds, except those of the pest species, and to have got, as it were, a pre-emptive licence in advance.
I am not sure I agree with that, but I can see there is some argument for making a distinction between mammals, where just a few are protected, and birds, where most are protected. I felt that it would be useful to insert in Clause 4 some wording which reflected the consensus in Committee. At that stage, I failed to get into the clause wording which some of my noble friends and I wanted—about the grounds on which farmers or others could take action to prevent birds destroying crops or forestry or whatever—and I wanted that to be done only under very strict conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in particular made the point, as did a number of his noble friends, that the agricultural let-out in Clause 4 was useful because occasionally farmers or landowners would need to take action in an emergency when there was not time to apply for a licence. I accept the force of that argument and I do not think there is anything between us on that. What worries me, however, is that people reading Clause 4 as it stands will not take that meaning from it, because the word at present used in the clause is "necessary". If prosecuted, a farmer or landowner will have to go to court to prove that his action was necessary for the purposes set out in the Bill, and I do not believe that the average individual reading this provision will take it from the word "necessary" that the action had to be urgent and that he had not had time to apply for a licence.
As the result of letters and meetings with the Government since Committee, I understand that the view of parliamentary counsel is that "necessary" includes "urgent" and that therefore my amendment is not necessary. I believe that that is wrong, because we are here talking not about a licensing procedure where experts will be involved and MAFF or the NCC will be issuing licences. We are talking about a clause which people will read and they will take action on it without anybody else having any say-so. We are talking about action that people will take in an emergency. The situation should be made clear in the wording so that ordinary people will understand it.
If I as a farmer were to read the clause as drafted and saw that I could take action when it was necessary to prevent damage, I suggest that nothing in that wording would tell me that I could be liable to prosecution unless the action I took was urgent or was in an emergency. It seems to me that nothing in the clause as drafted would tell me as a farmer that I would be liable to prosecution if I took action for which I could have got a licence, and apparently that is what the word "necessary" means, according to parliamentary counsel. I suggest that that is not fair. Even if parliamentary counsel says that the amendment is unnecessary, I still think it is highly desirable, because it would make clear on the face of the Bill what we are told "necessary" means, and it would make it clear to people who might otherwise end up in court being prosecuted for things they did not know they should not have done.
As I say, I would have preferred Amendment No. 24, but I appreciate, having had brief discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and his colleagues, that it presents certain problems so far as farmers are concerned. However, I cannot see any difficulty standing in the way of accepting Amendment No. 23ZA,
150
except the view of parliamentary counsel, and I suggest that we should worry about what farmers will make of the clause rather than what parliamentary counsel make of it. I therefore hope my amendment will be acceptable. If not, I should want to press Amendment No. 24.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that ordinary people do not read Bills, and he is not an ordinary person. Apart from that, I support the principle of the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has rehearsed all my arguments, not only about Amendment No. 24, but about my words of warning in this context. As he said, it is purely that parliamentary counsel advise that it would not have the effect he suggests, but the noble Lord has argued the case on that point and I must leave it to him.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the Minister, my Lords. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, says, but farmers, like others, will be advised by people who will have to read the Bill. They will not have had the benefit of parliamentary counsel's lengthy opinion on what the word "necessary" means or does not mean. I suggest it would be a small improvement to include "and urgent" in the provision, especially if, as seems the case, the Government do not propose to move Amendment No. 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 6, line 6, after ("timber") insert ("or any other form of property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 125A. I raised this matter in Committee, since when my noble friend Lord Avon has been kind enough to write to me stating that the Government were writing to the commission for advice on whether including the words "or any other form of property" was correct. I raise it again now simply to see whether the Government can clarify the position and whether they have any further points to make on the subject. To save the House time, I will not repeat the original argument; anybody who wants to read it will find it in col. 699 of Hansard for 27th January. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the next amendment is down in my name and is on exactly the same subject. I am happy to accept my noble friend's wording. As we have different words on the same theme, it shows that we are of the same mind, while not being in collusion. I understand that this matter has gone to the EEC, but we should not wait too long for the bureaucracy there to deal with it; we should have the matter dealt with by Third Reading. We should not send a Bill of this type to another place containing something of which we do not approve. If an answer has not been received from the EEC by Third Reading,

151
the other place will be able to remove any offending words, if, by chance, we find that the EEC do not like what we suggest.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I will with permission also speak to Amendment No. 23B, already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Burton. This makes similar alterations in Clause 15(1)(l). The term "any other form of property", was removed in Committee because of its non-compliance with the bird directive. However, we took note of the concern expressed at the time—for example, about protection of animal foodstuffs—and we have written to the EEC Commission about this and related matters. We are now awaiting a reply. Pending advice from the Commission, we would not wish to make any alteration to Clause 4(3) and Clause 15(1)(l), particularly as in our view that is contrary to the directive. I hope that my noble friends will accept my undertaking that on receipt of advice we shall table whatever amendment is appropriate to deal with the problem.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am perfectly happy with that answer, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved].
5.51 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
("(4) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (3)(c) as respects any action taken at any time if—

(a) the risk of the damage was known before that time and a licence under section 15 authorising that action was not applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after the risk became known; or

(b) an application for such a licence had been refused.").

Lord Melchett: My Lords, I wonder whether I may beg leave to move this amendment, simply in order to raise with the Government a point on which I would not expect an answer now, but perhaps the Minister will consider it and write to me. As the noble Lord has already intimated, the Government do not themselves intend to move this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is concerned about the proprieties of the matter, I would say that any noble Lord is free to move it. The amendment raises the question of what is the legal position of a landowner or farmer who applies for a licence to do something, is refused the licence, and then goes ahead and does it in any event. The amendment would have made it quite clear that in those circumstances such a person would be committing a criminal offence, and that seemed to me to be quite a useful point to state in the text of the Bill. As I understand it, at the Committee stage the Government said—I do not have the reference with me—that that was the case in any event. If a person who had applied for and been refused a licence then took action under Clause 4—or under the later clause, which applies to animals, where the same problem will not now arise; and so we are talking about only
152
Clause 4—the court would hear that the person had applied for and been refused a licence, and that fact would be used in evidence against him. That was the Government's view of the matter at the Committee stage.
Since then I have taken some legal advice, according to which what I have just described is not the case. The advice I have is that if someone applied for a licence to do something with a bird, was refused the licence, and then took action under Clause 4, that fact would not be admissible in evidence because it would not be directly related to the case that was being brought. That is an important point. I would not expect the noble Earl to give me an answer now, but I hope that he will agree to write to me, in which case I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, certainly my reading of the Bill is as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has stated, and I shall check as to whether I am correct. Certainly the Government's view is as has been stated, but if the position is otherwise, obviously we shall have to do something about it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 go together, but Amendment No. 27 relates to another matter. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, raised the question of whether the catapult should be one of the weapons that should be prohibited in the killing of birds. I saw the noble Lord in his place a few moments ago and I was about to apologise to him for any apparent discourtesy in my taking over his initiative, as it were, but—
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will allow me to intervene, I would say that my noble friend has asked me to apologise on his behalf. He has an appointment in Scotland and he has had to depart to catch his train.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord; I am sure that the House fully understands the situation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, took an interest in this matter and perhaps it was fortuitous that I tabled amendments on it. At the earlier stage, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that if pressed he would give further consideration to the question. He was not pressed very hard. Nevertheless, he apparently took, it away for further consideration. It may be that he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, as he courteously has done to me, and, I am sure, to other noble Lords, on matters raised during the Committee

153
stage, but I am not myself aware of any grounds on which the Government accept or reject the idea of adding the catapult to the list of prohibited weapons.
When during the Committee stage we considered the catapult in regard to a later clause, Clause 11, dealing with weapons that are prohibited in the killing of certain scheduled animals, I referred to the slingshot. I spoke of the lethal nature of a slingshot, recently imported from the United States. It is described in publicity as a hunting weapon, effective at 225 yards, and there is other blurb about the use of this new method of killing. The advertisement that I saw in the Surrey Mirror suggested that with the slingshot one could kill birds, mammals, otters, pigeons, squirrels and so forth. Obviously it is intended to be a serious weapon, and that particular newspaper was somewhat indignant about the way in which young people of any age can go into a shop locally and buy one of these weapons for £2.50.
I hope that the Government have favourably considered the idea of including the catapult among the weapons prohibited in the killing of birds. I believe that the catapult must be banned generally. It would be difficult to provide that the catapult may be selectively used for killing some species but not others. I think that generally users of catapults are quite indiscriminating. They can hardly distinguish one species of small bird from another, and I feel that all birds, of whatever kind, are at risk.
I do not see any reason for encouraging the use of a catapult in any circumstances, but I think that most of all one should protect birds from this kind of activity. People who use catapults regard a bird as a pot shot, no matter what kind of bird it is. Very often the birds are not killed, but are wounded, and are left in a rather shameful condition. That is all that I can say about this matter. This is really a continuation of the point raised during the Committee stage, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl has to say on the Government's attitude towards it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter and support the two amendments. I spoke on the subject at the Committee stage and I have received a few letters on it from various people. I should like to read to your Lordships extracts from one of the letters, written by a Mr. Staig, a farmer of Old Slade Farm, near Iver, Buckinghamshire. He says:
"… we try to farm in a very urban area, and are constantly at war with poachers, mostly young people … but also adults, with very sophisticated catapults, killing, maiming, and leaving to die in agony many wild birds, rabbits, et cetera. Also they fire at our cattle, pigs, horses, et cetera, and could very easily blind one of them".
That is only one of the letters I have received, but it is a fact that a great deal of cruelty is caused with catapults. I do not know much about the slingshot, but from what the noble Lord has told us it should certainly be banned. But I can see no excuse for catapults. The people who use them, as the noble Lord said, are quite indiscriminate. They do not know anything about wildlife. That is not their fault necessarily, because they probably come from urban areas; but that is no excuse for allowing them to cause agony to birds and animals. Therefore, I heartily support these two amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, surely Goliath was the only one who really needed to worry about the slingshot, and he suffered the fatal penalty for it. Are we not in danger here of making too much fuss? The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, has quoted a letter from a farmer who wrote to him saying that his horses and cattle had been fired at by catapult. That is not legal anyway; and anybody who can hit a rabbit or a pigeon with a catapult must be very clever indeed. I had a catapult until it was confiscated by my father, and I totally failed to hit anything with it at all. I suggest that here we are in danger of making too much fuss and of stopping a relatively harmless piece of amusement.
Lord Burton: My Lords, may I ask a question on this point? I think that on this one unique occasion I may be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Looking at Clause 26, the interpretation clause, I am not sure that anything in subsection (1) is defined. I know that when we tried to get a crossbow included in the deer legislation there was some difficulty in defining a crossbow. Perhaps this might be looked at in the future.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word in support. There is absolutely no doubt that small boys enjoy killing things just for the pleasure of killing them, and one of the ways they do it is with a catapult. I think that the more one can make this not part of every child's upbringing the better. I believe it to be something quite different from the pleasures of the chase or the skills of hunting or shooting, which I am not particularly opposed to, unlike my noble friend; but I think that for children to be let loose, with everybody's approval, to pot what they can with a stone, and probably damage it, is a very bad thing, and I support the noble Lord.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I fail to understand the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, when he says that we are making too much fuss over this. If it is wrong to do a certain thing, then it is wrong whatever weapon one may use for it; and to say that it is making a fuss to ban certain weapons but is not making a fuss to ban others seems to me absolute and utter nonsense.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene here. I think sentimentally we are all against catapults, and I should like your Lordships to consider very seriously whether in this Bill on conservation we should include catapults. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has mentioned, we discussed this in Committee on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. The Government have again considered the question of adding catapults to the prohibited methods listed for birds and mammals in both Clause 5 and Clause 11. We asked the advisory committees for their views. They considered that a prohibition is not justified in present circumstances, and we are in agreement with this.
We appreciate that some of the catapults being manufactured nowadays are powerful weapons—in fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, himself brought this up in Committee—and they are capable of firing metal pellets and similar objects. We agree that they are not weapons suitable for use against

155
birds and animals. However, the Home Office have had few reports and they do not have evidence of serious misuse of this type of catapult. My department and the Home Office will keep the catapult and slingshot under review, and can take action by order to amend this clause if necessary. I would therefore hope that the House would reject this amendment and not be too carried away on sentimental grounds.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I feel that on a matter of this kind the House should register an opinion. I think it would be a good thing if the House expressed its disapproval of the spread of this kind of indiscriminate weapon against our wildlife. I fully understand the practical considerations mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, but I should like to see a little more moral fervour in decisions of your Lordships' House, and this might be an occasion for a little of that to be shown on a matter of this kind.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that there is moral fervour involved in the proposal to bring little children before a juvenile court for playing conkers?
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
6.19 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
("(ix) any airgun, air rifle or air pistol; or").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the Government would take a favourable view of banning the airgun or similar weapons in Clause 5 of the Bill, and on that understanding I withdrew the amendment that I moved on that occasion. But the subsequent events, I think, are of some importance. On 6th February, 1981, which was a few days after the Committee stage on 27th January, there appeared in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine of 6th February, 1981:
"STOP PRESS
Airguns banned?
Without proper consultation the Government have adopted a amendment moved in Committee by Lord Houghton of Sowerby on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill to the effect that it will be an offence to use an airgun against live targets unless that gun is powerful enough (ie one for which a firearms certificate is required). The matter will come up at the Report stage at the end of February.
The Department of the Environment has commented that 'There is a considerable will in the House of Lords for something to be done about airguns'. A leading manufacturer of British airguns has said that this could mean the end of the British airgun industry. We will report on this urgent matter as soon as further information is available".
I thought, Ah!—somebody is getting at the Government. One recalls that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in replying to the debate, said that he had had a clearance only that morning from the Home Office to include the airgun in the prohibitions in the Bill.
It was therefore not without complete surprise that I received a letter dated 12th February in which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, completely caved in. He gave me, courteously, a lengthy explanation of why
156
the airgun should not be included in Clause 5 of the Bill. I thought that the least I could do was, courteously, to give the noble Earl, Lord Avon, the opportunity of putting on record why the Government changed their mind. The Government change their mind so little that I think that when they do they ought to have a full opportunity of explaining why. Here we are on this momentous topic and I think that the Government would wish to explain themselves.
Therefore, in moving this amendment I hope we may hear why the airgun is apparently, on the Government's initiative, not to be included in the Bill. Then the House may wish to judge the value and persuasiveness of the Government's reply in deciding what they should do about the amendment which I now move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I do not think that my name is supposed to be on this amendment; it just got there. But I should like some noble Lord to tell me the difference between an airgun and an air rifle. I thought they were the same thing. Provided that you have a powerful enough airgun or air rifle it would be all right to shoot birds. You can shoot quite a lot of birds with a powerful airgun but I do not see how you are going to ensure that the person who has the airgun and who is going to shoot a bird has a powerful enough gun. The only way in which to ensure that is if the law is changed and you have to have a fire-arms certificate for certain types of air rifle. Otherwise, somebody might be shooting birds with a very weak airgun which would wound the birds. I should like to say that a mistake has been made in including my name on this amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I should like to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, whose heart I sympathise with, is perhaps slightly under a misapprehension that small children with these weapons will be probably using them at bigger prey than they should be. I accept what my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said and what Lord Houghton said. These weapons should not be used for birds. I have not myself any knowledge of anyone who allows his children to have such weapons who would dream of allowing his children to do such things. In the countryside children are probably on the whole reasonably well controlled and I see no reason why weapons of this nature should not be used against small pest birds or small vermin. The idea that anyone who had a wepaon like this would have to have a game licence and use it against anything more important in the animal kingdom is inconceivable.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may be allowed to intervene, we are having a confused debate. We are not looking at all the amendments that are down. If the noble Lord looks at the amendments to the animals clause he will see that my noble friend has not prevented the use of guns against pest species but only those specially protected mammals referred to in Schedule 5, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has an amendment down which would allow the use of the airgun against pests. The noble Lord will be happy with the package.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I had

157
noticed that but as the debate was ranging so widely I thought I would make the point now.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, perhaps we could look at this more rationally. I do not know if Lord Stanley and his colleague the noble Earl are planning to speak to their amendment. It would be helpful if the House knew what their intention was.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the Government had to say.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the Government seem to have temporarily disappeared.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, as we are on Report stage we are in danger of falling out of order. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was trying to be helpful to the House. In a brief moment, my noble friend Lord Avon will be returning to reply.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was trying to make a speech and I gave way to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the hope that I would get some clarification, which I did not. Perhaps it would be helpful to go through the various amendments on airguns, air rifles and air pistols so that we all know what we are talking about. My noble friend has down an amendment which is the same (except for the inclusion of the word "or") as Amendment No. 27A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. That would prevent the use of airguns, air rifles and air pistols against birds. They then have Amendment No. 32A, which would allow the use of those weapons against bird pest species and that, from my point of view, is acceptable. It states what I understand to be what the law already is: that it is illegal to use an airgun, air rifle or air pistol against anything but a bird pest species. So all that your Lordships would be doing, before we get heated about it, is re-stating, where it ought to be stated, what the law now is. I hope that we will accept either my noble friend's amendment or the noble Earl's amendment. It seems to me not to matter which. I have not worked out whether the "or" should be there. I would prefer not to see bird pests shot with airguns, but I would not wish to oppose that amendment if noble Lords opposite wish to press it.
Then we get on to animals. My noble friend's amendment would prohibit the use of airguns, air rifles and air pistols against the specially protected mammals in Schedule 5 inclusing bats, butterflies and lizards in the list of animals which it would be unsuitable to attempt to shoot with an airgun or air rifles. In any event they are specially protected and should not be. I would hope that in one way or another we have an acceptable and reasonable package of amendments. My name is not on any of them. I think it should have been and I would have been happy for it to be there. I hope that either my noble friend or noble Lords opposite will ensure that their amendment goes into the Bill and we will be able to take the rest as read. I hope the Government will be in a position to accept this amendment. If not, I suggest my noble friend gets up and moves it quickly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on the previous amendment when we were talking about catapults and slings the Minister said there was power to add in my order instruments of killing, which were not already mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) so that whether it be a catapult or sling shot or rifles there would be this order-making power. It is somewhere in the Bill. Will the noble Lord explain how this list is capable of expansion if it is found subsequently that any weapons which ought to have been included have been left out?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, if I may reply to this short debate, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is to be found in subsection (2) of Clause 5. I am replying to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because when the noble Lord moved an amendment on this subject during the first day's debate in the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Avon, in good faith, said the Government would consider tabling their own amendment, and it was subsequent to that that the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary looked at this question in more detail.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord would not wish to alter what was said, but the noble Earl, Lord Avon, actually said that he had that morning received clearance from the Home Office for the Government to table an amendment. He did not say that the Government would consider doing it; he said that the Government would do it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that was the reason why I said that my noble friend mentioned this in good faith. He was advised that this was the situation, and I am afraid that this was not the situation. If there is any responsibility for what went wrong, then I must take it and not my noble friend. The reason for the change of course was that we had discussions afterwards and we felt that it would not be appropriate for the Government to table an amendment, because although the Government have very great sympathy with the objective of preventing the misuse of guns, we believe that we ought to adopt a somewhat wider and more voluntary approach to the question of air weapon misuse. Several of your Lordships have made the point in speeches, probably founded upon experience with your own families, that airguns are very much used by the young, and a recognition—also in speeches, if I may say so—that the problem that we are dealing with is to a very considerable extent a problem of the young.
Your Lordships might like to be reminded of the severe restrictions which are laid at the moment upon young people so far as the possession and use of air weapons is concerned. It is an offence to sell or hire an airweapon of any kind to a person under 17. For a child under 14 it is an offence if he does not have with him an adult in any place where he has an air-weapon or ammunition. That adult has to ensure that the missiles fired do not go beyond the premises on which the weapon is used. Thirdly, it is an offence for someone under 17 to have an air weapon in any public place unless the weapon is covered securely so that it cannot be fired.

159
I say those things because those restrictions, in addition to the law generally, the law on theft, criminal damage and the prevention of crime, present quite a battery of controls. It is in the context of those controls that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear previously that he has no plans to strengthen the controls in the Firearms Act of 1968. May I repeat that the Government fully appreciate the humane and environmental considerations which lie behind Lord Houghton's amendment but take the view that it would be wrong to include ad hoc provisions on air weapons in this Bill.
May I give one example of what I mean. It is a curious feature of this amendment that it would prevent the use of all air weapons, including the more powerful of them—for example, those subject to control under Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. I was interested that my noble friend Lord Massereene, from his experience, said that there are some very powerful air weapons which are perfectly suitable to use to shoot certain birds. Although he did not specify, I think my noble friend would have been referring to the more powerful air weapons which have to have a certificate under Section 1 of the 1968 Firearms Act.
Lord Melchett: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords, I will finish if I may and then I will put in context what I am saying. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, obviously will say to me "What are the Government going to do? Is this just words or are the Government going to do nothing at all?". If I may suggest it, there is a way forward. It could be to try to concentrate on the general issue—which we all know is present—of trouble from time to time with air weapons and to try to seek to heighten public awareness and a sense of responsibility about the dangers that there are. Consideration is now being given by my right honourable friend's department to the possibility of mounting a campaign on these lines. I should like to give your Lordships an assurance that the misuse of air weapons against wildlife could well form part of that campaign. Then the whole question of what should be done could be reviewed, in consultation, of course, with organisations concerned, including the British Shooting Sports Council and other organisations, when the outcome of the campaign has been evaluated.
What I am really putting to your Lordships is that I would have asked that we might proceed in the matter of this amendment on a rather wider and slightly different approach to the issue. This approach would rely first of all upon agreement which is especially important when dealing with young people. That is why I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not press this amendment.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I gave way a number of times, and I am sorry that he did not see fit to give way to me when I wanted to broach the point. May I ask this. The noble Lord may not be aware of the fact, but at Committee stage there was an amendment down
160
on the Marshalled List which excluded from the provisions which would ban air rifles and airguns those which were subject to firearms certificates. I would be quite happy to see that repeated. It was a sensible amendment. It would take out of the amendment of my noble friend and that of the noble Lord's opposite those guns which are subject to firearms certificates. None of us want to have any additional controls there; we all recognise that they are adequately controlled. I wonder whether the noble Lord could address himself to that amendment. It may not be on the Marshalled List, but it was part of the package which the Government apparently accepted at Committee stage.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise for not giving way to the noble Lord; but I have given way twice. I do not think that we can conduct the Report stage as a kind of musical chairs. Regarding the specific question which the noble Lord has asked me, if I may say so, it does not alter the main thrust of the argument that I was trying to put to your Lordships on this amendment. What we need to do is to carry people with us in recognising the difficulties which there undoubtedly are so far as the misuse of air weapons is concerned. It is for that reason that again I would repeat that the Government would very much prefer to see, if your Lordships agree, that we go ahead by way of the campaign to which I have referred, and with the consultations which I assured your Lordships would follow, rather than by writing something on this particular matter into the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as I understand it at the moment it is illegal to shoot anything other than pest species with an air rifle. Nobody has suggested that one should be allowed to shoot a mole cricket, an Essex emerald moth or a bottled-nozed dolphin with an air rifle. That, as I understand it, is illegal anyway. Are we not again making rather more fuss than is absolutely necessary? Surely we should back my noble friend in trying to advertise the dangers of illegal and irresponsible use of air weapons. To be quite honest, there is a danger of a class element when we in your Lordships' House discuss our children using air rifles. There are other people who perhaps are not so well represented in the House, whose children may not be quite so privileged as some of ours, where the problem may be slightly more difficult. That is where the approach of my noble friend and of the Home Office seems so much wiser.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am not clear how it was that the Home Office first of all took one view and then another. The noble Lord the Minister has explained quite clearly why the Home Office now takes the view that it does; but what he did not explain was why it was on the point of accepting the proposals in this amendment or something like it at an earlier stage to the extent that even the noble Earl, Lord Avon, gave an undertaking, as I appreciated it, that the Home Office were going to come forward with an amendment of their own at Report stage. What the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has failed to tell the House is why they had reached a favourable decision on these

161
proposals at the earlier stage and what it was in particular that was not known to them at the time which has suddenly altered their minds in such a short space of time. Maybe it was the article which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, quoted from one of the shooting magazines.
Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has told the House this evening could have been known to the Home Office at the time when we had the earlier discussion. The fact that air weapons, for instance, are used largely by young people was not a sudden revelation which became known to them in the past few weeks. It is a fact that sometimes you can achieve better results by mounting a campaign than by making something illegal. May I say that if the Home Office thinks that by passing laws saying that young people may not do something with air weapons they are automatically causing youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 to do precisely what the law says, they are gravely mistaken. Air weapons are used very widely by young people without the controls the Minister has referred to. I honestly think it would be very difficult to enforce regulations of that kind, because frequently when people see youngsters using air weapons they would find it extremely difficult to estimate their age and to say, for example, whether they were under or over 17.
I would have thought that if the Minister had taken the hint that I dropped him in my intervention and had said that the Home Office were going to examine the experience of the operation of this Bill very carefully, and that they would be prepared to come forward with order-making powers later if it was found that the persuasion they hoped to mount was ineffective, then the House might have been satisfied. But there is sufficient evidence for us to be able to say that without such an undertaking by the Home Office we want to be able to test the matter and see whether people do not think we should put this provision in now rather than depending on the Home Office coming round to the view that the abuses would be dealt with in some manner later.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has left the position in a very unsatisfactory condition. I think the Government intended to do something and subsequently lost their nerve. Government departments and Ministers do not take impulsive decisions on a matter of this kind, and the clearance given by the Home Office on the very morning of the debate during which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, told us the Government were going to put down an amendment of their own was a clear indication that the Home Office had completed their consideration of this difficult matter.
When Governments lose their nerve it is the duty of the legislature to reinforce their resolve and to steel them against the strange forces that must have got to work upon the Government's intentions to include air weapons in Clause 5. Therefore I do think that the House should reinforce that resolve. Indeed, it might even be welcome: I do not know. It would be nice to have a confession from the Front Bench opposite that the Government would welcome having their original decision reinforced by the House itself.
162
I will make only two further comments. The point made by the noble Lord about the definition of "air-gun" was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. In moving the amendment at the Committee stage, included in the list of definitions what an airgun meant; it meant
"to exclude those air weapons which needed a certificate under the 1968 Act ".
But much was said when we were discussing this question earlier to the effect that the airgun was really a target weapon and was not intended to kill things. It was intended to be a test of skill—the kind of thing one sees at a country fair when people shoot at targets or pots and pans, and it was not intended to be a lethal weapon for shooting things in the countryside. If an airgun was of that calibre, then under the existing law it had to have a licence under the 1968 Act; so I believe that the use of airguns for the purposes for which they are being used at the present time very freely indeed is an abuse of the concession given in respect of the airgun that it required no licence—and that was because it was believed it was to be used under close control as an exercise in marksmanship and not as an exercise in killing birds. I think that birds especially should be protected from the depredations by the airgun. They are vulnerable.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? It would be a great help to us on this side if we knew the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, about the two amendments they have got down and which cover the same thing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I might just say a quick word. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would withdraw his amendment, I would withdraw mine and perhaps we might be able to put our heads together before Third Reading and bring forward a new amendment. I did not have the opportunity of getting a letter from the Government, alas!—and perhaps I might just ask, the next time when I have an amendment to be considered, could they send me a copy too, please? Then perhaps we could come forward with a joint amendment, having considered what the Government said. I think there was something in what they said, but, having heard it for the first time, I would not want to support the noble Lord's amendment and I would not want to push my own.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must say that the offer of co-operation with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is too tempting to cast lightly aside! If there is real business to be done and if we could combine to put the Government back on course on a matter of this kind, quite apart from other matters, I think that would be courteous to the Government and would give us an opportunity of considering the matter further. My main purpose in raising this matter again was to get on record what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, had said, repeating what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, had courteously sent to me by letter. But we cannot leave the matter where it is without further

163
thought being given to it. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
("(ix) any air gun, air rifle, or air pistol.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very similar amendment to that just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, except that it allows certain birds to be shot by airguns. In view of what I said a moment ago, I do not want to press this at the moment. I will come back to it on Third Reading, but I should like to have the Government's confirmation that they will consider this matter further, following representations from us. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not deal with this in the course of his remarks. My understanding is that Amendments Nos. 27A and 32A, which I gather the noble Earl is taking together, if they were put into the Bill, simply restate the existing law. I may have been misinformed, but my information is that it is illegal to use airguns against game species of birds which have to be shot by shotguns or by other means. It is not legal just to shoot other birds because they are all protected. The only thing you can shoot at the moment with an airgun is a pest species; so these two amendments, as I understand it, restate the existing law but they do so in a clear way and in a place where it ought to be restated. It would be an enormous help to the sort of campaign which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to launch on the public in the near future. I would have thought that the Government would accept these immediately. If not, I hope they will accept them at Third Reading, having thought about them more carefully.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, responds, I hope that if the Government accept these amendments that does not mean that the united exercise involving the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might not take place at a later stage, because I believe we still need to return to the other matters. Like the noble Lord, I was by no means satisfied with the answer given to us on that, but I was entirely satisfied with the course of action which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, proposes to take. Therefore, if the Government are going to accept these, I hope they would be under no misapprehension that all our fears and apprehensions in regard to the other matter were therefore at an end.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as the law stands, it surely is illegal to shoot anything other than pest species with an air rifle: therefore there is no other matter involved.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not know that my answer will be very satisfactory, because, perhaps not for the first time in your Lordships' House, I have to admit that I do not know the answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am not aware that Amendment No. 32A, which is in the
164
names of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Stanley of Alderley is simply a restatement of the law as it exists. If it is, then your Lordships' House will not wish to write it into legislation, because, as your Lordships know, we do not write into legislation for a second time something which is already in legislation once—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Belstead:I was under the impression that your Lordships wished me to reply. That is the answer to one leg of what the position may be. If, on the other hand, this is not a restatement of the law as it stands, it still might be held to be desirable. Before embarking on any long explanation—and there are one or two points which I should have liked to draw to the attention of the House, as to whether or not it would be desirable—I should like very much to go down the road indicated by my noble friend Lord Caithness, which is wholly reasonable. If we could have a discussion between now and Third Reading, so that he and his noble friend can be absolutely certain as to whether or not this is a restatement of the law as it stands, and the exact effect of it, and then be free to come back on Third Reading, that would be the best way to leave the matter for the moment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said on behalf of the Government and the support from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—I almost called him my noble friend—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("tape") and insert ("sound").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 84 which makes identical provision for Clause 11. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked in Committee, in the discussion on Clause 5, whether the term "tape-recording" covered every kind of recording whether or not one was using tape recording or wire recording, and later reminded me of the existence of such wire recording. This amendment, and the identical one which is in similar terms to one suggested by my noble friend Lord Onslow, provides that all sound recordings, including those on round black discs, are covered. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am very grateful. This is, quite definitely, a useful amendment. Without this amendment, there might have been problems and I am delighted to find that the Government have been able to find the right solution.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The owner or occupier of any land who causes or permits any act on such land which is an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a special penalty.").
The noble Lord said: This is another point on which we spent a great deal of time at Committee stage. It is the question of the degree of liability which an owner or occupier of land should have for offences under Clause 5 which are committed on that land. Noble Lords will remember, that in terms of this amendment, we are dealing with offences which involve causing bodily injury to any wild bird by spring trap, gin snare, hook, line, electrical device for killing and so on. There are a number of things which—perhaps I may, as a digression, point them out to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—are already illegal under a number of Acts of Parliament, but which are restated in this Bill to meet the provisions of the EEC directive. That is why it was that there were muted groans when the noble Lord said that it was not the case that we reiterated in Acts of Parliament things which were already contained in Acts of Parliament. Most of this Part of the Bill does that, or a large part of it does.
Returning to the question of the liability of owners and occupiers, we had a long debate on this at Committee. The Government agreed that there was a real point that needed consideration. The amendment which I moved at that stage was felt by, I think, most noble Lords opposite to go too far, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was felt to be more acceptable. The Government then wrote to me on 6th March and said that, although a number of areas of the existing law already covered the question of employer's responsibility, they hoped to include whatever did not seem to be covered by other legislation to meet the general idea conveyed by "causes or permits". They said that counsel had that with them at the moment and they might not have anything concrete by Report. Looking at the Marshalled List very hurriedly this morning, that seemed to be the case. I may have missed something, in which case I apologise to the Government, but I do not think I have.
The abuse which this amendment strikes at is the setting of poisons or pole traps, or other illegal methods of killing birds on land. Noble Lords will know that this happens fairly frequently, highly regrettable and deplorable though it is, and it is felt, from time to time, that actions that are taken by servants or agents are condoned on a very few occasions by the landowner or occupier of the land. Yet if an offence is proved, it is the servant who is taken to court and found guilty of an offence. That does not seem to me—and I think it did not seem to noble Lords on all sides of the House at Committee stage—to be a very reasonable or fair state of affairs.
It was said then that it would be very unfair to place on landowners or occupiers an absolute liability to make them responsible for what went on on their land, even if they had no way of knowing that it was happening. I should have preferred something stronger that would give them the responsibility that employers have under, for example, the Factories Act, but that clearly was not going to be acceptable to your Lordships.
So what we have done in this amendment is to take the Government's words "causes or permits" and this, it seems to me, is very narrow. What the landowner or occupier has to do is cause the offence to be committed by saying, "Go and put up a pole trap" or, "Go and illegally poison birds" or they must permit it, which I take to mean knowing that it is
166
happening and doing nothing about it. I think those are both circumstances which all of us, on all sides of the House, agreed should give rise to liability on the owner or occupier, and not to such a great extent, at any rate, on the servant who is carrying out the boss's instructions.
I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be acceptable. If it is not technically drafted correctly—and I suspect that, as counsel were having some problems, it may not be—I hope that at least there will be an assurance that the Government will have an amendment ready by Third Reading. If not, I hope your Lordships' House will agree to this amendment, which certainly reflects the spirit of our Committee stage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should have liked something stronger and I still do not really understand why we cannot have something stronger. It surely is not too much to ask that an owner or occupier of land should have the duty of instructing his employee about certain things which he is not allowed to do. Many of us, on both sides, know of cases where employers have quite deliberately kept quiet on such matters, knowing what their employees were doing but covertly encouraging it. But we could not have that. We have put this forward again, and I certainly hope that the Government will be able to give us a completely positive response, either by accepting this amendment or by putting forward their own amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. This is really the nod and wink clause. I have certainly come across such cases and I do not approve of them. If you employ people, you must be responsible for their actions. It is possible that this is already covered by the law, but if not I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to this amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I totally support what has been said on this amendment. However, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that if this were to be strengthened as he would like—and I sympathise with his desire to strengthen it—there could be cases where a landowner, a lady or a gentleman, was in older years and not able to take as active an interest in affairs as before. Such people could not take an active interest in the gamekeeping and farming side of their property and might let the shooting to, say, a syndicate, be it British, or foreign or a mixture of both.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I see people nodding. I want it to be on the record that the noble Lord is not talking about the words in the amendment but about a strengthened version. I take it that he agrees with the amendment?
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Yes, my Lords, but I would just like to say, so that we do not get it back again at Third Reading, that a strengthened version might be very unfair to the owner concerned. So far as the amendment goes, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am with him.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I think that the amendment exactly meets the situation. I support the noble Lord.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am in considerable difficulty. At one stage, and quite genuinely, we wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying that we liked the words "causes or permits" and would see what happened. However, they have come back very much on the same point as my noble friend Lord Belstead has spoken about. I am advised that these words would not add anything to Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which provides that any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission by another person of a summary offence shall be guilty of a like offence. Inclusion of the words would not be meaningful for absolute offences which do not involve intention. The offences in the Bill of course all require intention. That is the advice which we have been given and I shall have to ask the noble Lord to consider it.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, when I did not see an amendment on the Marshalled List I had a nasty feeling that the noble Earl was going to say this. It does not seem to me to be good enough, for various reasons. It is worth reminding ourselves, even if we cannot get this through to parliamentary counsel, what kind of legislation it is that we are considering. This is legislation which on the whole does not lead to many prosecutions, though I know that there have been a number under the Protection of Birds Acts. For example, under Clause 4 which we have just passed, and a similar clause applying to animals, I am not aware of a single prosecution ever having been taken.
This is legislation which we pass through Parliament mainly for its educative value. We are telling people about the kinds of attitudes and the kinds of actions which they should adopt towards our wildlife and our countryside. None of us expects or wants to see a large number of people ending up in court, and when they do we are all agreed that we do not want them to be locked up in prison. This is legislation whereby we hope we shall shape attitudes—no more than that.
It seems to me that the fact that something is included in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 is no great help to us when we are looking at wildlife and countryside legislation, at a Bill which consolidates many other Acts of Parliament and which would be greatly strengthened in its effectiveness if these words were included in it. That, it seems to me, is the criterion by which we as legislators should judge their desirability or otherwise. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, will these words make it more effective? I believe that they would make clear to all those who read them what they can or cannot do legally when killing birds. They will see that they will not be allowed to cause or permit these things to be done on their land and that if they do they will be liable to be taken to court. I think it would be a major step forward towards meeting a major abuse which is of great concern to many people. It clearly has support from all sides of the House. It meets exactly the minimum view, as it were, that was put forward in Committee and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, if the existing legislation says only what is said in this amendment then the existing legislation is not working. That is why I support the amendment.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Kimberley, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Maelor, L.

Blease, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boston, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Chelwood, L.

Onslow, E.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Craigton, L.

Peel, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Phillips, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Dulverton, L.

Rochester, L.

Dundee, E.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Seear, B.

Fulton, L.

Segal, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gibson, L.

Stone, L.

Glasgow, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Thurso, V.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wade, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Janner, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Killearn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alport, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Armstrong, L.

Forester, L.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Balerno, L.

Gainford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gormanston, V.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Burton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelmer, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Holderness, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

De Freyne, L.

Inglewood, L.

De La Warr, E.

Kemsley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

169

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Romney, E.

Lyell, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Selborne, E.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Soames, L.

Middleton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Sudeley, L.

Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swinton, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Tryon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vickers, B.

Radnor, E.

Vivian, L.

Reigate, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Renton, L.

Wise, L.

Ridley, V.

Yarborough, E.

Rochdale, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Fisheries Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Third Amendment) Order 1981
7.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment order for which I seek the approval of your Lordships' House will increase the limit of the carrier's liability by air in respect of non-international, that is domestic, carriage by air from 58,000 Special Drawing Rights to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights. The currently equivalent sterling values of these strange amounts are approximately £32,000 and £55,000 respectively.
The increase in domestic carriage limits is consequent upon the CAA's decision on 7th November 1980 to introduce, as from 1st April 1981, an amended standard condition in air transport licences which would require United Kingdom airlines to contract for a limit of not less than 100,000 Special Drawing Rights, or about £55,000 sterling at the current exchange rate. Their decision meant that on or after 1st April the liability limit applying to United Kingdom airlines engaged in international carriage will be 100,000 Special Drawing Rights per passenger. The CAA reached this decision, having given due notice of its intentions in the Official Record and having arranged for a public hearing into the matter. This took place on 22nd October last year and the views of four British airlines were put forward.
The proposal which is before your Lordships tonight was very fully ventilated at this hearing. The airlines pointed to the effect that an increase might have
170
on their financial position but the authority, taking all relevant factors into account—and bearing in mind the interests of the travelling public—decided that the limit should be increased. There is obvious merit in bringing our domestic limits into line with international limits which we set for our own carriers.
The airlines, and other operators, who must in any case have been expecting action on the domestic limits, were informed of our proposal by means of a notice in the Civil Aviation Authority's Official Record. The Department of Trade has also notified the smaller operators through the Air Taxi Operators Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. There has been no adverse reaction to this proposal. Indeed, one would not really expect such a reaction since the increase in the liability limit is clearly in the interests of the air traveller, whom the airlines and other operators are in business to serve.
As I have said, the liability limit currently applying to non-international (that is, domestic) carriage is 58,000 Special Drawing Rights. It is desirable that the limit applying to non-international carriage should not be less than the limit applying to international carriage. Another reason for this change is the fact that the domestic liability limit has remained unchanged—except for changes brought about by currency fluctuation—since 1967 and since that time its real value has been eroded by inflation and would not now, in the Government's view, provide for adequate settlements in all cases. The Government, therefore, propose a non-international carriage liability limit of 100,000 Special Drawing Rights, in line with the liability limit which will apply to United Kingdom airlines in respect of international carriage from 1st April 1981.
Finally, I should like to mention that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered this proposal and the joint committee has not drawn the attention of the House to any particular point. I commend this measure to your Lordships. I am sure that the new limits will be accepted by the air transport operators and that they will be welcomed by their customers, the travelling public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining this draft order; and I am sure all your Lordships will agree that the same maximum limit should apply to domestic carriage as to international carriage, and certainly that that applying to domestic carriage should not be less than that applying to international carriage. I note that the new limit is to be 100,000 SDRs—Special Drawing Rights. I must confess that this term of a Special Drawing Right is a new form of currency to me. Prior to this evening, I was not aware of this particular new currency unit. One wonders why this liability limit could not be expressed in some more common currency, such as an ECU or an EMU—two units of currency of which we have some knowledge, as opposed to this particular unit, the SDR, which I feel that few of your Lordships will know about at all. Further, one wonders why it is necessary for there to be an upper limit at all. One would think that the possibility of individual passengers wishing to claim more, or the relatives of individual passengers wishing to claim more,

171
is something which should not be curtailed. So I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell the House why it is necessary to have an upper limit.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful for the kind comments and indeed the reception which this measure has been accorded by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. So far as his interest in currencies is concerned, I must admit that I have no approximation of the value of either the European Currency Unit nor indeed the European Monetary Unit. I will inquire about these. I suspect probably not from the department on whose behalf I am speaking; nevertheless with the usual courtesy of your Lordships' House I will find out exactly the equivalent values and measures of these two very interesting currency units which the noble Lord has mentioned.
I understand that the question of liability limits, particularly as it pertains to international carriage, is discussed at the round table of international airlines, and therefore we believe that Special Drawing Rights is the best medium for expressing these limits. I understand that Special Drawing Rights consist of a composite figure taken from what is known as a "basket" of 16 currencies through the International Monetary Fund. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him in greater detail than would be possible to go into tonight on the exact amounts and description and makeup of Special Drawing Rights. I am able to tell the noble Lord and your Lordships that, as of yesterday, 9th March 1981, one Special Drawing Right is approximately 55·8p. That is the current value. So with the limit proposed of 100,000 SDRs according to the fluctuations in the pound and the other 15 currencies it would appear to be something in the order of £55,000.
The noble Lord also asked about the upper limit of liability. The régime under which any carrier's liability is limited incorporates certain benefits which we believe would be lost as soon as the principle of limiting liability was abandoned. Under the existing régime of limiting liability the dependants of any unfortunate persons who had lost their lives or had been injured in any air accident do not have to prove negligence. But if dependants did have to prove negligence we believe that compensation cases would become subject to far more frequent and indeed contentious and bitter litigation, which would certainly add greatly to the burden of the dependants and we believe the airlines, and of course ultimately the travelling public. I hope that covers the noble Lord's query on liability.
The winged messengers have produced a partial answer for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the European Monetary Unit and the European Currency Unit. These are European currencies which are not especially suitable for international trade which goes outside Europe, but Special Drawing Rights are accepted internationally. Could I study any points I have missed in regard to the noble Lord's interesting queries. I will certainly let him have a fuller note about those two fascinating currencies at a later date.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very much for his very full reply to my comments. I was particularly interested to know what
172
currencies are included in Special Drawing Rights which are not included in an ECU or an EMU.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if it would be in order for me to reply, I can briefly say that there are 16 currencies in Special Drawing Rights. So far as I am aware, there are nine, I think now 10, currencies within the European Monetary Unit. There would be others—I would have thought Canadian dollars and American dollars—in Special Drawing Rights. If I may consult my advisers, I will give the noble Lord a very full list.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.16 to 7.45 p.m.]

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [H.L.]
Further considered on Report on Clause 5.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 45, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 29, and so I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert ("or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) the use by any authorised person of any semi-automatic shotgun, or of any semi-automatic rifle of a calibre not exceeding.22 inch rimfire, whether or not as defined in section 26, for the purpose of killing or taking any bird included in Part II of Schedule 2.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 32. I come back again to the question of semi-automatic weapons with which we dealt in Committee. We need say no more about automatic weapons because they are prohibited anyway under the Firearms Act 1968. I still feel that their inclusion in the Bill is superfluous, but it does no harm.
The present amendment is confined to semi-automatic weapons and its effect would be to allow the use of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles of.22 calibre, without restriction as to magazine capacity, against birds included in Part II of Schedule 2—in other words, what we refer to as "pest species". These species cannot be said to be endangered and, in fact, they can be a serious menace to crops and to other animal and bird life. It seems to me that any reasonable and humane method of controlling them should be permitted. I cannot see why it should be thought necessary to inhibit the owner or the occupier of land by telling him what methods he may or may not use for the control of vermin on his land and for safeguarding his crops.
Unlike some other countries which have no restriction on shooting rights, no one in this country can gain access to any land other than the foreshore even

173
for shooting pests without the consent of the owner or the occupier. The owner should be given credit for enough sense of responsibility to use his own judgment on the best method of controlling pests and I am sure that this ought to be a sufficient safeguard.
The.22 semi-automatic rifle, with which I should like to deal in particular, is a very well proved and very effective weapon for the control of pests. There must be many thousands already in use throughout the country and there is no evidence that I know of that their use constitutes a menace to any species. It is quite unreasonable to say that they should not be used against any bird if they have a magazine capacity of more than two cartridges, while as the Bill stands they may be so used against, for example, rabbits; and slide action and bolt action rifles are subject to no such restriction whatever their magazine capacity.
This provision in the Bill has caused great concern among interested bodies—interested in shooting and in conservation. The Game Conservancy, for example, has expressed itself as follows:
"Banning semi-automatic weapons, shotguns and.22 rifles would prove a hardship to many owners of such weapons often used for pest destruction. There is no evidence to show that their use has any adverse effect on conservation".
The Government appear to consider themselves bound by the EEC directive of 2nd April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. That is very laudable in theory, but the question that I should like to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench is as follows: Does our membership of the EEC commit the United Kingdom to a slavish acceptance of all Community legislation, especially when—as in this case—that legislation is founded on false premises and takes no account of different circumstances obtaining in different member countries? The EEC directive appears to assume that we in this country indulge in those deplorable forms of wholesale and indiscriminate shooting that are commonly heard of on the Continent. As noble Lords will know, that kind of thing just does not happen in this country.
Article 8 of the EEC directive says that:
"member states shall prohibit all methods for the large-scale and non-selective capture or killing of birds or causing the local disappearance of a species".
In the category of weapons capable of such large-scale and non-selective killing, it specifically includes semiautomatic weapons. With the greatest respect, I submit that this is absolute nonsense. It is based on a complete misconception of the nature of semi-automatic weapons and what it is possible to do with them. With semi-automatic weapons only one shot can be fired for each pull of the trigger and every shot must be aimed or you will hit nothing. So it cannot be said to be capable of large-scale or non-selective killing.
Apart from automatic weapons, the only weapon to which that description could possibly be applied is the punt gun and there is no prohibition against that in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, tried to reassure us in Committee by saying that the Secretary of State has power to grant a general licence under Section 15 to allow the use of semi-automatic weapons, irrespective of magazine capacity, against pest species. However, this does not mean that he will do so and even if he does, your Lordships will appreciate that
174
such a licence could be revoked by a future Government just as easily as it can be made.
It is for this reason that I move this amendment in this place in the Bill; in order to embody a specific exemption for these weapons for the control of pests. The Government appear to accord to EEC legislation the sanctity normally reserved for holy writ, but a bad law is a bad law no matter whence it originates, and the Government should recognise this. This EEC directive does no credit to those responsible for drafting it and we do ourselves no credit by blind acceptance of it.
I wonder whether my noble friend can help us by giving certain assurances: first, that the Government will, in fact, give a general licence for the unrestricted use of semi-automatic weapons against pest species or, alternatively, consider making an order under Section 5(2), which would be a little more binding and would be subject to an Affirmative Resolution? Secondly, will the Government use their best endeavours to procure amendment to the EEC law so that it is in a more acceptable form?
If, as I hope, they accept in principle that the EEC directive is defective and wholly misconceived, I would submit to your Lordships that the first step towards getting that law changed is to decline to adopt it in our own legislation. Article 9 of the directive entitles any member state to derogate from the provisions of Article 8, among others, for such reasons as the prevention of serious damage to crops, and so on. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a perfectly legitimate reason for allowing the unrestricted use of semi-automatic weapons in these circumstances, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, though I appreciate the reasons behind Lord Swansea's amendment, I am not satisfied that to provide in the Bill for an exception of this nature is the best way of proceeding for three reasons. First, this Bill, like the Protection of Birds Act 1954, is likely to be in force for a considerable period of time and we do not think that to build in this inflexibility is desirable. Secondly, we do not know how the European Community directive on birds will develop over the years; and, thirdly, we also do not know, though no difficulties are anticipated, the reaction to our allowing use of these weapons against pests. While we are satisfied that a statutory exception would not be contrary to the directive as presently drafted, it might create unnecessary difficulties for us in Europe. Here I must say to my noble friend that we are a member of the European Community; we join in the debates on their directives, and we are, of course, party to this directive. With the greatest respect, I think that we should make sure that this directive works.
We believe that the way to authorise use of these weapons—subject, of course, to the statutory consultatation procedures—is by licensing under the provisions of Clause 15, which I believe I mentioned during the Committee stage. As I also said in Committee, this would be by general licence to authorise persons and very much in the sense of this amendment. We see derogation going in this way. I do not particularly want to go on about the drafting of the amendment,

175
but in this particular case we would also have one or two points, because bearing in mind all that I have said to my noble friend, I very much hope that he will not feel that he must press his amendment.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, in spite of what the noble Lord the Minister said, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in his amendment. It is a serious matter, or reasonably so, because, although I hate to give personal examples, having had a semiautomatic.22 for about the last five years, I wonder how I ever dealt with vermin before. It is a very effective weapon and as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has pointed out, it is not in any way an indiscriminatory weapon. There is also—and I hope that this will commend itself to all parts of the House—a humane element here, in that it is quite frequent that no matter how good a shot someone is, creatures are from time to time wounded. With a semi-automatic rifle it is possible to fire a second shot very quickly indeed and thereby put the creature out of its agony—it can be fired almost in under a second. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think again about this.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, with my Chief Whip sitting in front of me I promise that I shall not go on for more than half a minute. I should like it to be on the record that I think the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swansea is very sensible. But in the light of what my noble friend Lord Avon has said, perhaps we ought to leave it to the Government to do this. However, I think that it would be a mistake for the Government not to realise that this House is in total support of what my noble friend said.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for what he has said. I do not quite understand why he should be so worried about what the effect on other countries might be if we choose to derogate from the provisions of the directive, because as regards the destruction of vermin and of species which cannot be said to be endangered, we should not be afraid to go our own way. After all, as I have said, the same considerations do not apply in all member countries. We must take account of that. Of course, we are a party to EEC legislation, but that is all the more reason why we should ensure that such EEC legislation is properly framed and is founded on sound principles. If we had the courage of our convictions and showed our own attitude towards this matter, it might give a gentle nudge to the EEC to take a look at this legislation of theirs again.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to press the amendment—and as he has not withdrawn it I assume that he is—may I make it clear that I had not thought that he would have done so, and far from what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, said being the case, there is certainly not unanimous support for the amendment. We would see it as a catastrophe if the House passed an amendment which was in direct breach of the EEC directive. It clearly would not be acceptable to the Government. It would make a nonsense of the Bill, and the basis on which all the provisions have been put in the Bill.
176
It is unfortunate that many things are not different in the directive. There are a great many things I should have liked to see a great deal clearer. It might have simplified our debates on Clause 27 if the directive had been more explicit about what we should do to safeguard habitats, but it does not. If this is a mistake in the noble Lord's view, it is a mistake, but I really think it would be an act of serious irresponsibility if the House considered passing an amendment which would place Her Majesty's Government in direct and clear breach of the directive. I would urge noble Lords not to press the amendment if that is the effect of it, and the noble Earl has said that it would be.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, the noble Lord has put me in a slightly difficult position. Article 9 of the directive empowers a member state to derogate from any of the provisions of the directive for certain good and sufficient reasons. I would submit to your Lordships that the control of pests and the protection of crops is a legitimate reason for accepting this amendment.
8.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 101.

CONTENTS

Burton, L.

Monson, L.

Chorley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Gibson, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Glasgow, E.

Radnor, E.

Janner, L.

Renton, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Tryon, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Yarborough, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Ardwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Avon, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bacon, B.

Forester, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gainford, L.

Banks, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Birk, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blease, L.

Boardman, L.

Hale, L.

Bolton, L.

Hampton, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Holderness, L.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Chelmer, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Craigton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kemsley, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Dulverton, L.

Loudoun, C.

177

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seear, B.

Lyell, L.

Selborne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

McNair, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Maelor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mansfield, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stone, L.

Melchett, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Middleton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Swinton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

Noel-Baker, L.

Ullswater, V.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Reigate, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wise, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 32A not moved.]
8.10 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 32B:
Page 7, line 31, at end insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will with permission also speak to Amendments Nos. 32C, 32D and 33A, which is the principal one; 34C, 34D and 34E, which make identical provision for Clause 6(2); 73A, 73C, 73D and 73E, which make provision in Clause 9; and 92A, 92C, 92D and 92E, which make provision in Clause 12.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, No. 34B, to add the words "invite offers" in Committee set us to look again at advertising. We concluded that it should be subject to exactly the same restrictions as on sale, and this amendment achieves that. It covers the three types of advertising, where a person is willing to buy something, that he has something for sale and that he is prepared to obtain something. I do not propose to speak at length to this series of amendments, which I hope will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this series of amendments, which go right through the Bill and which, as he said, meet a point I raised in Committee. I had tabled again the amendments I had down in Committee, but of course I shall not need to move those now, and that will save us a lot of time. I appreciate that this series of amendments has involved a great deal of work by officials and parliamentary counsel, because this has not been an easy amendment to make, and I wish at the same time to express thanks to all the others who have done much work between Committee and now behind the scenes. We are very grateful to them for assisting to meet the points that were made and I am glad to take this opportunity of saying so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved the following amendments:
Page 7, line 34, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)")
at end insert ("or
178
(b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("(including a blown egg) of a wild bird") and insert ("of a wild bird or any part of such an egg").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, moved on behalf of my noble friend Lord Milverton, who could not be here at the time, an amendment to include parts of eggs. The Government have accepted the suggestion and this amendment is the result. In speaking to Amendment No. 2, my noble friend Lord Avon said a blown egg was part of an egg and there was no need for the term to be included. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, which I moved in Committee on his behalf.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("other than a taxidermist who is") and insert ("who is not").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 7, line 40, after ("State") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34B not moved.]
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved the following amendments:
Page 7, line 43, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
at end insert ("or
(b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").
The noble Lord said: These are consequential, my Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 5, after ("competition") insert ("or in any premises in which a competition is being held").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Chelwood suggested that the showing of caged birds non-competitively should be prohibited. This amendment seeks to meet that point. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 5, after ("competition") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission

179
I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 37. These seek to amend Clause 6(3) which as presently drafted restricts the competitive showing of birds to captive bred ringed specimens listed in Schedule 3 Part 1. It provides for similar controls on the competitive showing of hybrids and mules. The former are the offspring of crosses between British birds and the latter offspring of crosses between a canary and a British bird. Competitive showing of all these birds will be permitted only if the parents, or in the case of a mule the non-canary parent, was of a specimen of a species listed in Schedule 3, Part 1; that is, those species assessed to have a self-sustaining captive population.
The amendment is in line with our obligations under the birds directive to have strict controls on the keeping of British birds, reduces temptation to take birds illegally from the wild, and accords with the other avicultural provisions in the Bill which are designed to place aviculture on a new footing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 6, after ("Schedule 3") insert ("or
(b) any live bird one of whose parents was such a wild bird").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 8, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") in lint 9 and insert—
("(a) a bird included in Schedule 1 or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird; or
(b) an egg of such a bird or any part of such an egg").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the amendments designed to include parts and derivatives of birds and their eggs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 13, after ("ringed") insert ("or marked").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we should have spoken to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 34, and I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 45, which are consequential. During discussion of Clause 6 in Committee my noble friend Lord Renton said that it could be confusing to talk of registering a taxidermist, as it could lead to a challenge to registration on the grounds that the Secretary of State has registered a person who cannot be described as a taxidermist. The provision is intended to avoid a mass of licensing transactions by imposing conditions instead to ensure that registrants keep records which will allow checks on the legal possession of birds. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to say how
180
much we on this side of the House welcome all the amendments that have been made to Clause 6 since Amendment No. 33A, which was the last amendment on which I spoke. I hope that it goes without saying that we are extremely grateful to the Government for the action that they have taken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 36, after ("birds") insert ("or other animals").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44, 48 and 49. The amendments make identical provision in Clause 7. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, suggested that Clauses 6(8) and 7(3) should be amended to refer to birds and other animals rather than simply birds. The Government accepted the logic of those amendments, and these amendments are the result. My noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt asked in Committee about the appropriateness of those provisions to taxidermists. We have previously thought about this point and considered that as most offences which could lead to the removal or debarment from the register involved live birds, it was reasonable to extend the provision to cover all ill-treatment of them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("the ill-treatment of birds") and insert ("their ill-treatment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("taxidermist") and insert ("person")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Registration etc. of certain captive wild birds]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 8, after ("which") insert ("is fully grown and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 7(1) makes a person liable to a special penalty if he
"keeps or has in his possession or under his control any bird included in Schedule 4 which has not been registered and ringed in accordance with regulations …".
This registration and ringing takes place some time after the bird has been hatched, and for the period until it is registered it cannot of course be ringed, but at present it would still be an offence to have the hatched

181
bird in one's possession or control when it has not been registered or ringed. The purpose of my amendment is to insert the words "is fully grown and" after the word "which", so that it would not be an offence to have a bird not fully grown that had not yet been registered and ringed. This seems to me to be a necessary amendment, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has suggested that it should not be an offence to have in possession a young bird that has not been registered and ringed. The Government cannot accept this, since it would create a loophole for the unscrupulous and would undermine the provision. We accept that persons will have in their possession birds that have not been registered and ringed because, for example, they have only recently been hatched. Suitable provision for this situation, probably in the form of a reporting duty, will be made in regulations to ensure that it is possible to breed in captivity while complying with the law. I hope that in light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment—
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he confirm that someone who keeps birds in captivity and who has young birds that hatch will not be committing an offence during the period between hatching and registration? The sole purpose of my amendment is to ensure that that is the case.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I hope that that was more or less the tenor of my reply. That is exactly what we should be aiming to do, probably in some regulation.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49:
Page 9, line 9, after ("ringed") insert ("or marked")
Page 9, line 27, after ("birds") insert ("or other animals")
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("the ill-treatment of birds") and insert ("their ill-treatment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 39. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Protection of captive birds]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("whether by land, air or water") and insert ("by whatever means").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Renton suggested that the words
"whether by land, air or water"
were unnecessary. However, I am advised that some form of words is necessary, hence the amendment which improves—as I hope my noble friend will agree—the current draft. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree, and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 10, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the discussion in Committee on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to restrict the period of time in which a bird can be kept in a small cage, the Government said that they would look again at the matter. We asked for the advice of the advisory committee, which recommended that it was no longer appropriate or necessary to confine for the purposes of any exhibition a bird in a small cage, but that it would be appropriate to allow a period of grace of five years, as the cost of acquiring new larger cages would not be insubstantial and many bird keepers—and I would remind the House that this clause applies to all birds, not just British species—in particular pensioners, could find it difficult to raise the necessary money. The Government accept that advice. We concluded that the best way to implement the advice was to delete the exception, which the amendment does, and to issue a licence retaining the exception for a period of five years. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 20, after ("undergoing") insert ("examination or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 53. In Committee my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery moved an amendment which would extend the exception for birds being kept in small cages to any person, not necessarily a veterinary practitioner or surgeon, who might wish to examine or treat an injured bird. We undertook to look into the redrafting of the sentence in the Bill both to meet the point and to change the misprint of "probationer" to "practitioner". This amendment is the result of the reconsideration.
We have included the word "examination", and exchanged "practitioner" for "probationer", but I regret that we have concluded that we should not leave out the insistence that the treatment be undertaken by a veterinarian. First, I am advised that generally the only treatment which demands an enclosed cage is the mending of a broken wing, and this is a treatment which should be undertaken by a veterinarian. Secondly, we are concerned that the rephrasing of the provision as advocated by my noble friend would create loopholes. For those reasons I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 21, leave out ("probationer") and insert ("practitioner").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Birds which are protected by special penalties]:
8.32 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 46, leave out line 37 and insert—

("Harrier, Marsh

Circus aeruginosus

Harrier, Montagu's

Circus pygargus

Harrier, Pallid

Circus macrourus").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that there is probably a feeling that perhaps I am being rather extreme in this amendment, but there is a very real problem here. Hen harriers should be in the same category as the more numerous birds of prey, such as the common buzzard. My amendment therefore seeks to remove the hen harriers from Schedule 1 while leaving the other harriers on the list. My concern here is that a gamekeeper protecting his charges may render himself liable, and indeed is likely to render himself liable, to a £1,000 fine if the Government amendments to Clause 20 are carried; and, in view of the amendment which was carried earlier this evening, possibly his employer as well. This seems to me to be very unfair, that someone protecting his charges should be subject to the same penalty as someone who, say, steals an ostrich egg. It seems to me quite inequitable.
It is not as if the hen harrier is any longer a rare bird. Various figures were quoted at Committee stage, but these can be no more than inspired guesses. In 1940 the hen harrier was rare, but it has increased enormously and spread very fast indeed. In fact, there was one estate in the east of Scotland which showed that last year they had no less than 20 pair nesting on the one estate.
As I see it, the position is that a keeper could go up on to his hill the day before his big day's shooting and see all the grouse getting up and swirling away down over the boundary, and then he hears of a harrier sweeping his ground. Your Lordships can imagine what the feelings of this man would be. There is a whole day's shooting; he has all his beaters and everyone else organised; the guns have perhaps paid a lot of money to go out; and the birds are all being driven off his ground. If your Lordships put yourselves in his shoes, I wonder what your Lordships would do. I have no doubt what I would do. But you would probably render yourself liable to a £1,000 fine, because you could well be watched by someone who would then go and pick up the bird and take it to the police, and a prosecution would follow. You would then go before the magistrate or the sheriff, as the case may be, and he probably does not know the difference between a robin and a wren. He would say: "This is a bird listed in Schedule 1; it is not even just an ordinary protected bird. It must therefore be rather a unique bird, and this man is liable to one of the maximum penalties."
Only last week when I was walking with my keeper I saw one of our very few remaining grouse being attacked by a harrier. Luckily it missed, but your Lordships can imagine what my keeper was feeling like, and he took some restraining. It is said that these harriers, among the other predators, take the weakest bird. This is not the case with the harrier. It usually takes the strongest bird in the covey because that is the one which has its head up. So this is a fallacy which we get put to us.
As regards numbers, I think I must say that there are probably more harriers than partridges in most of Scotland. Certainly in the north of Scotland, in our
184
part of the world, there are more harriers than partridges. If you are going to put harriers in the Schedule then you ought to put partridges in, too. We are told that we may be able to get a licence. I do not think this is really very relevant. It may be very difficult to get a licence for a Schedule 1 bird. The relevant section which causes concern is Clause 4(3)(c), as this clause removes any let-out which the keeper might have as a defence, as it specifically includes Schedule 1 birds. By putting this bird in Schedule 1, I think you are degrading Schedule 1, apart from causing considerable unfairness to those who are trying to look after their charges. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I must say that I was a little concerned at what seemed to me to be the implications of some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, was saying. I do not know whether it in fact amounted to a nod and a wink to go back to a previous discussion, but it seemed to me to come very close to it. For example, instead of talking about the illegal killing of a specially protected bird, he talked in terms of somebody protecting their charges. What he meant was somebody committing a serious criminal offence by killing a bird listed in Schedule 1, and I think it would have been better if he had said so.
He said that a sheriff whom he or his keeper or somebody else, came up against if they did kill a hen harrier would think that this was a rather unique bird; and, indeed, if the sheriff did think that he would be right. The noble Lord threw some doubts on figures which were quoted at the Committee stage without quoting any of his own. But my information—this is based on scientific surveys rather than personal observation, I admit, but I think myself it is probably all the stronger, rather than weaker, for that—is that there are about 500 to 700 pairs nesting in the United Kingdom at the moment. A few years ago there were about 450-plus pairs in Great Bitain, so there has been a small increase; and there is a full survey planned for this year.
There is also, of course, a very important bit of research going on in relation to the ecology by the Unit of Grouse and Moorland Ecology, where they will be looking at the extent and seriousness of predations by hen harriers on grouse. At the moment, my understanding is that the diet of hen harriers mainly consists of mammals, particularly voles, and small birds, but undoubtedly they do take some game birds, including grouse. I would not deny that; but the extent of the predation and the seriousness of it I certainly do not know myself. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, cannot be certain, either, and that it would be wise to await the results of this research before either of us is too dogmatic.
My Lords, the hen harrier is on one of the EEC directives—one of only 74 species, that is. It is also on the Council of Europe Convention as one of the rarest highly-protected birds throughout Europe. It is certainly, by its breeding status alone in this country, justified special protection. It would be appalling if it were taken off Schedule 1. There is absolutely no scientific justification for its removal from Schedule 1 at all; and I hope that nothing the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said could be taken as any encouragement to

185
anyone to break the law, because it certainly should not be.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, without supporting the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I think it should be said that the hen harrier is rapidly multiplying all over the north of Scotland. Of this there can be no doubt. I have seen as many as five hen harriers in the air at one glance at the same time; and it is impossible for me to drive to Wick without seeing a couple of pairs on the way there and back. It is getting to be very much more numerous in the far north, in Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney, than ever it was before, and this is a trend which is continuing.
I am not saying that we should take it off the list for that reason, but, likewise, I do not think we should make exaggerated claims for its rarity. I think that the work that is going on examining its effect on grousemoors is very important, and I shall watch this work with extreme interest. But I do not think we should make emotive statements one way or the other.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I should like to back up the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I can speak with the same sort of experience that he has had of Caithness both as to Western Inverness-shire and as to Central Inverness-shire. The hen harrier is spreading in numbers and in geographical distribution. I am not arguing one way or the other whether or not it should be kept on Schedule 1, but you cannot pretend that in Scotland today the hen harrier is a rarity. Whatever the scientific friends of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may say, or whatever investigations they are carrying out, those of us who walk the hills to any extent know from personal observation that they do in fact prey very largely on grouse.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I can speak for the south of Scotland and the Clyde coast where the hen harrier is becoming a menace. I agree with what has been said already.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on the capercaillie, I am sorry to have to oppose him on the hen harrier. It may be that this species is coming back in Scotland and is becoming more common, certainly commoner than any of the other species; but this is only because it has been protected and has been able to build up its numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, referred to licensing in such cases as being irrelevant. I do not know why. If hen harriers are doing damage to property of any sort, then this is the kind of case under which a licence should be applied for and granted and the threat easily removed. I would say that the amendment appears to be faulty in that it refers to the pallid harrier and includes that in the list; but that has only put in three appearances in these islands since records have been kept and it has never bred in Britain. It does not appear to be appropriate for Schedule 1. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the whole problem of protecting birds of prey is difficult.
186
If you get too many, they do the kind of damage which is not acceptable. This is what licences are for. If people who are rearing grouse in Scotland are suffering unduly from hen harriers then they have a good solution, which is to get a licence and shoot one or two—but not without a licence.
Baroness David: My Lords, surely things can be taken on and off the schedules. This can be done if things become a menace or are excessively rare.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, may we be given guidance on the licensing? Do we need licences for each particular species or one or several at a time or what?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have a great many hen harriers on my estate, but very few grouse. We have always had very few grouse. Whatever the hen harriers are eating, they are not eating grouse. If there is a famous grouse moor where the hen harriers are doing damage—and I do not think it will be great damage—then it is up to the Secretary of State to allow a few hen harriers to be shot there; but not over the whole country.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has summed up the feeling of the House. The first schedule is mainly a list of birds with a small breeding population, and I am advised by the NCC that the hen harrier is such a bird. The population represents only a small fraction of its numbers in the last century. Research has shown that the reason for its decline and for its failure to regain lost ground is due almost entirely to persecution by man. This species has had a considerable amount of work carried out on it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, there is further research going on at the present time.
The Government's knowledge of the species is sufficiently good for the Government to see no reason not to accept advice from both the Advisory Committee for Scotland and for England and Wales that it should be in Schedule 1 and specially protected. The results of the research will be taken into account and I will make a point of bringing the points made in this discussion to the attention of the NCC. The licence provisions in Clause 15 would enable a licence to be issued for the killing or taking of this species where the need for this can be demonstrated. There are many kinds of licences. It would normally be one for a small area of Scotland, to one authorised person, for a set time. We shall be talking more about licences later. In the light of this, if my noble friend is assured that he will not be overrun by the hen harrier perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I was accused of not having figures, but I quoted the fact that there were no fewer than 20 pairs nesting in one estate, which is more than the figures produced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. My noble friend Lord Margadale mentioned this on Second Reading and several noble Lords this evening have mentioned the situation. These birds are expanding quickly in number. How the figures are compiled, I am not sure. Nobody has had permission

187
to count hen harriers on my ground. Whether it has been done without permission I do not know, but no one has asked for permission.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, nobody from the RSPB would count anything on anybody's estate without their permission.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. In that case, I suspect that no count has been done on a large chunk of Scotland and, therefore, the remarks made by my noble friend on the Front Bench saying that the hen harriers had failed to regain lost ground showed that there were no statistics to prove this to be the case. This is what worries me. Then we would have our employees landed with the same penalty as someone who takes osprey eggs. In view of the assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench, one must withdraw the amendment; but it is a worrying case, and I hope he will look at it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:
Page 47, leave out line 15 and insert—

("Scaup

Aythya marila")

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

("Serin

Serinus serinus").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 68 and 69. These amendments do two things. In the first place, they put the scaup into the Bill, as I undertook at the Committee stage. Secondly, they put the serin—serinus serinus—in the right alphabetical order. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 47, line 19, at end insert—

("Sparrowhawk

Accipiter nisus").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a species which we spent some time on in Committee but we did not have an amendment on it. I raised it on Schedule 1 stand part. Having considered what was said in that debate, and having received further representations from interested people, I thought it was worth while coming back to it at this stage in the Bill. This is a question of putting something on to Schedule 1 rather than taking it off. May I say how much we welcome the addition of the scaup.
I have had representations from the Scottish Wildlife Trust that in Scotland the sparrowhawk is uncommon and quite rare in many parts of Scotland where its presence could be expected. I said in Committee that in my own experience in East Anglia, the sparrowhawk was still being persecuted illegally—because it is at the moment on Schedule 1 and the Bill would take it off—and its population in much of Southern England is very sparse. I have received further information which confirms that. In Hertfordshire, the species was seen only occasionally in the early 1960s and only nine nests were known in 1978. In Derbyshire, there was only one known nest in 1966–67 followed by a small increase
188
up to 1976. In South-West Scotland—and this supports what Scottish Wildlife Trust say—there is a decline in the percentage of traditional territories occupied from 73 per cent. in 1971 to 55 per cent. in 1975.
This article on the sparrowhawk, Recent Trends in Sparrowhawk Numbers in Britain, concludes by saying:
"The Sparrowhawk has remained a protected species throughout the period covered by this paper, but traditionally it has been a target for gamekeepers. A more tolerant attitude towards raptors by some gamekeepers, and less widespread keepering, may also have contributed to the Sparrowhawk's partial recovery. There is still some illegal shooting and trapping, however, as well as usage of poisoned baits".
That is borne out by a study done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the illegal use of poisons which caused the Government and the Minister of State, Mr. Monro, some concern which was expressed in a debate in the other place last year.
I accept that there has been some increase in the numbers of sparrowhawks and the position in Schedule 1 has undoubtedly helped, along with other factors mentioned in that article. It is incontrovertible that, first, there is still considerable illegal persecution of the sparrowhawk; and, secondly, that the numbers are still extremely low in a number of areas, particularly in England, where it would be expected to have a reasonable number of breeding pairs. For those two reasons, it would be wrong to remove it from Schedule 1. I hope that the House will accept this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, there was some accusation about poisoning the birds. I believe these birds are not basically carrion eaters. Therefore, if they are doing fresh kills I am not sure how these wild accusations are made. Furthermore, though I thought it was degrading Schedule 1 to keep the hen harrier on it, this bird is rapidly regaining its numbers after the awful hammering it had through use of the Dieldrin seed-dressing which poisoned the pigeons and which went on through the sparrowhawk, and it is now rapidly recovering. To put this bird on Schedule 1 would degrade the schedule.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I back up my noble friend? Speaking for my own county of Cambridgeshire, a very skilled and active bird watcher there has seen only one sparrowhawk in the course of the past two years.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am not going to argue with the experts on figures. According to my brief, the bird population is estimated at about 20,000 and is still increasing. Maybe they are all up in one part of Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, the sparrowhawk was once listed on Schedule 2 of the Protection of Birds Act and was put on Schedule 1 following the catastrophic decline in the late 'fifties and early 'sixties due mainly to the organic chlorides. We have proposed it for removal from the specially protected list on the advice of the advisory committees. This is past history because at the Committee stage we took it up again. The whole matter was referred back to the advisory committees and the NCC following Lord Melchett's suggestion that the species should be retained on Schedule 1 because it was still persecuted in some areas and rare in others.

189
The committees and the NCC advised that these factors had been given full weight in their early considerations and confirm their previous advice. We must accept that advice. It clearly devalues a schedule to retain on it a species no longer assessed as needing its protection, and it is a good thing if a species can be removed from the schedule—it shows willing. Knowing the noble Lord's interest, I am sure that he is fully aware that the NCC will keep this very much in mind, and should there be any sharp decline again they will move swiftly either to put it back on the schedule or to make the necessary licence.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should feel happier if the Government had accepted all the advice that they had been given by the advisory committees rather than just some of it when it happened to suit their views. Nevertheless, even though they are not prepared to accept all the advice, I shall do so. I do so with some reluctance. This bird will continue to be illegally killed. Of course, it will still be illegal to kill it. That point I stress most strongly. There was some reporting of our Committee stage which suggested that removal of the sparrowhawk from Schedule 1 would in some way leave it open for people to kill it. That is not the case. It remains a protected bird. I hope that everyone in your Lordships' House and all those who read the debate will make every effort to make that point clear. Removal from Schedule 1 does not mean that it is no longer protected. It certainly is.
I shall happily arrange for the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to be sent a copy of the RSPB's report on illegal poisoning. He will see details of cases with full evidence involving a number of birds of prey. I have a feeling that the advisory committees were rather looking for something to take off Schedule 1 just to prove that the system was working. The sparrow-hawk has fallen victim to that process. I am sorry about that. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.55 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 47, leave out line 47.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 47, line 47, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I will speak also to Amendment Nos. 62, 67, 70, 76, 92, 94 and 112. These amendments are designed to meet the point that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook made during the Committee stage, that the common names of various animals and plants may be ambiguous or not widely known or accepted and that the scientific name should take precedence. Each schedule is fairly short and I think it would be convenient for most users of the Bill if the various species continue to be listed alphabetically according to their common names
190
but the amendments remove any possibility of doubt that it is the scientific name which should prevail in the event of a dispute or proceedings. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it goes without saying that this amendment has my hearty support. It is essential to be absolutely precise about the Latin spelling. For instance, Amendment No. 62A is relevant to draw to your Lordships' attention. I still disagree with the Government on the fact that this unnatural ordering of species is not convenient for biologists and is certainly not convenient for anyone in the international field who is trying to keep abreast of British legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Birds which may be killed or taken]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 48, leave out line 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved these three amendments during Committee. There was widespread agreement on both sides that they made sense and there was no opposition. The noble Earl in replying to the discussion—and it was quite a long one—said that he would consider these questions further and get the advice of the advisory committees. If may summarise very briefly indeed what I said on that occasion to remind noble Lords, all species of shore-waders (of which there are several dozens of course) are protected throughout the year apart from five: the golden plover and the common snipe—which are commonly shot—and the three species which I wish to protect by removing them from Part I of Schedule 2. All three of these birds winter in this country in very considerable numbers.
On pure conservation grounds I admit frankly that there is not a good case for protection. But there are other sound and strong reasons I suggest none the less for removing these three species from Part I of Schedule 2. First of all, they are very easily confused with other species of shorewaders. Who could put their hand on their heart and say that in half light or even good light they are sure of the difference overhead between a curlew, a whimbrel and a bar tailed godwit? I doubt whether we could. Similarly, the redshank is all too easy to confuse with other shorewaders. That means, of course, that protected birds, some of them often rare, get shot by mistake.
Secondly, there is unnecessary disturbance of feeding and roosting sites, and protected and rare birds are disturbed when shore birds are shot unnecessarily. Thirdly avery large part indeed of the European wintering population of all three species winter in this country: as much as half the godwits, a third of the redshanks and I believe one-sixth of the curlews. It seems to me therefore it is beholden on us to set a good example in this respect.
All shorewaders are already protected in some European Community countries—notably Germany, Holland and Belgium—and they are all protected throughout the year across the North American Continent. That is an example that I hope we shall follow by accepting these amendments. I do not know

191
what views the advisory committees expressed on these three birds. I believe it was more favourable than to the contrary; but I can tell noble Lords, as I think it will be of interest, what the view of the NCC is. Their view is that, while the population levels of these three species have not been put at risk by the present regulated shooting, none the less they would welcome the complete protection if that found acceptance with other interested parties. I hope and believe that it will, and I think that there is an unanswerable case on ethical and commonsense grounds for accepting these amendments. I very much hope that that is what I shall hear from my noble friend.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to say—as strongly as I possibly can—that I simply cannot understand why anyone should want, let alone be permitted, to go out and shoot shorewaders. They cannot be eaten, and the only reason is simply to enjoy the slaughter of birds, and whether they are common or not has nothing to do with it. Many of the most common birds, apart from the pest species, are already protected despite their commonness, and I think that anyone who wants to go out and shoot curlew, godwit or redshank is giving in to his basest instincts. I should like to see the coot removed from the list as well. I do not think that anybody wants to eat coot and if they do any harm they should be in the pest species and not in this section. Therefore, having considered these amendments, I very much hope that the Government will agree to them. If they do not, I would invite noble Lords to press the amendments to a division.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am very happy to support my noble friend who has just spoken and the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. We have these three species which are of international importance. We have 13 estuaries which are described as sites of international importance for the curlew. That means they hold 1 per cent. or more of the European wintering population, so that means 13 per cent. altogether. For the bar-tailed godwit we have about 9 per cent. of the entire European and North African winter population; and similarly with the redshank. It is almost like the catapult story. There is no case for shooting very beautiful birds which we have the privilege of wintering, except that they might be eaten, and they are not. I feel very strongly that this is absolutely clear case where they should be put straight on to the protected list.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, may I support this amendment very shortly because these birds are very beautiful and they do no damage at all. The cry of the curlew, especially over lonely moors, is absolutely beautiful and I think it is essential that they should be protected. The noble Lord, Lord, Kilbracken, said that you could not eat them, but in fact I have eaten a curlew when I was very young. Provided it has not been feeding on the shore but inland, it is not too bad. But, of course, that is no excuse for shooting it. But all birds can be eaten—even cormorants can be extremely good for making hare soup! The Red Army, in the early days following the revolution, used to employ a lot of people shooting
192
seagulls to help to feed the Red Army; so that the noble Lord is not right in saying that you cannot eat them. You can eat any birds. However, I do heartily support this amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I do not feel very strongly on this, but I wonder whether anyone can give us some idea of the magnitude of the problem. I would have thought that the number of these birds which are shot is very small. I may be quite wrong about this, but nobody has given us any facts, and if it is only a small number why should we bother about it?
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I would not like to argue whether it is a big number or a small number: I totally support these amendments. I did not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, when he said that the coot could never be a nuisance. I do know of certain instances where they have been.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, the promise made by the Government in Committee to refer this matter back to the advisory committee in the light of arguments put forward by your Lordships has been carried out. Both the England and the Scotland sub-committees have confirmed that there is no conservation case for removing any of these birds from the quarry list. A majority of the England Committee recommended the removal of the species on ethical and sentimental grounds. They felt that public opinion on this matter had moved on since the passage of the 1954 Act and there was a general feeling that those who still hunted these species should now fall into line with the remainder and that there was a good case for protection to be given. The opposite view was equally strongly held; namely, that it was quite a legitimate sporting activity to hunt the species. The Scotland Committee took the view, notwithstanding these arguments, that the species should remain on the quarry list; but again there were dissenters.
The Government cannot support these amendments. As we have said on a number of occasions since the Report stage began, we believe that the traditional quarry species should only be removed from Schedule 2, Part I, if there is a conservation case for doing so. It is quite clear that with these species there is no such case since all are either stable or increasing in numbers. Accordingly, I ask your Lordships to reject these amendments.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I say first to the noble Viscount, interesting though his contribution was, that I hope the fate of these three species will not be decided on the culinary habits of the Red Army. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked how many of these birds are shot. I know he never believes my figures, but if I quote him some figures from the Shooting Times perhaps he will at least take it on trust that I am not quoting inaccurately. I do not have figures for curlew but I understand the Shooting Times suggests about 500 bar-tailed godwit are shot each season and about 200 redshank. He said that if the numbers were small he did not see what purpose was served by taking them off the list. But the point is not that the number shot is either small or large, because nobody is suggesting that these species are so rare as to need

193
protection. What we have been suggesting is, first, that these are not, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, "traditional quarry species". That seems to me an extraordinary description for the bar-tailed godwit. It is all very well for the partridge, the grouse or the capercaillie, for that matter, but to describe the bar-tailed godwit as a traditional quarry species is really stretching the point, to put it mildly.
Nor is this a conservation argument, and I am glad to say that at least one of the advisory committees and a number of other people have recognised this. If it were a conservation argument, then all common British birds would be on the quarry list. We gave the example of the robin at the Committee stage. There are masses of robins in this country, but that does not mean to say that they are on the quarry list or that it would be right to put them there. If they were on the quarry list and only 200 were shot each year, that would not be an argument for leaving them on the list. There was, for example, some dissension about the Goldeneye, which we discussed at Committee stage, and which we are not now suggesting should be taken off the quarry list. But there was unanimous agreement that it was totally inappropriate for these three to be on the quarry list.
It does this country no good if we are one of the few where these shorewaders are shot, particularly when we have an international responsibility towards the conservation of these species. Whether one or a thousand is shot, people in Europe will look at our quarry list and say "The British shoot these shore-waders. What does it matter if we shoot songbirds, or whatever it is?". We feel these are not appropriate for the quarry species; they do not feel these are. I really think, in view of the strong support for taking these birds off the quarry list, that the noble Lord ought to press the amendment.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, may I follow briefly the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in pressing the moral issue? This country has led a movement which has enforced upon the unwilling nations of Europe, particularly Italy, the guardian of the alpine passes, an EEC directive which has prevented the Italians from shooting birds which occur in myriads in their country, but which in our country we protect; that is to say, the small migratory passerines. The United Kingdom, with its rich shores, carries the same kind of responsibility as do the Mediterranean countries with their migratory passerines. We are guardians of a large proportion of what is essentially an international bird population moving around on its migratory journeys, and, as such, we have no right to claim the leadership, or the capacity to lead, unless we ourselves can show that there is no beam in our own eye.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, it seemed just now that some noble Lords were taking sides against the beautiful hen harrier. I should like to say how much I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook in what they have just said on the subject.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I confess that I am very disappointed with my noble friend's reply. He told us that the England and Wales Committees, though not
194
feeling that there were any conservation grounds for removing these three birds from Part I of Schedule 2, none the less took the view that there was a sound case on other grounds. The Nature Conservancy Council, as I have told your Lordships, is of the same opinion for the same reasons; in other words, there are strong grounds—grounds of common sense, strong moral and ethical grounds—for not shooting these birds. My noble friend also told us that public opinion has moved on; I think he was quoting the England and Wales Committees. Opinion in your Lordships' House is moving on as well, and I very much hope that my noble friend might have second thoughts even now, having heard so many speeches in favour of these three amendments, before I decide to withdraw them or to divide on them, which I think we shall have to do if he does not agree with them.
9.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Killearn, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Armstrong, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Avebury, L.

McNair, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Margadale, L.

Birk, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blease, L.

Melchett, L.

Boardman, L.

Middleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caradon, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelwood, L. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Craigton, L.

Radnor, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Rochester, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Seear, B.

Dulverton, L.

Selborne, E.

Dundee, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stone, L.

Gainford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gibson, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gisborough, L.

Swann, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Swansea, L.

Greenway, L.

Thurso, V.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Tryon, L.

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Henley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kemsley, V.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Burton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Belstead, L,

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

De La Warr, E.

195

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rochdale, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Yarborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Young, B.

Mansfield, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 59B:
Page 48, leave out line 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already spoken on this amendment, and as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, is not in his place I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 59C:
Page 48, leave out line 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 48, leave out line 24.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 48, leave out line 27.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I will speak also to Amendment No. 66. This amendment seeks to remove the jack snipe from Schedule 2, Part 1 and Schedule 3, Part III. Both advisory Committees for England and Wales, and Scotland, recently advised that the species be given all round protection because surveys suggest that the species may have a low population. As trends are notoriously difficult to find on this secretive bird, the Committees took the view that caution was needed. The Government accept that there is an adequate conservation case for all round protection and that the species has too low a United Kingdom population to justify hunting it. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I welcome very much indeed this amendment and thank the Government for it.
Lord Margadale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he thinks there is a decline in the number of jack snipe?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, did my noble friend ask whether there is a decline, or why there is a decline?
Lord Margadale: Why, my Lords.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I think my noble friend will bear me out, this is such a secretive bird
196
that there is a great deal of difficulty about finding out the population figures. The figures I have range from 1,000 to 10,000 in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do accept the need for protection.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 48, line 33, at end insert—

("Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 61B and 61C at the same time. These three birds are considerable predators on fish. I cannot really conceive why anyone wants to protect the cormorant, which seems to be a particularly nasty bird. One thing that I have seen, and with which perhaps my noble friend would agree, is that they completely wiped out a heronry. They roosted where the herons used to roost and they killed all the trees with their guano. That shows the density of numbers of these birds in certain parts of the country. There is no evidence to show that they are dropping in numbers whereas they can kill a considerable number of fish.
With regard to the goosander and the merganzer, I think it is not realised that these are the host of a number of fish worms. I gather that part of the process of the fish worm goes through the merganzer and the goosander and therefore a great many more fish are damaged and killed by these birds than are actually eaten. I think that that should be borne in mind when we put these birds on the protected list. No doubt we shall be told by my noble friend on the Front Bench that we can get a licence to kill them, but I think that is the wrong way to go about it. They have been a considerable pest and, what is more, both the berganzer and the goosander are increasing at an enormous rate. At the end of the War there were hardly any in Scotland or in England, but they have now spread rapidly from Orkney all the way down and are now in very considerable numbers in certain parts of the country. Why we should now be having extra protection for these birds seems incomprehensible. They have survived without any protection up till now; they have not even had the protection of a season. Now for no apparent good reason we are putting them on the protected list when we know they are injurious to fish. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was sorry to see these birds brought up at this stage. We did not have a chance to discuss them at Committee stage, and I do not know whether the advisory committees have yet looked at them. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will be able to tell us whether they have had time to look at them since the amendments went down, but if they saw them at the same time as the rest of us I doubt whether they have.
I managed during the course of the day to get some information on one or two of the points the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has raised. First, on the cormorant, it seems to me that it would cause very considerable difficulties if it were added to Schedule 2. First, there is a continental sub-species of the cormorant which is on Annexe 1 of the EEC directive. That continental sub-species does occur in the South of England. It is

197
totally indistinguishable from our own species, so I would not know the difference. There could be very serious possibilities of mistake with the European subspecies. In any event, although the cormorant is relatively common in Britain and Ireland, about 8,000 pairs, it is one of the birds for which we have a very heavy international responsibility because our own islands contain a very high proportion of the total European population. I think we need to look at birds like this in the context of a whole region rather than simply this country, and where we hold a high proportion of the European population we should bear that in mind.
I understand that the most recent paper on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland concluded that the present data on the food of the cormorant on fresh waters are still not sufficiently complete to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn concerning the effects of the cormorant on salmonoid fish stocks. So the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, at any rate, is still not clear about the extent of the damage. Of course, cormorants do eat eels, as I understand it about 10 per cent. by weight of their diet, and sticklebacks form about one-third of their diet in terms of numbers of fish eaten. So while they may do some damage, and I am sure they do, it clearly is not known, by the experts in Scotland at least, to what extent they do damage and to what extent they do not. I suggest that in those circumstances it would be better to leave the position as it is.
Turning to the other two birds, the goosander and the merganzer, I appreciate that they may well cause more serious problems than the cormorant, but of course their numbers are somewhat lower. Again, so far as both are concerned, I understand that the latest paper of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland suggested that further studies should be made of the goosander and the merganzer so that a fuller assessment could be made of their role as predators of young salmon. As I understand it, those studies are still to be carried out, and again I would have thought that in the absence of hard information it would be better to leave things as they are. Licensing provisions in this Bill are very wide—much too wide, a number of us think, but there we are; it is clearly not going to be possible, at least in this House, to change them significantly. But it does seem very hard, when one has already got wide licensing provisions, for the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to say "This is not good enough; we must have them off the protected list as well". I would have thought that these three birds, if they do give rise to problems, are really exactly what the licensing provisions as currently drafted are designed to deal with.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this. I, too, have no great feeling or quarrel about the cormorant, and I do not think it is necessary to do anything about it. But I do think the goosander and the merganzer are something we want to watch very carefully, and I do hope the Minister will give us an assurance that licences will be granted fairly easily, if they are not going to be put on the schedule.
I was simply amazed that in the last 12 months I was asked in Angus whether I would help organise on
198
the South Esk a Sunday shoot of merganzers and goosanders. As a good Roman Catholic I have been accustomed occasionally to shooting on Sundays in Roman Catholic countries like Spain, France and so on, but to be asked in Presbyterian Scotland to join in a shoot shows your Lordships just how strongly the feeling in Scotland is about these two particular birds. Normally I do not ever go shooting on Sunday, and I did not this time either, but I just give that as an example of how strong the feeling is against these birds in parts of Scotland where the fishery rivers are an important item in the tourist industry and also in the economy of the country.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, as regards this amendment, because there is no doubt that these species do cause considerable damage at certain times and on certain parts of salmon rivers, particularly in a spate when the cormorant is liable to come up from the sea. I have seen them sitting at vantage points taking smolts and so on when the smolts were running.
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has pointed out, this is a real case for licensing, because in nearly all these cases the damage can be foreseen. I think that the licences should not be unreasonably withheld and I think that it should be said here that that is particularly so if they are applied for by responsible bodies such as district fishery boards. It might be that for the cormorant in particular one would have to take out a licence to deal with any cormorants that came up during a spate and when smolts were running and it would be very difficult to specify when that would happen because obviously one would not know when it was going to rain and one would have to act quickly. But provided that licensing is done within reason I am sure that it can cope with the situation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, surely the damage done by merganzers and goosanders to smolts going downstream is nothing compared to what is done in the open sea by the seals and it is nothing compared to what can be done by monofilament drift netting? This is part of nature and we should not get too over-excited about it.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I should like to say that I think that he is wrong about this, because a line of cormorants at the estuary of a river kill off the salmon before they ever get to the sea. When the smolts are hanging about in the estuary waiting to become accustomed to salt water they are extremely vulnerable and these birds tend to gather at the estuary at that point and there may well be a strong case for control of their numbers. I do not think that we can say that monofilament drift netting or what happens at sea is necessarily worse. It may be as bad, but certainly what the cormorants and the shags can do at the estuary is as bad as monofilament netting.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this matter. It is quite true that cormorants do a great deal of damage in the salmon fisheries and can eat 30 or 40 smolts in 24 hours as easy as anything.

199
However, as regards merganzers and goosanders, from my experience the merganzer is far more numerous than the goosander. I should think, as the noble Viscount said, that this is really a case for licensing.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Burton, on this amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said the sea is a very big area. The feeder streams of rivers are very small and that is where these birds, when they come up the rivers, do their damage. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, disagrees with this amendment and I am afraid that I must say to him that the freshwater fisheries have a lot of trouble from these birds. He said that there was too little evidence of what damage they did or did not do. He then said that therefore it would be best to leave matters as they stand. I wish he meant what I understand by that, which is to leave them on the list where they can be shot rather than to put them on when there is better evidence.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it seems to me that everything that has been said in this debate points absolutely directly to licensing. The reason for doing anything about cormorants is what they do to the fish. The noble Lord, Lord Burton, spoke as though there was something wrong in eating fish. There is nothing wrong in eating fish. What is wrong is to deplete a fish population. The only possible case for limiting the number of cormorants is if they do that. There is no evidence to suggest that they are or that they are not. The people who wish to have control should take the trouble to find out the facts and if what they believe is in fact true, they would have a very strong case.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, as an ignoramus on this subject, perhaps from outside I may make the logical point that it is presumably no fun to shoot any of these three species of bird—nobody would do so—unless there is a need to reduce their numbers. If there is such a need, licences have to be applied for, involving a great deal of trouble. Is it not better to leave people to do it when it is necessary?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I could say a little about the thinking behind Schedule 2 Part II, which is the new list of pest species. Our intention is to comply with the European Community Birds Directive by strictly controlling designation under Article 9 of the directive. Part II of Schedule 2 has been reduced to those species which constitute nationwide pests and are too widespread to be covered by licence. To deal with species that have been omitted from Schedule 2 Part II as drafted, and that includes the three species which are the subject of my noble friend's amendments, and other species which can be pests at particular times of the year, or in particular circumstances or in particular areas, we would have an appropriate form of licence.
In regard to the three species with which we are now dealing, the advice from the advisory committee, the Nature Conservancy Council and the agricultural departments is that none of these species constitutes a nationwide pest. It is recognised that the birds can
200
cause damage to fish interests, but this is a good example of damage in particular circumstances which can properly be dealt with by licence. In view of this, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, once again I have had this question of numbers thrown at me and have been accused of producing no evidence as to what damage is done. Recently, fishery boards have stocked a river and I have seen the fish that they have put in mopped up wholesale by merganzers. It must be quite disheartening to them if they are able to do nothing about it. A rapid increase in the numbers when they have had no protection seems to be the answer. The conservationists' cause looses much goodwill when they move to protect birds which are increasing and doing damage. I think that the question of being a host to the fish worms must be looked at very carefully. If it is contrary to the EEC convention, I suppose that we shall have to comply with the convention. But this constantly comes up in the Bill. It seems a great pity that this convention was signed before either House of Parliament discussed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61B and 61C not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 48, line 48, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, this amendment should read:
"Page 48, line 46, at end insert—"
the words on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Birds which may be sold]:
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys: moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 49, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

("Jackdaw

Corvus Monedula

Jay

Garrulus Glandarius").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely seeks to place the jackdaw and the jay in their correct positions in the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 49, leave out line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62B and at the same time speak to Amendment 62C, D, E and F. These are all manuscript amendments, for which I apologise to your Lordships' House. We complimented those concerned on the printing of the Marshalled List. I suppose it was inevitable that something was going to get left off.

201
I am almost sure that it was not my fault, but I would not dream of apportioning any blame to anybody, and I apologise to the House for the fact that this is a manuscript amendment. I hope it has not taken people too much by surprise, because it is something we discussed at Committee stage at some length, and at that stage there was a good deal of agreement on all sides of the House about the proposals.
Schedule 3 lists birds which may be kept in captivity, bred in captivity, and shown competitively without any restriction and sold without any restriction. I am suggesting that five species (to take the amendments in order), the little owl, the meadow pippit, the mistle thrush, the grey wagtail and the pied wagtail, should be removed from the Schedule. This will not prevent people keeping these birds in captivity, or breeding them in captivity, or giving them to other people. All it will prohibit is the exhibition either in competitive classes or—and I think we have already made this amendment—in non-competitive classes at a competitive show. It will prohibit the sale of these birds.
When we discussed this at Committee stage, we had four birds on, but not the pied wagtail. There was so much feeling, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that it was wrong to have the pied wagtail on this Schedule that I took the liberty of adding it to those that we had on already. It is probably fair to say that there is very little scientific evidence that a number of the other birds on Schedule 3 have genuinely self-sustaining captive populations. That is, I understand, the criterion which has been applied to this Schedule. There are a number which no doubt have, but whether, for example, the song thrush has a genuinely self-sustaining captive population, I simply do not know.
It seems to me that the list is too long and that there are some obvious species that could be taken off it. These amendments simply strike at the most obvious and takes out these five birds. I am afraid there has been a feeling among the Government's advisers that because the list of birds that could be kept in captivity legally and sold and exhibited was being substantially reduced by this Bill, that there needed to be much less strict scientific criteria applied to the birds that were being left in. In other words, what is being said is: "Well, we are taking away several species; we had better not take away too many."
I only wish that such lax criteria had been applied to some of the things I should have liked to get on the Schedules or off Schedules, but unfortunately the conservationists had to face a much stricter test. I am not suggesting that we should insist on having all the evidence which really ought to be available to show clearly that there are self-sustaining populations of every bird on Schedule 3, Part I, but I think the most obvious cases should be taken off, and that is what these amendments would do.
I would emphasise again that it does not stop people keeping the birds in captivity. It does not stop the breeding. It does not stop the giving away. It simply discourages people from taking these things from the wild by ruling out competitive classes and ruling out sale. It is those two things, the competitive classes where there are prizes and the sale of these birds, which really encourage the taking of nests and nestlings from the wild. It is against that abuse
202
that this Schedule is drawn up in the first place. I hope that having picked a fairly limited list, which got a great deal of support in Committee, that the amendment will now be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I support the amendment, partly for purely sentimental reasons, and I suggest that every now and then in this kind of debate one is allowed a little sentiment. The idea of keeping a pied wagtail in captivity is absolutely revolting, and the idea of trying to breed from it and keep its children permanently in captivity, though from their point of view that may not be very disagreeable, is most disagreeable from mine. As I say, this is a purely personal view, and while I suppose Government cannot be carried on on that basis, every now and then one is allowed to express one.
If evidence can be provided to show that a bird has not been stolen from the wild but has been bred in captivity, then it could be on this list, but the arrangements for checking that seem absolutely non-existent. There is very little information on the subject; one can pick up scraps of knowledge from cage bird books, magazines and so on, but each bird on this list should be examined really carefully to find out what evidence there is that it had bred reasonably well in captivity. I find it difficult to believe that perhaps another half-dozen of those on this list do. I will not go into that, because I have exposed my prejudices so completely that I do not expect anybody who has a different view to agree with me. But I am anxious to support my noble friend.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment with all my heart and conscience and particularly to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for putting my pied wagtail on this list.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am anxious to support my noble friend Lord Melchett in this series of proposals. I detest the idea of any of these birds being kept in cages, whether they were taken from the wild or bred in captivity. What has been a revelation to me, since the Bill began its progress through your Lordships' House, is the large number of small birds which are kept in captivity and how many thousands of them are apparently taken from the wild illegally and by various means of deception are kept in cages after being taken from the wild.
It seems that two factors facilitate this practice. The first is that birds of species which are listed in Part I of Schedule 3(1), though they have to be ringed before they may be sold, may be kept in captivity, so long as they are not sold, without any control at all. The same is true of birds of the species listed in neither Part I of Schedule 3 nor in Schedule 4, which are some very common species (pest species such as wood pigeons) many rather rarer species, such as the redstart and most of the warblers, and some species too rare for inclusion in Schedule 4, not only vagrants and accidentals but birds such as the tawny pipit which occur annually.
I hope the Government will think about this matter, late though it may be in the progress of the Bill: namely, that all birds kept in captivity should be ringed if they are wild birds as defined in the Bill.

203
In the meantime, I wish it were possible to do something to control the most regrettable practice of taking birds from the wild illegally and keeping them in captivity. While I hope the Government will think about that, in the meantime we should all support my noble friend Lord Melchett in what he is attempting here.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, as I said in Committee, Part I of Schedule 3 represents a major change to the existing provision governing aviculture. Indeed, I would say that the Schedule and Clause 6 represent, notwithstanding the 1954 and 1967 Acts, the first real attempt to make proper provision for aviculture and to place it on a sound and logical basis for the future. Your Lordships know that in future only those birds included in Schedule 3, Part I, and if captive bred and close ringed, may be sold. This represents a major reduction on the present list of saleable birds in Schedule 4 of the Bill. Additionally, only those species may be competitively exhibited for which there is no counterpart in existing legislation.
The revised list was drawn up on the advice of the advisory committee, with the assistance of the breeding records of the British Birds Council. We appreciate, as do the advisory committee, that some of its recommendations were borderline cases. The committee said, however, that it was justified to include these species because the records of the council are not complete—and it is the first to admit it—not all breeders belong to the council, and the new provisions with the short list of birds represent a radical shake-up of aviculture.
We shall of course keep the list under review and have access to much better information in a field where information is sparse, which will enable a more complete list of species to be compiled. We shall of course take species off the list if breeding records show that success is not being maintained. We accordingly hold the view at this time that Schedule 3, Part I should be left alone, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, I should remind your Lordships that, as I said previously, inclusion of such borderline cases on the list protects the wild population, as no further licences will normally be granted for taking from the wild these species, except for occasional gene refreshment, when it is justified.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I really do not think that I can withdraw the amendment. Neither at the Committee stage nor today has there been a single voice in support of the inclusion of these birds in the Schedule. Had I had one person, other than the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, against me either at the Committee stage or today I might have felt some obligation not to press the amendment, since obviously this is not the most important point in the Bill. But when noble Lords on all sides of the House at two stages of a Bill support unanimously the removal of certain birds, I do not think that it is on to withdraw the proposal simply because the Government say so.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, he has produced absolutely no evidence, and at the Committee stage we left it that if the Government could produce some evidence for this listing we would accept it; but they
204
have not done so. In the meantime, I have had some inquiries made in avriculture circles and the indications I have received are to the effect that in the case of the first four species—the little owl, the meadow pippit, the mistle thrush and the grey wagtail—there are probably less than two breeding records a year in most years. By no stretch of the imagination does that meet the Government's own criteria in their information paper of 28th August 1980, which stated that the only species included in the Schedule would be those species which are commonly bred in captivity. The term, "commonly bred in captivity", is not the same as two successful breeding records in most years. The Government's information paper added in regard to the species,
"… and have a self-sustaining population in captivity".
Two breeding records a year do not amount to a self-sustaining population. That simply does not meet the Government's own criteria.
The pied wagtail, on whcih the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is so keen, might, I understand, breed with a little more regularity, but certainly not in such numbers as to enable it to maintain a self-sustaining population in captivity. There is unanimous support in the House for this amendment and I hope that the Government will not divide against it. I feel that the House wants to accept the amendment and I intend to press it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendments Nos. 62C, 62D, 62E and 62F:
Page 49, leave out line 20
Page 49, leave out line 25
Page 49, leave out line 28
Page 49, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 50, leave out line 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 55. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 50, leave out line 5.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 50, line 8, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Birds which must be registered and ringed if kept in captivity]:
9.56 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 50, line 36, column 1, at end insert ("that is to say, Buzzards, Eagles, Harriers, Hawks and Kites (all species in each case)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage on 2nd February we said that the advisory committee had advised that many people would be unaware that the term "true hawks" included such birds as eagles, and that the Government were considering how to make the position clear. This amendment is the result, which I recommend to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 51, leave out line 5.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 51, line 7, at end insert—

("Serin

Serinus serinus").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 51, line 25, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Protection of certain wild animals]:
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("Schedule 5") to end of line 39.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could also speak to Amendment No. 72 at the same time, which is the principal amendment. All that these amendments seek to do is to include parts or derivatives of animals to correspond with the provisions in Clause 9(3). Your Lordships will recall that earlier today this was one of the reasons for amending Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 40, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person has in his possession or control any wild animal included in Schedule 5 or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal, then, unless he shows that the animal was killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part or of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, he shall be guilty of an offence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 10, line 43, after ("destroys") insert ("or obstructs access to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Craigton moved his Amendment No. 114 in Committee I undertook to look further into the possibility of providing in the Bill recognition that preventing a Schedule 5 animal from entering the place it used for shelter or protection was just as harmful as actual damage would be. I did look into it, and this amendment meets that undertaking. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me. I can understand the reason why he did not take my second amendment, which used the words "render uninhabitable". I hope the Government will bring pressure on the firms which make this wood treatment liquid, which is now deadly poison to bats, to find some alternative within a reasonable time. I thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 11, line 6, after ("person") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 73A, 73C, 73D and 73E together. These amendments are similar to ones which were agreed earlier and to which my noble friend Lord Sandys spoke. I beg to move Amendment No. 73A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73B not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 73C, 73D and 73E:
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)")
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)")
Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
("or
(b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73C, 73D and 73E en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 73F:
Page 11, line 26, after ("dwelling-house") insert ("except that in relation to bats included in Schedule 5 any act under that subsection shall be an offence unless 21 days before such an act the Nature Conservancy Council have been notified of the act which it is intended to carry out").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is about bats. I am grateful to my noble friend for Amendment No. 74 which has partly met what we wanted when we moved amendments about bats. For that reason I shall not move my Amendment No. 73G. It is on Amendment No. 73F where I want to raise a point. As the Bill stands, except in a dwelling-house no one can get rid of bats without first contacting the NCC. But what is the position of the householder if the Bill is not amended? He must not kill the bats—that is what Clause 9(1)(a) says—but it is not an offence for him to disturb them. But without skilled advice he will not know how to get rid of bats from his house without killing them.
Advice is at hand. The NCC through the Institution of Terrestrial Ecology is in constant contact with 630 public health officers, with the Ministry of Agriculture Pest Control, and ADAS pass on information about bats to the ITE. This amendment ensures that the householder will get in touch with an expert and so move the colony on instead of destroying it and instead of breaking the law as well. So the machinery is there. And it is at no cost to the taxpayer.
So much for the householder. What of the bats? The facts speak for themselves: 81 colonies studied in 1978 included 119 individuals per colony. The same 81 colonies in 1979 were reduced from 119 to 79 individuals and the same 81 in 1980 had 52 individuals—a drop of 56 per cent. in three years. Again, a continuous survey of eight villages found only one colony in each area. These colonies moved around seasonally to different dwelling-houses in rotation. Finally, a study of 600 bat colonies showed that almost all were dependent on dwelling-houses for survival; with 47 per cent. living in houses less than 25 years old—they like a nice clean home to live in—and 71 per cent. in houses less than 100 years old. The unfortunate situation that we face is a rapidly declining population—over 50 per cent. in three years—of which some 70 per cent. live in domestic houses. This is a population of rare animals that it is illegal to kill, but which will be killed in countless numbers unless properly moved from where they are not wanted.
To refuse this amendment is to endanger the bats in this land and to encourage householders, however unwittingly, to break the law. This is not interference with the rights of an individual in his own house but is protecting him from breaking the law, and protecting the bats from death. A householder's rights carry obligations with them. This is one of them—to protect this rare and declining species. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I was a reluctant convert to the cause of this particular amendment to which I have now put my name. I had strong reservations, as I know my party has, on any interference with the doctrine that an Englishman's home, if not at least his castle, is at any rate his home. The fact that that right of his to have his home uninvaded and uninterrupted has been broken time and again does not derogate from that. One of the very few things
208
that one can congratulate this Government about is that they have done something about removing some of the rights of entry to people's homes. Therefore, my immediate reaction to this particular suggestion was that we should not interfere with people's rights in their own homes.
As I listened to the case, to the problem and to the danger to the wildlife concerned, I thought how little was the amount that we were asking the householder to do: merely to inform. We were not suggesting that any kind of compulsion should be put on him or her to keep the balance; merely that information should be given and advice sought if not eventually taken. Given the proposition, I certainly was convinced and I hope noble Lords will be and will accept this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be impressed as usual with the knowledge and concern for bats which my noble friend Lord Craigton has displayed again this evening. We have carefully considered the points which were so clearly brought out in Committee that large numbers of bats live in attics, and that they can if necessary be displaced from these places without undue mortality, provided that expert advice is sought. I cannot agree that we should overturn the principle that a householder should be free to remove bats from his house without let or hindrance. It is already proposed in the Bill that it should be an offence intentionally to kill or injure a bat except in closely defined circumstances.
A Government amendment is proposed to provide also that the defence in Clause 10(2)(d), that killing was an incidental result of a lawful operation, shall not be applicable to action against bats unless the Nature Conservancy Council has first been consulted. I believe that that will help bats which roost in barns or other structures. I cannot accept the implications of this amendment concerning dwelling-houses. I hope that your Lordships will consider that the alarm that such an amendment might provoke among people would not be worthwhile.
After the Committee stage, I had a letter from somebody whom I did not know. Reading about the Committee stage, he said that in a certain church where there was a plague of bats they tried everything to rid themselves of them but to no avail. However, they were at last advised to beg, borrow and steal some stuffed owls. They did this and solved their problem. It seems that the owl possesses some properties reprehensible to bats, even when the owl has been stuffed. This unlikely story was told to an ornithologist friend of the writer who said that owl droppings never contained bats. It seems that the feathers of stuffed owls contain remarkable properties.
It may be that those who wish to rid their houses of bats could get some stuffed owls; but of course they will have to be careful that they are not creating an offence under the Bill. It should, I hope, have the happy result of ridding the householder of bats and letting the bats nevertheless remain alive. I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, following the Committee stage, I had three letters from people I did not know before. In effect, they could not understand how the

209
Government could be claiming to introduce a Bill which listed all the species of bats as endangered and deserving of special protection and yet they were not prepared to do something about the amendment which the noble Lords, Lord Cranbrook and Lord Craigton, and myself moved in Committee.
May I suggest to the noble Earl that when he replies to that letter he tells the person concerned that, had he consulted the NCC, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would require to be done, he would have been given, I suggest, much more straightforward and effective advice than that which was got. They would also have got it free, quickly and from the most experienced source of advice in the country, which is the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The Government's amendment on barns and other structures is very welcome and we are all very grateful for it, but the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology have written to me and other noble Lords saying that almost all species of bats are dependent on dwelling-houses for survival. That is the expert opinion of this country—all bats which are listed by the Government in the specially protected schedule are dependent on dwelling-houses for survival.
The Government's amendments so far do nothing about this except, as has been pointed out—and I do not think we made it clear enough at Committee stage—that it is an offence under the Bill to kill a bat whether in a dwelling-house or anywhere else, apart from, as the noble Earl said, extremely narrowly-defined circumstances. That certainly would not allow someone to go to their attic and kill the bats which are there; nor could they go to the attic and stuff up the holes which the bats use to get in and out and leave the bats inside so that they starve to death, if they knew that was a consequence of blocking the hole. I should have thought that if the bats were in there when they did it it would be very difficult to prove that they had not intended to kill the bats. In other words, it is going to be quite difficult for somebody who is not an expert on bats to get rid of the bats from their attics without breaking the law.
The noble Earl suggests, from a sedentary position, that a stuffed owl might be a good idea. I do not believe the story of the stuffed owl. I once tried a rubber owl to discourage sparrows from a farm building, but it had absolutely no effect at all and the rubber owl was covered with sparrow droppings within about two days. I am always a little suspicious of these stories of the deterrent effect of various stuffed things. Bats move around from one roosting area to another regularly, and I suspect that they move more of their own accord than because of anything to do with owls. The writer of the letter may find that they are back again before long as part of their normal migratory pattern. So then I suggest that they get in touch with the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology or the Nature Conservancy Council.
This is a serious point. I do not think the Government's position is defensible. They are passing a Bill which will make it illegal to kill bats in your house, but they are not providing anybody without considerable expert knowledge with a means of avoiding committing that offence. The noble Lord's amendment would, and I suggest it would remove the need for a lot of prosecutions which will occur under this Bill.
210
It imposes only a requirement to notify. When we discussed this in Committee everyone agreed that was reasonable. They disagreed with my amendment and with an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but everyone agreed that if all you asked a householder to do is to notify the NCC that really was not asking too much, given the expert advice we have that this is the only way of ensuring the protection for bats provided in the Bill. All bat species are listed as endangered and the only way of ensuring that this works is by this sort of amendment. I hope that, if the Government do not feel able to accept this wholeheartedly, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will press it; but I hope that we do not have to spend time on a Division.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, my name is also down in connection with this amendment. I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I note he considers there may be alarm and concern among the general public if this amendment is allowed to go forward. I believe that if he were to give appropriate publicity to it the general public would be reassured rather than alarmed and concerned, because this amendment, which has been so carefully phrased by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is a final fallback on what seems to be acceptable. It points a path whereby the public can get what is in fact a highly expert opinion. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has led research, I would say Europewide, into the behaviour and habits of bats. The NCC will undoubtedly have close connection with them and, in following the provisions in the clause as devised by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, members of the public wishing to rid their houses of bats without contravening the law—that is to say, without killing the bats—will be led instantly to the best advice obtainable anywhere in this country.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 73F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Killearn, L.

Birk, B.

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

Blease, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brooke of Tremorfa, L.

Melchett, L.

Burton, L.

Middleton, L.

Caradon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Northfield, L.

Collison, L.

Onslow, E.

Craigton, L.

Peart, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ridley, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Gainford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gibson, L.

Sandford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seear, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Selborne, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

211

Strabolgi, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swansea, L.

White, B.

Thurso, V.

Winstanley, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Armstrong, L.

Holderness, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Kemsley, V.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bolton, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mansfield, E.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mountgarret, V.

De La Warr, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Dormer, L.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Soames, L.

Exeter, M.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Forester, L.

Swinton, E,

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Yarborough, E.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 73G not moved.]
Clause 10 [Exceptions to s. 9]:
10.23 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): Amendment No. 74? Amendment 74A?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are two amendments numbered 74A. I think that this should have been numbered ZA.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, on the Marshalled List there is Amendment No. 74 and Amendment No. 74A. If the noble Earl could indicate which is Amendment No. 74ZA, I think it would be helpful to us all.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, our difficulty is that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. The Marshalled List, to which much care and attention has been given, appears to have a missing letter. The letters ZA should appear after Amendment No. 74.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for that disruption but I think my noble friend is correct. There are two amendments numbered 74A. Perhaps I may move the amendment which is numbered 74.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert—
("(3) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(a) as respects any action taken at any time if—
212

(a) the risk of the damage was known before that time and a licence under section 15 authorising that action was not applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after the risk became known; or

(b) an application for such a licence had been refused.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify the distinction between the licensing arrangements under Clause 15 of the Bill and the defence provision under Clause 10 which permits the killing of protected animals in order to prevent serious damage to property. Some concern was expressed during the Committee stage that the defence under Clause 10 should be available only in an emergency when there was no time to apply for a licence and that it should not be an easier alternative to obtaining a licence to deal with predictable damage. The amendment provides that the defence under Clause 10 shall not be available in cases where the risk of damage was predictable but where no licence was requested, nor in cases where a licence had been refused. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am afraid I have quite a few queries, which are rather complicated. The first is a question to my noble friend which is as follows: am I correct in assuming from the remarks made previously by my noble friend Lord Avon in connection with Amendment No. 24, which applies to birds but is similar to this amendment, that if a licence has been refused in relation to a particular species under Clause 15 it is not then permitted for a farmer to take emergency action for birds under Clause 4 or for animals under Clause 10? If that is so—and I think I understood my noble friend aright—I ask, what would happen should a licence not be granted, say, today, for shooting brent geese, because it was said that there were not enough brent geese to cause trouble, and then tomorrow or even next year I get an enormous influx of these birds and I am not then allowed to take emergency action to do anything about it?
My last worry is that I presume the Government are moving this amendment and not Amendment No. 24 relating to birds because it is not likely, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, that an animal in Schedule 5 is likely to be an agricultural pest, as was also pointed out in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. However, as I raised in Committee—and my noble friend Lord Ferrers supported me—what happens if in the future to Schedule 5 is added an animal that could be a pest? May I ask my noble friend to confirm that no future Secretary of State will ever put in Schedule 5 anything that is likely to be an agricultural pest?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the last question raised by my noble friend, I think the chances of an agricultural pest being added to the schedule are so remote as to be almost unthinkable. It would be quite inappropriate for me to say that never in any circumstances would any Secretary of State in future ever do anything of the kind, but I think it is extremely unlikely.
With regard to the first point raised by my noble friend, he said that if in fact he had applied for a licence and it had been refused, he could then be subjected to an influx of these animals. My immediate reaction is that that in itself would constitute an emergency and he would be entitled to take such action,

213
because my noble friend will realise that all that the amendment says is that,
"A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(a) …"
—and the defence would be that it was an emergency. My noble friend Lord Avon said that in relation to birds he would consider this matter, and indeed we will do so with regard to this point as well. At the moment, I can only repeat that I fancy that should the occasion arise when my noble friend or any other person who had had a licence refused for normal circumstances suddenly found himself inundated, that in itself would constitute an emergency and he could take action.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I listened to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I can understand his concern, but I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said. I personally think that this is a very helpful and useful clarification. In fact, I think it begins to make Part I of the Bill acceptable to nature conservationists as opposed to being a major step backwards. I do not think it really changes the Government's intention, but what is going to happen is now clear in the Bill, rather than a reliance on the sort of assurances which nature conservationists frankly felt unable to accept. I very much hope that in the spirit of compromise and agreement this amendment will be acceptable to the House. Certainly from this side of the House we warmly welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 74 ZA:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) A person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (2)(d) as respects anything done in relation to bats otherwise than in a dwelling-house unless he had notified the Nature Conservancy Council of the operation and allowed them a reasonable time to advise him as to whether it should be carried out and, if so, the method to be used.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government have considered what provisions should be made in the Bill to take account of the point which came out so clearly at Committee stage that large numbers of bats rely on manmade structures for their roosts and many of these are killed unnecessarily as a result of maintenance and repair work on these structures. We were assured that expert advice, which is readily available, might prevent many of these deaths. The amendment accordingly provides that a person may not rely on the defence that his action in killing bats was the incidental result of a lawful operation, such as treating wood timbers, unless he had first consulted the NCC and given them an opportunity to provide advice. The amendment will not interfere with the maintenance of dwelling-houses because the Government do not think it right to restrain the freedom of householders in such matters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.32 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 51, line 28, at end insert—

("Adder

Vipera berus

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

The noble Earl said: My Lords, throughout the Second Reading of this Bill and the earlier Committee stage I have consistently sought a degree of protection of an appropriate level for animal species other than birds that appear on Appendix 3 of the Berne Convention and are not already protected by other sections of the present Bill. I would remind your Lordships that Appendix 3 (that is to say, the protected fauna species) includes all birds other than the pest species; that is to say, the bird species that appear in the present Bill in Schedule 2, Part II. With these exceptions the two appendices of the Berne Convention cover all birds, and the United Kingdom legislation as proposed by this Bill therefore conforms. As far as reptiles and amphibians are concerned, at present the Bill offers no protection, and it is this that I seek.
In Committee I previously sought to provide the appropriate degree of protection by introducing a new clause, which was intended to follow Clause 9, and a new schedule which was to follow Schedule 5. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for the opportunity to discuss with him and his advisers this approach. He has written to me, after that discussion, a letter clearly laying out the opinion of the Government, which is that the orders by which variations may be applied to Schedule 5 need not necessarily embrace the full range of protective cover given by Clause 9. This is the important point. Such orders can be made in respect of particular provisions of the Bill; for example, an order could be restricted to the sale of the species but not the taking of that species in a particular area and during a particular time of the year. In fact, the orders can be finely tuned to meet the immediate need, and the Bill as drafted does permit, where appropriate, differing degrees of protection. I am very happy to accept that the Bill has been very expertly drafted and does in fact, without the addition of the new clause I sought, cater for the possibility of the degree of protection which is required.
In speaking to Amendment No. 74A I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 74B, 74E, 74F, 74G and 75A. With your Lordships' leave I should also like to take part only of Amendment No. 74D. At present that appears as an amendment containing two species. As I submitted it in writing to the Public Bill Office, each of those species appeared as a separate amendment. I wish to keep them separate, because different principles are involved. I wish to deal with Amendment No. 74D, the viviparous lizard, but not at this stage with Amendment No. 74D, the wall lizard.
The purpose of these amendments is to add all our native reptiles and amphibians—other than those three which are already given the full protection in Schedule 5—to the protected list, but only in respect of Clause 9(3), which is to say that trade in these species will be prohibited. That they are traded cannot be doubted. I have already mentioned in Committee the fact that the smooth newt, the water newt, the common frog, the common toad and the grass snake are traded in considerable numbers for the educational market. These are species which the British Herpetological Society informs me are already noted to be in decline either locally or at large in lowland Britain. The amendments will not, I suggest, prohibit the collection of tadpoles by small boys and will not

215
prohibit "adder bashing" by the convinced adder bashers in your Lordships' House.
I would also stress that most, if not all, of our partners in the European Community have already enacted legislation that affords protection to the reptiles and amphibian species that appear in Appendix 3 of the convention and as regards which at present the United Kingdom lags behind. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that other European countries, including the German Democratic Republic, Switzerland and Hungary, also protect all species. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because we have been through a number of stages since the Committee stage when I moved, with my noble friend Lady David, an amendment to reverse list mammals, reptiles and amphibians. That did not receive a great deal of support around the Committee and I think that it was felt, certainly by the Government, to involve a great deal of rather complicated redrafting at this stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved an amendment which, in the absence of any support for reverse listing, I then supported. I gather that he has now had further discussions and feels that this amendment would meet the problem which he sees, and I certainly would agree with him. So we have, as it were, moved several steps since our initial debate. I very much hope that, because this does not introduce a new schedule and because it simply aims to require a licence for sale for a number of these things, it will be acceptable to the Government and will provide a measure of reassurance for those who are extremely worried about the abuse of the reptiles and amphibians which are listed in the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is quite right: the amendment does not add another schedule to the Bill. But I am grateful to him and to my noble friend for drawing attention to the fact that it is quite permissible in appropriate cases to apply selectively the provisions affording protection to animals, and I can confirm that where advice is received to the effect that the course is the proper one, the Government will not hesitate to consider it favourably.
I am bound to tell my noble friend that I would find it difficult at the moment to accept his amendments which he has listed here, because the Government have not yet received the advice on the creatures which have been listed in these amendments, although I have now asked the Nature Conservancy Council to review the species which have been listed. I am advised, however, that this may take some time, and I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that on receipt of such advice the Government will take the appropriate action.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I point out that since the Committee stage we have had a number of cases where the Government agreed to take advice, and when the advice has come back they have not acted on it. Do I understand the noble Earl to say that, if the advice is that these species should be listed, the Government will definitely table an amendment to that effect?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my understanding is that it may take some time for the advice to be given, but when the advice is given—whether the Bill is in the process of going through Parliament or whether it has, in fact, been enacted—it is still possible to add these species to the list.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl did not quite meet my point. The worry is that the Government, having received the advice, will not act on it. The noble Earl very nearly said what I wanted him to say, but can he give us an assurance that the Government will actually make the changes which they are advised to make?—because at certain stages during the Report stage the Government have not accepted the advice that they have been given by the advisory committee. I hope that in this case they will do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, I was very careful in the words that I chose. Of course, the Government will act on the advice, but in the end the Government have to be the arbiter and the advice is only advice. I have no reason to suspect that the Government will not act on the advice which the Nature Conservancy Council gives them, but it is the Government who must, in the end, retain the right to act or not to act on the advice which they receive.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, if the Government intend to proceed in this direction, and if the Government—who are a signatory to the Berne Convention—do not intend to complete the requirements of the Berne Convention, exactly how will they then proceed to the ratification of the Berne Convention?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that we are going down all sorts of hypothetical tracks. I have said to my noble friend that we have asked the Nature Conservancy Council for advice on the particular species that he has listed. When that advice is received, the Government will be in a position to act. We cannot act before receiving that advice.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74B not moved.]
10.43 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 74C:
Page 51, line 43, at end insert—

("Lizard, Green

Lacerta viridis

Channel Islands only").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74C operates on a different principle. The green lizard is an endangered species throughout Europe and it is listed on Appendix 2 of the Berne Convention. All other Appendix 2 animals have been given full protection by the Bill which is before your Lordships. The green lizard occurs within the United Kingdom only in the Channel Islands. But, none the less, it is our duty, if the jurisdiction of the Bill extends to the Channel Islands, to protect this animal under Appendix 2 of the Berne Convention. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the same applies to this particular amendment; we asked for advice and we are waiting for it. Therefore, I would not be in a position to recommend to your Lordships that we accept this amendment until we have received that advice.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, may I confirm that, in fact, species that occur only in the Channel Islands are the proper province of this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the particular species to which the noble Lord refers applies in the Channel Islands, and does not, as I understand it, apply in this country.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, as I have not yet spoken, perhaps I could pursue this matter. I do not know whether the noble Earl can speak again, but at least we could put the point on the record and someone can write to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and myself before the Third Reading, so that we can consider whether or not to table the amendment again. We want to know whether the provisions of the Bill, which cover England, Scotland and Wales, also cover the Channel Islands. The noble Earl is shaking his head. It seems that the Bill does not cover the Channel Islands.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I will find it easier to decide what to do with the benefit of that knowledge and I am grateful to the Minister.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, might I make this clear, in case in the nodding of heads there might be confusion. The Bill does not apply to the Channel Islands.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74D, 74E and 74F not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74G:
Page 52, line 12, at end insert—

("Snake, Grass

Natrix helvetica

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

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I only draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that as a demonstrator in a zoology class I have supervised the dissection of a large number of grass snakes, and the grass snake is an animal which is declining in its range in this country. It is a threatened animal. It is appropriately Appendix 2, and it requires this protection. With those words, I beg leave not to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 74G not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 52, line 13, at end insert—

("Spider, Ladybird

Eresus niger").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel sure that I shall be able to give my noble friend Lord Cranbrook a little pleasure here because recently the Nature Conservancy Council advised my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it was the Council's view that the spider, eresus niger, should be added to Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Creature and Wild Plants Act as its status as a British wild creature was in danger. I am advised that this spider was rediscovered only last year, and that prior to this the last authenticated sighting was in 1906. The population is extremely small, as your Lordships might well imagine, and specimens of this species would be highly prized by collectors. It is an obvious candidate for the protection which this Bill will afford, and I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 75B:
Page 52, line 15, at end insert—

("Vole, Orkney/Guernsey

Microtis arvalis

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

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this because a different principle is involved. Given that the Guernsey population of this particular vole is outside the provisions of this Bill, none the less there remains the Orkney population. This is a particular animal of the Orkneys. The population is restricted to those islands within the United Kingdom. It is therefore at risk in so far as it is of limited extent and of very limited range. I propose that it should be in Clause 9 under subsection (3) only. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I say again to my noble friend that we shall certainly take his point and his observations into account, but I should prefer to suggest to your Lordships that we do not accept this amendment as it is until we have had the advice we seek.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 52, line 15, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to Amendment No. 58 which your Lordships approved earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild mammals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 12, line 8, after ("aforesaid") insert ("any bow or crossbow").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I might speak to Amendments Nos. 77 and 80 as they are linked together. I need say little to them for my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, spoke during the Committee stage about the use of bows and crossbows against wild animals. I believe it was the opinion of your Lordships that their use should not normally be permitted. In the wrong hands, they can be dangerous instruments and a menace to wildlife. The effect of Amendment No. 77 will be to make it illegal to use a bow or a crossbow for the purpose of killing or taking any wild animal unless a licence has been obtained for one of the purposes covered in Clause 15(2). Amendment No. 80 is a consequential amendment removing the bow or crossbow from the list of methods which were not to be employed against any Schedule 6 mammal. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: I welcome the amendment, my Lords, and thank the Government for tabling it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 12, line 9, after ("firearm") insert ("except that in England and Wales this paragraph shall apply as if the words" self-locking" were omitted").
The noble Lord said: This is not a frivolous amendment, my Lords, nor is it a re-run of the debate we had in Committee on this subject. I would say at the outset that I am reconciled to the fact that in some respects Scotland is a backward country, and that is why I propose to leave Scotland out of this amendment. They have been left out before. They were left out of the banning of the gin trap in England and Wales. It took backward Scotland 10 years to follow suit and get rid of that cruel trapping device which, in the more civilised England and Wales, we got rid of a decade before the Scots felt justified in doing so. And as long ago as 1911, when the English introduced the Protection of Animals Act, Scotland lagged behind even then and did not get their corresponding legislation until a year later. Having looked at the debate in Committee, and having looked at the Division List, I thought it was both seemly and desirable from my point of view to exile the Scots from this debate. There are evil elements in Scotland which go back into the dark ages of the history of that country, so I appeal to the more civilised elements in England and Wales on the question of the snare.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not everything the noble Lord is saying calculated to encourage Scottish Peers to take part in this debate?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am afraid I did not hear that intervention. It is rather late at night to lay my snares, but I have a full collection of snares with me. I know it is not customary in your Lordships' House to have visual aids in the course of
220
our debates, and I do not intend to bore the more sophisticated countrymen in the Chamber tonight by illustrating my full exhibition of snares. However, it is important that we know what we are talking about, and the extraordinary thing is that throughout the debate in Committee we had no explanation of what was the difference between a snare and a self-locking snare; how the police, the public and anybody else was to distinguish between the two, and what the purpose was of banning the self-locking snare and not the ordinary snare.
That brings me to a point I have frequently mentioned in connection with our proceedings. A Bill is printed; there are brief explanatory notes printed at the beginning of it; in Committee nobody explains what a particular clause intends to do; we go straight into the amendments assuming that everybody knows what the clause is expected to do, and the debate on the clause stand part is really the only occasion when the main purpose of the clause can be explained.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not tell us anything about the snare or the self-locking snare; nor did he tell us why it was proposed to ban the self-locking snare and not the other snare; and I think that it is important to know. Recently a friend of mine in Chard, Somerset, has been collecting snares of different kinds and sending them in bulk to the Department of the Environment, with a strong plea that snares being laid in the numbers in which they are being laid in some parts of the country are a threat to the conservation of our wildlife. In one small woodland he collected 70 snares, all tethered to barbed wire fences. Those snares went to the Department of the Environment, and in due course they were all sent back to him through the Bristol office. It was explained to my friend that the House of Lords, in its wisdom, had decided on the Committee stage of the Bill not to adopt an amendment to make the snare unlawful. What the letter did not do—
Lord Burton: My Lords, had the noble Lord's friend any permission to remove the snares?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: —was to distinguish between the self-locking snares and the ordinary snares in the parcel. The Department of the Environment did not tell the man that half the snares he had sent in would be unlawful, anyway. That was because they were self-locking snares and Clause 11 of the Bill would make them unlawful. What I have just stated suggests that the Department of the Environment did not know the difference between self-locking snares and other snares; nor for that matter did the local police. That raises very important questions as to what is the purpose of banning the self-locking snare but not the other snare, and how will the difference between the two interfere with the proper enforcement of the law?
We all know what an ordinary snare is. It consists of a simple loop. Many of them are made at home, but those that are made in factories are more finished articles than are the others. A self-locking snare has a device which prevents the snare from becoming loose once it has become tight; so the tighter it becomes, the tighter it stays. No matter what the animal does, the self-lock on the snare is never relaxed.

221
In some ways a self-locking snare may despatch an animal more quickly than would an ordinary snare, because the ordinary snare will relax when the animal, tired or unconscious, also relaxes, but when it recovers, or begins to struggle again, the snare will tighten afresh. That accounts in some cases for the horrible things that happen when an animal is caught in that type of snare. It struggles, it gets further out of the snare when it relaxes. The snare draws tight as the animal struggles to escape, and the snare wire is found round the animal's body. Horrible things happen to an animal in an ordinary snare when the wire begins to cut the belly. So from the point of view of cruelty it could be argued that the self-locking snare is less cruel than the ordinary snare, because once the self-locking snare is drawn tight, the animal never gets the chance of a looser snare from which to escape.
It is of course possible to distinguish between an ordinary snare, which does not have a device of the kind that I have described, and a self-locking snare, which has such a device. There is no difficulty in identifying the self-locking snare as distinct from the ordinary snare. But there is a snare which is both a self-locking snare and an ordinary snare, according to which hole the wire is put through; and this snare that I hold in my hand can be either a loose, flexible snare if the wire goes through one hole or it can be a self-locking snare if the wire is put through another hole. Is that a self-locking snare or is it a dual-purpose snare? Will this snare be banned under Clause 11 as a self-locking snare, or will it be exempted from proceedings if it has been put on the animal as an ordinary snare? Who is to tell the difference between the two unless this type of snare of itself is to be regarded as unlawful because it can be turned into a self-locking snare? I do not know what the answer to that is, but I think it is desirable to know the answer.
When we do know the answer, my Lords, then I think we are entitled to ask the Minister: What are you trying to do? Is this a conservation proposal, or is it an anti-cruelty proposal? The answer to that question, I think, will depend on how well informed the Minister may be on what use is made of the self-locking snare at the present time. The self-locking snare is used almost wholly by those engaged in the pelt business; and I have a letter here from the secretary of the Gamekeepers' Committee of WAGBI, who says that the self-locking snare is used by those catering exclusively for the pelt trade. So it may be that the banning of the self-locking snare is a discouragement to the pelt trade, and a discouragement to the pelt trade is a conservation purpose. If, however, it has some other object in Clause 11, I think it ought to be explained by the Minister what that is.
I believe that conservation of the fox is becoming a matter of some urgency at the present time in view of the substantial increase in the export of fox pelts and their use for female adornment, mostly, I am bound to say. They have a very good market and a very good price. There are advertisements in newspapers throughout the South-West of England saying, "Best prices paid for fox pelts", and it is quite clear that the fox pelt business is now a flourishing one and at the present time is expanding. Against that background I think that further elucidation is called for and further justification of the Government's approach to this clause is desirable.
222
I think that the question is so doubtful as to which way the argument is going that it is very difficult, if I may say so, for the House to come to a firm conclusion on the proposal before it at the present time. I do not think that this matter, so far as this House is concerned, has been fully investigated; and whatever may have been the reasons behind this proposal in the Bill itself, they have not been fully deployed either in your Lordships' Committee or in the House. That is why I feel that this is a very important matter that ought to receive more consideration than it has already received. I may say, adverting to Scotland for another moment, that I have consulted the welfare societies in Scotland and they are reluctantly willing to agree, for their part, not to make any fuss about dealing with this matter for the time being, at any rate, as one which relates to England and Wales only, and not to Scotland. There is much else that could be said. This is a very inconvenient time of the night to be saying it. I apologise to your Lordships for detaining you even as long as this. I cannot help it if important matters on this Bill come up late at night. They are as important at 11 o'clock at night as they are at 6 o'clock in the evening; and they are entitled to as much consideration by the House whatever the hour at which the matter may be discussed.
As I say, there are strong reasons, I believe, for ridding our countryside of this increasing method of taking foxes particularly, badgers by accident or (one never knows whether by accident or not) cats and dogs, we hope by accident, in snares which are laid principally for the pelt trade. In all the circumstances, we are entitled to a full explanation from the Government as to what is the purpose of the clause and how they propose to deal with the point I have raised. Many of your Lordships will have received through the post a report which appeared in the New Scientist on 1st January 1981 about foxes and what is happening to them and—a matter which should interest some of your Lordships—the fall, apparently, in the number of foxes being taken by hunting activities throughout the country. I do not pretend to know any more than the statistics given here, but it seems as if even hunting itself is threatened not by the activities of the hunt saboteurs, and still less perhaps from an Act of Parliament, but by the dearth of foxes to hunt. And that may become the eventual end of this process of erosion of the fox population.
It seems very odd—and I come to my conclusion—that we have been treating the only wild dog in Britain so badly over the years. We regard it as a pest. The word "vermin" is often used in this connection. But how strange it is that we attribute to human beings some of the qualities and some of the defects of the animal kingdom. Call a man a sly old fox and he will not feel particularly annoyed; but call his wife a vixen and she will feel insulted. One can give other examples of how the legendary attributes of animals are fixed upon human beings to portray the evil in mankind. This is an attitude that, it seems to me, we really have to get rid of in our approach to the animal kingdom, not only here but throughout the world.
I can see the Chief Whip is getting really agitated. He is not smiling and he is feeling that I have occupied

223
enough of the time of the House. He is nodding his head to that, and other noble Lords approve. But, if your Lordships provoke me, I may have to go on until somebody takes advantage of the Standing Order which requires me to sit down. I am sure that that would be most inappropriate on this occasion, on this subject, at this hour of night. However, in deference to your Lordships' wishes I will not detain you any longer; but I think seriously that I have put before the House considerations of some importance in connection with this amendment. I beg to move.
11.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that one would not take offence if one was called a sly old fox. If I might say so with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, he is a sly old fox. Here he puts down an amendment, and first of all he said he looked at the previous debate and found everyone was against it. He looked at the Division List and found they were all Scotsmen, and so he put down an amendment which relates only to England and Wales to keep out the Scotsmen. So he realises in effect that the whole argument deployed at the Committee stage will be deployed with equal force in the Report stage and for the same purpose. He said that he wanted to know what the Government's purpose was in this Bill. I shall tell the noble Lord what the Government's purpose is: use of the snare should be continued for the purposes of catching such animals as it is necessary to catch because in some cases it happens to be the most effective weapon.
The object of the Bill as it is so directed is to stop the use of the self-locking snare. The noble Lord said that he had a whole series of snares. I have a whole collection of snares, too, because I prepared myself for this. I expect my collection is better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But he brought his along to the Chamber and I left my sack of them behind. But I will tell him this: if a snare purports to be both a free-running and a self-locking snare, that would be considered illegal because it would be potentially a self-locking snare and that would be considered cruel. It he asks why we ban the self-locking snare, the answer is the very reason that he gave himself: the snare is designed to get tighter and tighter and the animal cannot get away from it.
As he knows, there are plenty of snares that can be used which can catch an animal without necessarily killing it. I do not like snares but I can only reiterate what I said at the Committee stage, that the snare is widely used and is a necessary tool of the trade for farmers, forestry workers and others.
I should tell your Lordships that informal soundings of suppliers which have been carried out by my department suggest that between 100,000 and 200,000 snares are bought each year. A much larger number are almost certainly made at home. Clearly, there is a demand for the snare. A licensing requirement in relation to use on this scale would be impossible to police. My fear is that, even if your Lordships were to accept this amendment, it would be impossible to police it.
If we were to attempt to enforce an amendment such as this, it would have extremely dire consequences. A much wider misuse would be made of poison and
224
I would deplore this. I do not doubt that that is what would happen. I do not wish to be negative about this issue but my department has done research for some 25 years to find an alternative. If a suitable alternative could be found or had been found, would be in favour of using it and I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But a suitable alternative has not yet been found.
I can tell the noble Lord that trials are being carried out on what is called a foothold trap which could conceivably replace the snare. These trials look promising. To describe it as a trap is a misnomer because the device is, I gather, a spring-activated snare. It is in part a metal bracelet and only part wire. It does not cut into the limb of the animal. All the foxes which have been caught by researchers using this particular snare have been caught alive and apparently unharmed.
It might be described—and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might even remember Frank Sinatra using the expression—as the tender trap. We are looking into this and if it proves to be successful, maybe it will replace the snare. I would remind him, as he reminded the House, that it took some time to get the gin trap banned. It was eventually banned when an alternative became available. I hope the noble Lord will realise that, even though I cannot accept the amendment and cannot advise your Lordships' House to accept it, nevertheless that does not mean to say that I am unsympathetic to the noble Lord's desire to see this particular tool replaced by another when a suitable one can be found.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Earl said about this new combination between a snare and a trap. As he said, we had a debate on this at Committee stage. In putting my name to this amendment, I was quite seriously trying to take account of the objections raised by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who pointed out that she thought this would cause great difficulties in Scotland. My feeling was that it might be more acceptable to have the amendment which is now down, particularly as I stressed at Committee stage that licensing procedures would be available to meet the serious problems people foresaw in upland areas in Yorkshire, as a number of noble Lords opposite mentioned, and in Wales.
During our discussions on this there have been times when I thought the noble Lord the Chief Whip might have been getting a crick in his neck, and if we have done anything to restore his head to face in the right direction, that would be a help. But I think it is a little unfair, when we on this side of the House have done so much to keep things going quickly and to keep our remarks short—which is not the normal practice for an Opposition, particularly in your Lordships' House, where our only recourse is to delay the passage of Government legislation we do not approve of. As yet, we do not approve of this legislation, and I hope that was made clear by various things we said at Committee stage. But we have not adopted that tactic, easy as it would have been for us on this Bill; and I think for us to have had one debate which has gone on for about half-an-hour on an amendment we see as particularly important is not

225
excessive. I must say that I, with my noble friends, would start to get a little bit cross and no doubt speak at rather greater length than I have up to now if noble Lords opposite see fit to make noises and faces at us, when we have not—for example, on the first amendment after the dinner break—made any noises or objections to any long debates we did not take part in. So I hope there will be a little equality of treatment in the House; if there is not, I am afraid we shall take a lot longer than—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I have been making faces at the noble Lord I can only apologise. I do not think I made any noises.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for not making any noises to me. I am sure that would have a far more disastrous effect than a self-locking snare has ever had on anybody. I do not want to repeat what I said on Committee stage. We have had a good go at this and I feel—I do not know what my noble friend thinks—that in view of the really rather sympathetic reply by the noble Earl it might be best to leave the matter there. There will be a provision to add prohibited methods to the Bill as well as to take them off, and I hope this research will be given a high degree of priority. If it is not, it seems to me that snaring will be banned whether or not there is an acceptable alternative. It is a disastrously cruel method of killing indiscriminately. That is the main objection to it, at least in my mind—not that it is used to kill foxes but that whatever it kills it kills very cruelly, and also nobody setting a snare can know what kind of animal they will catch—a fox, a badger, a domestic cat, a dog, or in the few areas where they still occur, an otter. Most of the animals the snare was not intended to catch will be caught cruelly and will suffer a long and lingering death. It is a vicious thing and is bound to be banned sooner or later. If MAFF are giving high priority to finding an alternative, I think that is a wise course of action for them to take.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said and I will not labour that point. I was not persuaded by the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It is still a little doubtful as to what is the real purpose of this change of banning the self-locking snare and retaining the other. However, I think the noble Earl underestimates the concern throughout the country about the extent of this cruelty. I believe that time will show that public opinion wishes this change to be made from the use of an extremely cruel form of catching animals. The fact that there may be a demand for something does not mean to say that we have to meet that demand. There is a demand for guns; there is a demand for daggers. There can be a demand for all kinds of vicious things, if they are supplied. But we do not regard it as the duty of Parliament, or of society, to yield up to all sections of the community which may make demands for particular devices or implements or weapons. We have our own standards and we want to try to keep them.
However, I shall consult on this when I see the Minister's reply in the Official Report and see whether
226
there is enough encouragement for us to leave the matter alone for the remainder of this Bill, or whether we should make ourselves a nuisance and even want to come back to it again at a later stage in our proceedings. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("whatever") to end of line 12.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for not pressing the last amendment, and this one is in response to a plea which he made at the Committee stage with my noble friend Lord Craigton. It has the effect of making it an offence to use any live mammal as a decoy for the purpose of killing or taking any other wild mammal. Your Lordships will recall that we were not able to establish, when we discussed the subject during the Committee stage, whether, indeed, live mammals were used as decoys to take or kill other wild mammals. I believe that is still the case, but your Lordships were generally of the opinion that if such a means were practical it was reprehensible. Accordingly, the Government have tabled this amendment to meet what seems to be the general wish of your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should like to register my thanks to my noble friend for moving this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Segal): My Lords, I have to point out to the House that if Amendment No. 80 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 81 or 82.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 12, leave out line 28.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 77, which was agreed to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("tape") and insert ("sound").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandys spoke to this amendment when moving an identical one to Clause 5. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
11.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 12, line 38, after ("vehicle") insert ("or a pack of hounds").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86, to insert "or a pack of hounds" after "vehicle" on page 12, line 38. Subsection (2)

227
of Clause 11 relates wholly to animals in Schedule 6. Your Lordships will notice that what is banned in paragraph (e) is the use of
"any mechanically propelled vehicle in immediate pursuit of any such wild animal for the purpose of driving, killing or taking that mammal".
To do that a person would be guilty of an offence.
If noble Lords will look at Schedule 6, they will wonder which animals in that schedule might be pursued by a vehicle. It would not be the dormouse, or the hedgehog, or the red squirrel. In fact, most of the animals in Schedule 6 one would not think of chasing in a vehicle. But there is one animal there which could be chased by a pack of hounds, and that is the otter. The hunting of the otter has not been made unlawful either in England and Wales or in Scotland. In fact, until now the otter has not been a protected animal in Scotland, only in England and Wales. But when the protection was put on the otter in England and Wales it was protection against killing or taking and not against hunting.
I do not know how many otter packs remain in England and Wales—probably very few because, although they may hunt, they may not kill. Some packs have found some enjoyment from going about an otter hunt as if they were going to kill; but when an otter is put up, if they find one, they call off the dogs and the otter is not killed or taken. If they do that it is not an offence. But your Lordships know as well as I that for hounds to go chasing otters along the river banks, putting them up and running after them, can have a very adverse effect upon the peace of mind of the otter, its habitat and its way of life, even though the dogs are called off. Therefore I think the time has come to ban altogether the hunting of the otter.
Now that we have the otter protected in Scotland under the Bill and already protected in England and Wales, surely this is the proper time to say that there can be no further hunting of otters with hounds. Whatever the pretext may be of going after the otter without killing it, that practice should be abandoned. Some people who are still looking for otters will, if they are accosted, say that they are looking for mink or for other animals which may still be at large in our waterways and nearby.
This is a very reasonable proposition. There is great public sympathy for the otter which is not so well protected as people think it is. In Scotland, where it was thought that the protection of the otter was not really necessary on conservation grounds at the time that protection was introduced in England and Wales, there are now grave misgivings indeed about the otter population.
May I direct your Lordships' attention to the Evening News, presumably the Edinburgh Evening News of Saturday, 28th February, 1981:
"A view from the edge of extinction".
This is a reference to otters in Scotland. If this is the parlous position of otters in Scotland, it is time to do more than protect the otter on the same basis as it has been protected in England and Wales and to ban the hunting of the otter throughout the whole of the British Isles. I think this is a reasonable proposition. It is surely not going to be in the heads of your Lordships
228
to go into the Lobby to maintain the right to hunt the otter, although not the right in England and Wales, at the moment, to kill it. Surely that is a phantom kind of hunting that should be done away with, and if we are serious about our conservation of the otter we will give it the fullest protection we possibly can. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I hope this amendment will be acceptable to your Lordships. It seems to me to be no more than a clarification of what I think almost everyone assumes is already the law in England and Wales, and will be the law in Scotland once the Bill becomes an Act. As my noble friend has said, although I think some Members of your Lordships' House may have thought that he wished to go further, in fact all the amendment seeks to do is to prevent the hunting by hounds of the mammals listed in Schedule 6; and while we could have some fun speculating on which of those would be most unsuitable to be hunted by hounds—a porpoise or a bat, for instance—in fact we are really talking about otters and possibly the setting of dogs on badgers, although I think that would be an offence under the Badgers Act.
A number of packs of otter hounds—certainly the one in East Anglia—continue to hunt mink and that, of course, would not be affected by my noble friend's amendment, so long as that is what they were hunting. It would be an offence to hunt otter, even if they intended to call the hounds off before a kill was made. I think one of the main reasons for including the otter in this schedule in England and Wales, and in Scotland, apart from recognising the very serious decline that there has been in otter numbers, was also to try to provide some measure of protection against disturbance. This is particularly important when numbers are very low, because the chasing of a female when she has cubs or is about to give birth, even if it is for a very short distance and with no intention of actually killing the otter, may well be sufficient to prevent the breeding or to leave the cubs alone long enough for them to die. As noble Lords will know, otters are liable to give birth at any time of the year, so it is not possible to restrict hunting to the seasons when they are not cubbing. Where the population gets very low and very scattered, it is important that even a minor occurrence like the chasing by hounds for even a few hundred yards should be avoided, because that might be enough to decimate the young over quite a large area. Everyone assumes that it is no longer legal to chase otters with packs of hounds, but this would be a useful clarification and I hope it will be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has tabled this amendment. My understanding is that it is an offence to disturb an otter in its holt, but I really could not advise your Lordships to accept this amendment because in fact it is not a conservation amendment, it is an amendment against hunting—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: It is, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head, but he has been arguing for the last five minutes that it should be wrong to hunt otters, and all I am saying is that this is not the correct place for that kind of amendment.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Earl has already made it clear that it is illegal to disturb otters in their holts and there is no way in which you can hunt otters without running the risk of doing that. It is already illegal and all the amendment does is to make the point clear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if it is already illegal there is no point in putting it in the Bill, and I think it is quite inappropriate to put in this Bill measures to outlaw field sports of any kind.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect, I think that is a piece of humbug. We are conserving the otter; this is what it is all about. What is the point in saying we are conserving the otter if we still allow the hunting of the otter with hounds, but stop the hunt from killing the otter? What is that kind of charade for? Is this called field sports? Is it a sport to go hunting the otter but not be allowed to kill it, after centuries of the otter being allowed to be hunted and killed? I do not understand how the noble Earl's mind works on this subject. If we want to conserve the otter we must protect it in every possible way. One of the ways of conserving it is to prevent it from being disturbed, prevent it from being chased away from its habitat, from its young, whatever may be the condition of the otter when it is chased by hounds and when it is in danger of its life the hounds are called off. Is that a sport or is it conservation, or what is it? Surely we cannot keep up the pretence that we are hunting when the conservation of the otter prevents us from killing it. I cannot see how the noble Earl can rationalise the speech he has just made.
Earl Peel: My Lords, if I may intervene to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in fact a great deal of pleasure is derived in the simple use of hound work. More often than not in the case of fox hunting, when the fox escapes the hounds have been working and people have had the opportunity of watching them have a good chase, and this gives them more pleasure than the killing of the animal itself.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 12, line 44, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is in effect a drafting amendment, and it is parallel to Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Conservation of Seals Act 1970
. After sub-paragraph (iii) of section 10(1)(c) (power to grant licences) of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(iv) the protection of the flora or fauna of a nature reserve within the meaning of Part III of the 1949 Act or an area of special scientific interest of which notification has been given to any local planning authority under section 23 of the 1949 Act or which is designated by order under section 26 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke at some length to this amendment at Committee stage and I have no intention of repeating anything I said then if I can possibly help it. I withdrew it because it had only been down a very few days before it came before your Lordships, but I want to push it a little bit tonight. I think I should remind your Lordships that the purpose is to prevent erosion of the soil by grey seals breeding on the Fame Islands off Northumberland. I think many of your Lordships will have had a long letter from the National Trust, the owners of these islands, which sets it all out in some detail. There has been support from the NCC for an amendment in these terms. It has nothing to do with fisheries or the protection of fisheries, and I hope we can keep right away from the subject of what may happen to seals in Canada at this time, because this is nothing to do with that, either. We have understood over and over again that this is a conservation Bill—though conversation seems to be equally appropriate—and this amendment is a conservation amendment for the benefit of the habitat in the islands where these rare birds breed, and that is what it is all about.
There is a fear that, if we open up the whole question of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, goodness knows what might fly in or out of the door! I believe this amendment not only is so urgent that it should be taken as it stands, but should other amendments try to follow it through the door they can be treated on their merits, too. One argument was that if the Home Office has in the past given licences to cull seals in various numbers on these islands, why cannot they go on doing so? The answer is, I understand, that they would not be able to do so as the situation now is without an amendment of this kind to the 1970 Act. That is all that I shall say about it tonight.
I have reason to believe that the walls of Jericho, if not at least falling, may be crumbling slightly and that the debate may be better taken part in on Amendment No. 92ZA—the new schedule—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I understand that Part II of that schedule does what I am trying to do, but probably does it a great deal better. I beg to move.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, in order to be clear, because the amendment is in my name, I should point out that Amendment No. 91A and Amendment No. 92ZA, on which I have received some very considerable drafting help from the Government for which I am very grateful, do, in fact, encompass the noble Viscount's intention and my intentions on the Badgers Act and my noble friend's intentions on the Deer Act. Certainly speaking for my noble friend and myself, I think that we are entirely happy with the drafting in Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA. If the noble Viscount is happy and we have an assurance that the Government are at least not going to object strenuously to Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA, then I think that we could short circuit a great deal of discussion simply by leaving all the individual amendments and moving Amendments Nos. 91A and 92ZA when we come to them. That will cover what the three of us want simply and quickly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite certain what my noble friend meant when he said that the walls of

231
Jericho were falling, but if he meant that the Government were being accommodating, he was entirely correct. The points which he seeks to make in Amendment No. 89 and which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, seeks to make in Amendment No. 91 are, in fact, all encapsulated in Lord Melchett's amendments, Nos. 92ZA and 91A. If the noble Lords were content not to move their amendments, I would be happy to accept Lord Melchett's amendments.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, at this stage I should like to say a word about the noble Viscount's amendment, because I think that it is a very important amendment in principle. It is the dilemma of conservation that very often one conserves one species, one type of living creature, and that in turn destroys another.
The whole point of conservation is to try to keep a balance so that one species does not erode the habitat or the food supply or predate too heavily upon another. I think that we must congratulate the noble Viscount on having pressed this point, because if the walls of Jericho had not cracked, as they have done, I would have hoped that many of us would have followed him through the lobby on this particular issue, because I think that the National Trust is just trying to do the proper duty which has been assigned to it in looking after the islands which have been put in its charge.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
11.43 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 91 A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of certain mammals
. The Deer Act 1963, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Badgers Act 1973 shall have effect subject to the amendments provided for by Schedule (Amendments of the 1963, 1970 and 1973 Acts); and in that Schedule "the 1963 Act" means the said Act of 1973, "the 1970 Act" means the said Act of 1970 and "the 1973 Act" means the said Act of 1973".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the introductory amendment to Amendment No. 92ZA which is the new schedule after Schedule 6 which lists the amendments, first, in Part I to the Deer Act; secondly, in Part II to the Seals Act (which covers the points which the noble Viscount wished to raise, so I am advised); and in Part III the amendments that I wanted to make to the Badgers Act and which we discussed in Committee.
I should like to make three points. First, I am extremely grateful for the co-operation of the Government on this and, as I say, for the help they have given me in drafting. I could not possibly have drafted all this myself and would not pretend that I had done so. Secondly, I hope that when the Government do take a very reasonable and responsible attitude, we shall not talk of it in terms of walls crumbling.
For my part, on the Badgers Act I took my lead from what the Minister of State, Mr. Monro, had said in a debate in another place last year, when I thought that
232
he made some extremely encouraging and helpful remarks about the need to amend the Badgers Act. Therefore, I do not entirely claim the credit for the changes that have been made; I think that the Government have taken a very reasonable and enlightened attitude towards the changes that have been proposed for the Badgers Act, for which I am extremely grateful to them.
I should like to say a few words, so that the matter is on the record, about the changes in the Badgers Act, because these are very important and significant changes in a major Act of Parliament. The effect of the changes will be to get rid of the concept of special protection areas and leave badgers protected throughout the country, unless someone has a licence to kill them—as, for example, MAFF officials have in the gassing operations that they are conducting in the South-West of England. Someone would be able to obtain a licence (if they really needed it) in order to prevent badgers doing some sort of damage, or, of course, licences would be obtainable if badgers were spreading disease in any other part of the country. I reiterate that they are not at the moment; there is no cause to suspect them of doing so, and the MAFF are dealing with the problem in the only area of the country where it is known to exist.
The second exception to that is included in the new Section 7 of Amendment No. 92ZA, which is to be found on page 22 of the Marshalled List, where we have followed the wording which we have now inserted in the Bill as applying to protected mammals. In other words, someone has to show that his action was necessary and if he is able to show that and the points are met in the new paragraph (1B) on page 22 of the Marshalled List, then he has a defence in court if he wants it.
However, I hope that the message will go out from your Lordships' House and from the Government once the Bill is passed that badgers are now fully protected, but if people think that a badger is causing any damage or is likely to, they should apply for a licence; otherwise these harmless and, indeed, very helpful creatures should be left unpersecuted in the countryside. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Government for their help in drafting the part that deals with deer. I should also like to thank noble Lords on the other side of the House who were present during the Committee stage and who were so strong in their support for the various measures to complete the work of the original Deer Bill, which has been through the House so many times, that they finally persuaded the Government to give way and allow that remaining part of the Bill to be incorporated into this Bill. I am very grateful indeed to everyone who has helped in this way.
I should point out that there are two small errors in printing. In Amendment No. 91A at line 6 "1973" should read "1963"; and at the top of page 19 of the Marshalled List at line 4 the word "that" should be "than". I trust that those corrections will be made when the amendments are, as I hope, finally written into the Bill.
As for the part dealing with deer, may I simply say that the reason why the amendment is put in this

233
form—as a schedule instead of as drafted in my original Amendment No. 91, which was the one that I moved in Committee—is that, as I understand it, the Government were advised by counsel and parliamentary draftsmen that this was the proper way to do what we had been doing in a more amateurish way in an effort to get our message across.
So, in effect, it is exactly the same text as Amendment No. 91, but set out in a different way according to the requirements of legislation. It does what I said it would do at Committee stage: it only refers to England and Wales; it redefines the type of shot which can be used in a shotgun. It defines the circumstances in which that shot can be used and by whom it can be used. It legalises the use of a shortened shotgun as a slaughtering instrument. It provides for mercy killing and it allows the Minister, in agreement with the Minister of Agriculture and, as we have settled on earlier occasions, with the National Farmers' Union as appropriate, to vary the types of weapon and shot by area or by species as proves desirable so long as there is prior consultation with interests like the farming community and so long as the procedure is finally by affirmative order in both Houses.
Lastly, there is some amendment to the exemptions from prohibition in the 1963 Act from shooting out of season. That represents, without any undue repetition, a word of thanks to the Government for finally being convinced—and, I hope, a short explanation to the House of what is in fact a complicated amendment which completes what we have been trying to do for many years in this House; that is, to get a reformed 1963 Deer Act relating to England and Wales.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think it would be churlish of me, having taken such an active "anti-part" in this Bill, not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for getting this through. If I took a part, he would accuse me in the words of this Bill of causing, or about to cause, damage to his Bill—and he would therefore be entitled to shoot me with any smooth bore gun, with, I hope, a single projectile weighing not less than 22·68 grammes! I congratulate him indeed for getting this through.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, may I thank the Government for taking the actions on the 1970 Seals Act. I am very grateful, and I am sorry if I unintentionally gave any other impression.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind remarks which noble Lords have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, knows, when this particular amendment came up at Committee stage I was not particularly disposed to accept it for the reasons which I gave then. Your Lordships' views were clearly made at Committee stage and the Government sought to be as helpful as possible and to take those views into account. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is nice when one thinks of that as being accommodating as opposed to the walls of Jericho falling. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for pointing out that badgers are now fully protected around the countryside other than on the occasions when it is necessary to gas them from the point of view of tuberculosis protection.
234
I should like to make three matters clear. First, the amendment relating to deer applies only to England and Wales, and is without prejudice to conditions in Scotland. Secondly, as some aspects of the amendment relating to deer give rise to concern—for instance, the ban on night shooting of deer caused apprehension in some quarters—for their own part the Government are not entirely happy that further restrictions should be put on the use of firearms by a measure of this kind; but we appreciate the humane intentions behind the amendment and we recognise that it commands widespread support in your Lordships' House. Thirdly, I must stress in regard to the conservation of seals that this is as far as the Government are prepared to go in the context of this Bill.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, may I be allowed to express not only my own gratitude but also that of the National Trust for the Government's understanding of our problems in the Farne Islands. Their acceptance of this amendment will make our task so much easier.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that these amendments, large and important ones, represent a significant improvement in the Bill. I think the fact that they are the result of a great deal of all-party co-operation both on the Back-Benches and the Front Benches is something to be welcomed. We will, in this respect, have left Part I, as well as in a number of other important respects today, a great deal better for the time we have taken on it. I am delighted that this is going through as smoothly as it is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Mammals which may not be killed or taken by certain methods]:
11.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 52, line 37, at end insert—
("NOTE. The first column in this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account".).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 92ZA:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:
("AMENDMENTS OF THE 1963, 1970 AND 1973 ACTS

PART I

  THE 1963 ACT
  General exceptions
  1. For subsection (3) of section 10 of the 1963 Act (general exceptions) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of the use of any smooth-bore gun for the purpose of killing any deer if he shows that the deer was so seriously injured otherwise than by his unlawful act or was in such a condition that to kill it was an act of mercy.
  (4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of the use as a slaughtering instrument, for the purpose of killing any deer, of a smooth-bore gun which—

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

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

  235

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

  Exceptions for authorised persons
  2.—(1) After section 10 of the 1963 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Exceptions for authorised persons
  10A.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this section an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1 of this Act by reason of—

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

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

  on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any deer on any land, of any smooth-bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore which is loaded with—

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

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

  (3) An authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (1) or (2) of this section as respect anything done in relation to any deer on any land unless he shows that—

  (a) he had reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species were causing, or had caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on the land;

  (b) it was likely that further damage would be so caused and any such damage was likely to be serious; and

  (c) his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage.

  (4) The Secretary of State and the agriculture Minister acting jointly may by order, either generally or in relation to any area or any species and description of deer specified in the order, repeal subsection (2) of this section or amend it by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in it, or by adding any further conditions which must be satisfied.
  (5) Before making an order under subsection (4) of this section, the Secretary of State and the agriculture Minister shall consult organisations that appear to them to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order.
  (6) In this section—
  "agriculture Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to England and the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to Wales;
  "authorised person" means—

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

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

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

  (d) any person having the right to take or kill deer on that land or any person acting with the written authority of such a person.

  (2) In sections 1(1) and 3(1) of the 1963 Act for the words "sections 10 and 11" there shall be substituted the words "sections 10, 10A and 11".
  (3) For subsection (1) of section 12 of the 1963 Act (orders) there shall be substituted the following sub-sections—
  "(1) Any power to make orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

  (1A) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 1(2) or 3(4) of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

  (1B) No order under section 10A(4) of this Act shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

  Prohibited firearms and ammunition
  3.—(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1963 Act (prohibited firearms and ammunition) the words "of less gauge than 12 bore" shall be omitted.
  (2) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule the words from "other than" onwards shall be omitted.

PART II

  AMENDMENTS OF THE 1970 ACT
  4.—(1) In subsection (1)(c) of section 10 of the 1970 Act (power to grant licences), the word "or" immediately following sub-paragraph (ii) shall be omitted and after sub-paragraph (iii) there shall be inserted the words "or
  (iv) the protection of flora or fauna in an area to which subsection (4) of this section applies,".
  (2) In subsection (3)(b) of that section for the words from "a nature reserve" onwards there shall be substituted the words "an area to which subsection (4) of this section applies".
  (3) After subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(4) This subsection applies to any area—

  (a) which is a nature reserve within the meaning of section 15 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;

  (b) which has been notified as a site of special scientific interest under section (Areas of special scientific interest) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; or

  (c) to which section 27(3) of the said Act of 1981 applies.

PART III

  AMENDMENTS OF THE 1973 ACT
  Possession of dead badgers etc.
  5. For subsections (2) and (3) of section 1 of the 1973 Act (possession of recently killed badgers etc.) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(2) If, save as permitted by or under this Act, any person has in his possession or under his control any dead badger or pelt from a dead badger, then, unless he shows that the badger was killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence."
  Abolition of special exceptions for authorised persons
  6.—(1) Section 7 of the 1973 Act (exceptions for authorised persons) shall be omitted.
  (2) In section 2(c) of that Act for the words "subject to section 7(3) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "save as permitted by or under this Act".
  (3) Section 6 of that Act (areas within which section 7(1) does not apply) shall be omitted.
  (4) In subsection (2) of section 8 of that Act (general exceptions) paragraph (c) (live badger taken in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 7(1) or (2), the taking did not constitute an offence) shall be omitted.
  (5) In section 11 of that Act (interpretation) the definitions of "area of special protection" and "authorised person" shall be omitted.
  Protection for land, crops, poultry, etc.
  7.—(1) In section 8 of the 1973 Act (general exceptions), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  237
  "(1A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) of this Act by reason of—

  (a) the killing or taking or the attempted killing or taking of any badger, or

  (b) the injuring of any badger in the course of taking it or attempting to kill or take it,

  if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.
  (1B) The defence provided by subsection (1A) above shall not apply in relation to any action taken at any time if—

  (a) the risk of the damage was known before that time and a licence under section 9 of this Act authorising that action was not applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after the risk became known; or

  (b) an application for such a licence has been refused."

  (2) In section 9 of that Act (licences) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(e) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property, to kill or take badgers within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified".
  (3) In subsection (2)(b) of that section after the words "paragraph (d)" there shall be inserted the words "or (e)".
  Enforcement and penalties
  8.—(1) In subsection (1)(c) of section 10 of the 1973 Act (enforcement, penalties etc.) for the words from "any badger" onwards there shall be substituted the words "anything which may be evidence of the commission of the offence or may be liable to be forfeited under subsection (3) below".
  (2) In subsection (2) of that section for "£20" there shall be substituted "£200" and for "£100" there shall be substituted "£1,000".
  Interpretation
  9. In section 11 of the 1973 Act (interpretation) for the definition of "local authority" there shall be substituted the following definition—
  "'sale' includes hire, barter and exchange and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Protection of wild plants]:
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 92A:
  Page 13, line 19, after ("person") insert ("(a)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 92B not moved.]
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved the following amendments:
  Page 13, line 22, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i)").
  Page 13, line 23, leave out ("(b)") and insert (" (ii)").
  Page 13, line 23, at end insert ("or
  (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells, or intends to buy or sell, things falling within paragraph (a),").
  The noble Lord said: These amendments are consequential, my Lords, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 93:
  Page 13, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purpose of subsection (2) of this section, a plant included in Schedule 7 shall be deemed to be or to have been a wild plant unless the person charged shows that it is in his possession otherwise than in contravention of any provision of this Part.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now turn to plants. This is another effort to make the Bill more
  238
  realistic and to make the policing of this subsection more practical. One of the greatest weaknesses of this measure is that the enforcement of its provisions is very difficult. We do not want to pass laws which we assume from the moment they are made will be broken. Time and again the Bill proposes provisions to protect this creature or that habitat but denies the means of enforcement, because it makes no competent person responsible for the task or because it defines the offence in terms so vague that no prosecution can hold or because it offers a loophole to offenders.
  Here we have a loophole. It is right, as I said in Committee, that nurserymen who have been growing rare plants for years should still be able to offer their productions for sale, even when the plant is a protected one. But a rogue nurseryman, and there have been such, has only to declare that a plant he has stolen from the wild has been raised in his garden for it to be virtually impossible to prove otherwise, unless he is caught red-handed in the stealing.
  My amendment merely applies to wild plants the same rule, expressed in the same terms, as has been accepted all along in Clause 1(2) of the measure with regard to wild birds and their eggs; that is, the onus of showing that the protected creature possessed or offered for sale has been legally obtained should be on the possessor or vendor. In Clause 1(5) earlier today the noble Earl, Lord Avon, moved an amendment making the subsection read:
  "In this section, 'wild bird' does not include any bird which is shown to have been bred in captivity".
  The words "which is shown to have been" were suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in Committee. His point then appeared not to have been taken. However, the Government having reread what the noble Lord said, or it having been explained to them what it was all about, they tabled it as their own amendment today, and we are pleased about that. I hope that what has been accepted for birds will be accepted for plants because the principle is exactly the same. I beg to move.
  12 midnight
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, although the noble Baroness argued her case well, I regret to tell her that there are defects in the amendment. Further, the comparison she drew with birds is not that precise, as I will show. The aim of the amendment is to restrict the trade in plants which have been taken from the wild. The extent to which horticulturists take wild plants or parts of them from the wild and then sell them is unknown at present.
  Baroness David: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is not to stop them selling plants taken from the wild. We want them to be able to sell plants that are protected. We do not want them to take plants from the wild and pretend they have grown them; they must prove they have had them in their gardens.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will patiently await my next sentence, she will probably see that that point is well understood. As the noble Baroness knows, to take plants from the wild would be an offence under existing legislation. The Conser-

  239
  vation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 prohibits the uprooting of any wild plant. A person charged with selling a protected plant in Schedule 7, or any part, or anything, derived from it, would need to show—this is the point that I think the noble Baroness is making—that the plant was from cultivated stock, be it his own, or some other stock, or that a licence had been obtained permitting the sale of the plant.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am listening very carefully, because I think that we got into a muddle over this point at the Committee stage. May I ask the noble Lord where in the Bill it is stated that what he has described is in fact the case? He said that a nurseryman would have to show that the plant was taken from cultivated stock. Where in the Bill is that stated?
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, at the present moment I cannot put my finger on the precise part of the Bill, but I shall attempt to obtain advice on the matter.
  The noble Baroness drew attention to a situation in which she believed a rogue nurseryman would be perpetrating an act that her amendment is aimed to prevent him from carrying out. We believe that the amendment is defective in its drafting, in that it quotes an incorrect line of reference, which would have the effect of amending Clause 13. The correct reference would be to line 24. The noble Baroness may already realise that, and she could move a correcting amendment to this amendment.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am hoping that if I intervene briefly the noble Lord will be able to receive advice on the point about which we asked him and then intervene during my remarks to tell me the answer. It seems to me that without the proposal that we are suggesting in this amendment the provisions of the Bill will be totally unenforceable. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would like to intervene during the course of my remarks, so as to answer the question that has been put to him, since it is of the most vital importance, and if we do not receive a satisfactory answer, I feel that we shall have to press the amendment. If there are drafting errors in the amendment, we could have it tidied up at Third Reading. But if the noble Lord does not propose to intervene, I shall assume that he was inaccurate in what he said and that the Bill does not contain a provision which does what he suggested. Certainly we have not been able to find such a provision.
  Our reading of the Bill on this point is that a nurseryman would simply be able to say that the plant was cultivated in his nursery. There would be no element of proof—as there is in the part of the Bill relating to birds—on the nurseryman to show that the plant had been lawfully cultivated or lawfully held in his collection. That is exactly the situation that would make the protection of birds legislation totally unenforceable, and it seems to me that without a similar provision in this part of the Bill, the provisions relating to plants will be totally unenforceable.
  This matter was considered late in the evening at the Committee stage and it would be no credit to your
  240
  Lordships' House if we now allow it to slip through late in the evening, leaving the matter as totally unenforceable and as a meaningless piece of legislation. I really feel that we require a serious answer to this question. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, does not yet seem to be in a position to confirm the point that he made, which is the one that we want confirmed. However, if he is in such a position, I shall gladly give way to him.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, perhaps it would be to the benefit of the House if I were to expand a little on this matter. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is perfectly entitled to a full reply, as indeed is the noble Baroness in regard to her amendment. The question that we have to face in relation to the amendment of the noble Baroness is whether we need to place a requirement on a trader in plants which appear in Schedule 7—and a number of those featured in Schedule 7 are available commercially—to show that what he is selling are from cultivated stock, and not obtained from the wild, because if the amendment is carried, the assumption will be that if he is selling a Schedule 5 plant it will be a wild plant, unless he can show otherwise.
  Baroness David: No, it is not that; I am sorry. It is that he has got to show that he has cultivated it. It may be a protected plant, but he has got to show that it is one that he has cultivated in his garden. He has got to prove it is one that he has had growing there. It will be in his catalogue, or something like that.
  Lord Sandys: But the thrust of the amendment is to put the burden of proof on the defendant.
  Lord Melchett: The noble Lord said that that was already what the Bill did, but he now appears to be contradicting himself. This is a muddle. We did not get it straight at Committee. If we do not make this amendment I see absolutely no prospect of us getting it straight before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
  Lord Sandys: I think that perhaps it would be for the benefit of the noble Baroness if I were to expand on this a little further. I do not think it would probably be the wish of the House to be without this information. The Government have no idea of the extent of the trade in what are truly wild plants on Schedule 7 and what is carried on at the present moment. Without certainty, therefore, there is indeed a real threat to our stock of protected wild plants from such activities, and we would be reluctant to place a further obligation upon firms and individuals engaged in selling plants. The Bill as drafted therefore makes it an offence to sell a wild plant on Schedule 7, unless, of course, a licence has been granted, but it will be for the prosecution to show that the plant was wild and not cultivated.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I do not see anything about a licence. I cannot say that I am at all satisfied with the replies I am getting from the noble Lord. His replies do not seem to tie in with the Bill as it stands; and I do not see why the nurseryman, any more than the person who has got the bird or the egg, should not have to prove that it came into their possession law-

  241
  fully. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that the same thing should apply to both clauses. I am not satisfied at all, so if the noble Lord cannot say that he will take it away if he has not fully followed it, I think I shall have to press it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 has been wrongly marshalled and should come after Amendment No. 109, so the next amendment is No. 95.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 109:
  Page 52, line 40, at end insert—

  ("Alison, Small

  Alyssum alyssoides

  Broomrape, Bedstraw

  Orobanche caryophyllacea

  Broomrape, Oxtongue

  Orobanche loricata

  Broomrape, Thistle

  Orobanche reticulata")

  Page 52, line 42, at end insert—

  ("Club-rush, Triangular

  Scirpus triquetrus")

  Page 52, line 43, at end insert—

  ("Cow-wheat, Field

  Melampyrum arvense

  Cudweed, Jersey

  Gnaphalium luteolabum")

  Page 52, line 47, at end insert—

  ("Galingale, Brown

  Cyperus fuscus")

  Page 53, line 5, at end insert—

  ("Hares'-ear, Sickle-leaved

  Bulpeurum falcatum

  Hares'-ear, Small

  Bupleurum baldense")

  Page 53, line 8, at end insert—

  ("Knotgrass, Sea

  Polygonum maritimum"

  Page 53, line 11, at end insert—

  ("Leek, Round-headed

  Allium sphaerocephalon

  Lettuce, Least

  Lactuca saligna")

  Page 53, line 12, at end insert—

  ("Marsh-mallow, Rough

  Althaea hirsuta")

  Page 53, line 18, at end insert—

  ("Pear, Plymouth

  Pyrus cordata")

  Page 53, line 19, at end insert—

  ("Pink, Childling

  Petroraghia nanteuilii

  Sandwort, Norwegian

  Arenaria norvegica")

  Page 53, line 22, at end insert—

  ("Solomon's-seal,

  Polygonatum

  Whorled

  verticillatum")

  Page 53, line 25, at end insert—

  ("Spurge, Purple

  Euphorbia peplis")

  Page 53, line 26, at end insert—

  ("Violet, Fen

  Viola persicifolia

  Water-plantain, Ribbon leaved

  Alisma gramineum

  Wood-sedge, Starved

  Carex depauperata")

  Page 53, line 28, at end insert—

  ("Wormmood, Field

  Artemisia campestris")

  Page 53, line 30, at end insert—

  ("Yellow-rattle, Greater

  Rhinanthus serotinus").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come here to a lengthy schedule. Your Lordships will remember that while the Government were happy to accept in principle the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, which covered a list of 24 endangered plants, we were unable to accept his amendment in fact because the plants would not fit alphabetically within Schedule 7. We have now done this, and removed the excess of commas to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, drew attention, in this Government amendment. I think this is now right, and we are happy to accept that the 24 plants should be added to the schedule of protected plants. I beg to move.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and the Government for doing all this hard work, for sorting it out into alphabetical order and for putting it into the right number
  242
  of amendments. I think this is an improvement, and I congratulate the Government.
  Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, if the noble Lord is dealing with all the amendments from No. 95 onwards, may I point out a small misprint in Amendment No. 99? In the case of both the sickle-leaved hare's-ear and the small hare's-ear the apostrophe should appear before and not after the "s".
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and, with the leave of the House, I think I should say that, although we had thought that we had every comma in the right place, clearly we must bow to his close inspection of the Marshalled List.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if I may, I will put these amendments en bloc; that is, Amendments Nos. 95 to 109 with the manuscript amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 53, line 30, at end insert—
  ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account").
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  12.11 a.m.
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 109A:
  Page 13, line 31, at end insert ("imports with the intention of releasing or allowing to escape, or").
  The noble Lord said: This was an amendment I moved at Committee. Unless I got confused in the welter of papers that flowed between the Department of the Environment and myself since then, I think that this was something the Government agreed to consider, but it is not something I have had a letter about. I could be wrong on either or both counts. So far as I know, it was something that was going to be considered, but I have not yet had information on it. I hope that one of the noble Lords opposite will be able to give me that information now. To repeat the point, we are dealing in Clause 13 with the restriction on importing things liable to be a menace or a pest or both to agriculture or to existing wildlife in this country or to some other interests. The clause as drafted makes it an offence when somebody releases one of these noxious or dangerous or undesirable creatures into the wild. It does nothing about the problem at the point of importation. It has always seemed to me and, I gather to the NCC, whose excellent document on imports led to this provision (or was one of the things which led to the provision in the Bill) that one ought to look at the problem at importation.
  There are a large number of restrictions on importing, particularly disease control exercised by the Minister of Agriculture; but it would be useful to have a specific provision in the Bill which makes it clear that it was illegal to import something into this country with the intention either to release it or to allow it to escape,

  243
  unless one has a licence. I gave a hypothetical example at the Committee stage. It is possible that somebody would either declare their intention of releasing something which was dangerous before importing it or it would become clear from documentary evidence which became available that somebody was importing something with the intention of releasing it even if they had not publicly admitted the fact.
  I would remind the Government that one of the cases brought in this country under the Endangered Species Act came to a prosecution because of information gained in Canada. It is possible that documents might turn up in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act which showed that somebody was importing something into this country with the intention of releasing it. If they had it in this country with that intention, under the provisions of the Bill you would not be able to prosecute them until they had let it out. That seems ridiculous. It would be sensible to have a power. It is not likely to be used frequently, if at all. But it seems sensible to have the power to prosecute if they were guilty of importing it with this intention. I do not think that there is any doubt about the undesirability of the thing which the amendment strikes at. That is accepted by everybody including the NCC. I hope that this amendment, now that the Government have had time to think about it, will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, the purpose of Lord Melchett's amendment is clear. I can assure him that we have considered this again since the Committee stage. He said that he had not received a letter about it. I do not know precisely the background of what correspondence he hoped would take place upon it. I think perhaps I should say this: it is the Government's view, however, that anyone who is determined to release creatures to the wild for which he would otherwise require a licence is not likely to declare such an intention on import. However, I think we can meet the noble Lord's point under the Endangered Species Act, by asking on the application form for import, what is the purpose of the import and particularly whether release into the wild is intended. This will have the effect of reminding importers of the constraints, and a false declaration under the Endangered Species Act application will also render the licence-holder subject to prosecution on that count. In view of this assurance, I trust the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I shall withdraw it. It goes some way to meet the point, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. It does not help with something not on the convention, which is not subject to the Endangered Species Act licensing procedure. Things that are not covered by that, that are going to be dangerous to release in the wild, will probably be covered by some disease control restrictions like restrictions on things likely to spread fowl pest, rabies or something else. Although it would be possible to think of some fish which would be highly undesirable to release in British fresh waters but which would not be under the convention. They could be imported and released and they could decimate trout or salmon
  244
  stocks and would not come under the noble Lord's assurance. I still think that there is some point in this amendment and maybe the Government could think about that again and, if not here, perhaps in another place. The noble Lord has gone some way to meet this and I do not want to delay the House now. I should like the Government to consider what I have said again. Maybe they could write to me at some point and, if not before Third Reading, then shortly after. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 110:
  Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  ("(2) Subject to the provisions of this part, if any person plants or deliberately assists to grow (a) any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 8; or (b) otherwise than in cultivated ground any species or strain of plant which is of a kind which has not for a period of 50 years preceding the passing of this Act been ordinarily growing in Great Britain in a wild state, he shall be guilty of an offence")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is again a matter of enforcement. The clause as it stands is unrealistic and unenforceable. In Committee, I moved that subsection (2)(a) of the clause which makes it an offence to cause to grow in the wild any plant which is of a kind which does not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state should be deleted. This was not because I want to encourage the introduction of alien plants into the British countryside. My reason for moving the deletion of this prohibition was that it would really be quite impossible to enforce it. It seems to me to be unwise—and, indeed, futile—to lay down provisions, as happens again and again in this Bill, which simply cannot be implemented.
  The virtual impossibility of enforcing many of its most praiseworthy provisions is, as I said when I was speaking about Clause 12, one of the crying weaknesses of the Bill. The reason why the subsection as drafted is unenforceable and so no more than pure window dressing, is that the terms "in the wild" or "ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state" are capable of a wide variety of interpretations. In Committee I gave (in cols. 1159 and 1160 of Hansard for 3rd February) at least six examples of the questions—the very practical questions—that might arise on this score. I mentioned the tree lupin (used in the reclamation of china clay pits) and the common rhododendron or gaultheria. Are these to be considered ordinarily growing? They are not native plants but they are now established.
  The Minister agreed that the terms were almost impossible to define in words but said any doubts would have to be resolved by decisions of the court. But can he really believe that amid such a cloud of uncertainties any prosecution would ever be brought? The subsection is not even a paper tiger; it does not even seem to have teeth or claws.
  I am now trying again. My amendment makes some attempt at definitions. For "in the wild" I have substituted "otherwise than in cultivated ground". I suggest a plant must have been in Britain for at least 50 years before it can be said to be ordinarily growing here and that something that has been growing for 50 years is something that could be proved in court by botanists and scientists. For the much too vague

  245
  expression "kind of plant", I have proposed "species or strain of plant". One of the most dangerous and insidious kinds of introduction is where a supposedly British plant is offered in the form of seed obtained from a foreign source: for example, there are now on the market so-called "wild" seeds of the oxe-eye daisy and the bird's foot trefoil. Some of the seeds come from New Zealand, where these plants, though they can only be included under the same specific name as British ones, are very different both in their appearance and their genetic makeup. To sow them here is to run the risk of contaminating our native stocks.
  My amendment is a cockshy: it may well be that the definitions may be made even sharper, but there is a very real problem. Unless the Government are prepared to do something we shall have produced a nonsense. I beg to move.
  Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that I have put down the next amendment, No. 111, which proposes the leaving out of lines 40 and 41, as did my noble friend's amendment at Committee stage. I put down a similar amendment at that stage though I never moved it. I have listened with great attention to what my noble friend has said in moving her amendment. My feeling is that it does not go far enough. It does not remove the extraordinary situation that seems to arise from Clause 13(2)(a). I do not understand why the Government have found it necessary to put down this provision. It is as though they had put down a provision about animals and said in general terms: "We should not allow animals which are not indigenous to this country to escape". Then they said, "Let us put down one for plants"—and this is the result. I do not know why it is necessary. There may be plants of a particularly unpleasant character listed in Part II of Schedule 8. I do not object to their being included or to any more being added to the list so that the growing of them in the wild would be prohibited; but I simply do not know what plants there are which do not,
  "ordinarily grow in Great Britain in a wild state"
  which the Government want to discourage or which my noble friend wants to discourage in her amendment. It seems to me to be fraught with the most extraordinary difficulties; and I should like to give one or two examples.
  My noble friend has referred to the difficulty of knowing what is meant by "in a wild state". I take that to mean that it is something which reproduces itself, not something planted by man which reproduces itself from year to year. Let us for a moment consider forest trees. Trees, of course, are planted and would come under the provisions of this clause. But as most noble Lords will know, there are certain trees that reproduce themselves by natural regeneration: almost all hardwoods, birch, alder, sycamore, beech to a certain extent, hornbeam to a certain extent and the very occasional oak. I suppose these can be said to grow "in a wild state". But certainly so far as conifers are concerned, in this country practically no conifers grow "in a wild state". They will grow only where they are planted. They are cut down and new trees planted. Therefore it cannot be said that conifers are growing "in a wild state". But they are planted and, as far as I can see, the provision in Clause 13(2)(a) would prevent
  246
  the planting of Norway Spruce, Sitka Spruce, the Douglas Fir or any other normal forest trees. Similarly, any flower that grows from a bulb does not spread itself by a scattering of seeds. You simply put in the bulbs and they multiply. The plant goes on growing at that place where the original bulb was put down. It is not growing in a wild state.
  I simply do not understand what the Government are getting at in this proposal, whereby it would become illegal to plant in the wild—that is to say, outside your own garden or along the edge of a woodland or a meadow—any plant, such as the narcissus family, the snowdrop family, the tulip family or the crocus family, which grows from bulbs. They are growing there only because they have been put there. They are not growing in the wild. I am not sure about fields that have been ploughed and sown with perennial rye grass, timothy cocksfoot or any other grasses that are put in, because they are not growing in the wild. Perhaps that is a crop. I do not know whether it would be possible to do any reseeding of grassland.
  My noble friend mentioned rhododendrons, azaleas, laburnums, cherries and any ornamental shrubs which do not grow in the wild. If your Lordships want to plant them along the edge of your woodland, I do not see how it can be argued that it will be legal to plant any of these. Since I cannot envisage, with any plant which does not ordinarily grow in a wild state, any objection to anyone planting in the wild, then my own solution as I have put it down in Amendment No. 111 is to leave out lines 40 and 41 altogether. If there is any reason why that would be objectionable, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell me what it is.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes. I myself thought he was wearing no clothes, but I did not like to say so, because I am not as knowledgeable as the noble Lord on this subject. The noble Lord has pointed out where the Government's provisions are clearly inadequate, and—this is the main point—that there really is not enough good reason for the kind of measure which they are trying to introduce here. They should be able to have a schedule of plants which they can ban as they discover—and, occasionally, it may happen that we shall discover only through sad experience—that certain plants are harmful. That is absolutely necessary and it is a very good thing that the schedule should be here.
  But as the noble Lord has pointed out, the whole of the countryside is full of plants which have been imported and which are planted time and time again. What is more, if you look out of a railway carriage window you see, time and time again, plants which have escaped from gardens and which have colonised in the wild. A lot of them come from foreign strains and they are a definite asset. People differ very strongly on whether the rhododendron should have been imported into Britain. I understand that it existed about 40,000 years ago before the Ice Age, so how far back you have to go before you get a plant which is native is a debatable question. But the introduction of the rhododendron pontica into this country—and down in the West Country you have

  247
  the rhododendron with red blossoms—has given us one of the most beautiful plants that we have in our countryside. I think that the Government ought to make out a better case for what they are trying to do, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
  12.30 a.m.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the reasons given by the noble Baroness in her amendment and also to the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I regret to say the Government must oppose the amendment. However, I can offer some comfort in a form of words: "deliberately assist to grow" is possibly an improvement on the words "otherwise causes to grow" which are included in Clause 13(2) as drafted.
  We shall consider the matter further and bring forward an amendment, if appropriate. The form of words suggested for Clause 13(2)(a) is similar to the existing words. However, the reference to cultivated ground is defective, in that any area, however small—for example, one inch square—even if in wild country is cultivated for and cleared for planting. The concept of a 50-year naturalisation period is interesting, especially after what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, extending this period of time for the possible reintroduction of a species.
  The philosophy behind the compilation of Schedule 8 lists, on the animal side, originally exotic creatures established in the wild in Great Britain for very long periods indeed but of which further introductions are considered to be inimical to the ecological balance. Even so, no land species of plant is at present listed in Part 2 of the schedule. It is important that the principle should not be breached, that all wild plants in the United Kingdom are treated as native unless listed in Schedule 8.
  As the noble Baroness has said, we acknowledge that there are difficulties in enforcing Clause 13(2) but would stress the obvious dangers of injudicious introductions and believe that the clause as drafted, subject to the point I have made about "deliberately assist to grow", is the best way of providing safeguards against the serious abuse. All the plants mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his very interesting speech can be seen growing in the wild here. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, have greatly extended the anxiety which the House undoubtedly has about the nature of this clause. I would be prepared to take it back to re-examine this particular amendment and the problems thrown up by the speeches concerned.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, we are in danger of making ourselves a laughing stock, if I may say so bluntly to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. There are one hundred and one different plants which do not grow ordinarily in the wild which noble Lords in all parts of the House will personally have been responsible for planting in the wild. I am quite happy to admit that if this goes through I am going to be due for about a £1,000 fine, and I imagine that the total in your Lordships' House will run into many hundreds
  248
  of thousands, if not millions of pounds. It is ridiculous. All of us have been responsible for planting things which do not ordinarily grow in the wild: trees, shrubs, bulbs of all different kinds. These will include some new, cultivated form of snowdrop. I have some giant snowdrops at my home in London. I am very keen to put some of those snowdrops into my woods in Norfolk because they flower for much longer and look much nicer and are much larger than the wild snowdrop. That will land me with a £1,000 fine, minimum, which is an absurdity. It simply does not work. Even if it does not ban the planting of Italian rye grass, which I suspect it does, it certainly bans the planting of any new strain of Italian rye grass if any of it falls on a hedgerow, or on a woodland ride, or somewhere which is not a cultivated field. I am seriously worried as a conservationist that we shall make ourselves look ridiculous if this sort of provision remains in the Bill.
  I would suggest to noble Lords that we should now take out (a), as my noble friend has suggested, and then at Third Reading, if the Government have a sensible alternative to come back with, they will be at liberty to introduce it. But if they have not, at least we shall not all look like complete "charlies". It seems to me that the Government have approached the question of plants from the completely wrong point of view. I say this to put it on the record so that the Government can think about it. First, they should have drawn up a schedule of really dangerous plants, which none of us want to see planted in this country, wherever it may be: whether in cultivated or uncultivated land, in gardens or somewhere else. Japanese seaweed is a prime example of that. It seems to me that the most strict controls could have been introduced, wherever it was planted, and indeed for my own part on introductions as well, so that importing Japanese seaweed would be illegal without a licence. I cannot see why that should not be the case and then we limit the plants schedule to really established dangerous things which none of us wants to see imported and released in the wild, or indeed into anybody's garden in this country.
  You then look at the question of introductions in the wild from quite a different point of view. Besides covering the schedule points that we have agreed upon, you would then look at the question of wild plant seeds and the giving of advice on the packets on where it would be desirable to plant those. You leave all this business of cultivated plants—roses and daffodils and snowdrops and crocuses and rhododendrons and all the rest of it—out of the Bill, because if we try to include them it will be absurd. I hope I have not gone on too long, but I feel strongly that we shall make asses of ourselves if we do not do this. I think my noble friend would agree that our amendment is probably not entirely above criticism, but we should accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and then if the Government can think of some sensible thing to do they should come back and tell us at Third Reading.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I may clear up one point with the Government, if I were to go and plant the South American beech—the nothofagus—which is probably the most enlightened thing that some foresters are doing in view of the beech plant disease at the moment, am I guilty, under the Bill as it stands?
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, I should have to take advice on that but my impression is that it appears to run counter to the Bill as drafted.
  Baroness David: My Lords, I think enough has been said to let us feel that the Government are convinced that there is something rather seriously wrong with this part of this clause. I am quite prepared to agree that the amendment I moved was not perfect, either, so I am pleased to withdraw it, on the understanding that the Government will seriously look at this in the way suggested by my noble friend. I myself would be quite happy to go along with Lord Kilbracken's amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 111:
  Page 13, leave out lines 40 and 41.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I must admit that I was surprised by some of the things that the noble Lord said when he replied to my noble friend. He sought to give the impression that none of the examples that I had given of plants that we all grow in the wild, although they do not exist in the wild state, would not be covered by this Bill. But he gave no reason for taking that point of view. It seems to me that there cannot be any doubt that in every case that I gave—except possibly the different grasses growing in meadows—these do not ordinarily grow in Great Britain in the wild state, and that a person would be causing them to grow.
  Furthermore, he was not able to give me a single example—perhaps he can now where the Government would have any objection to a particular plant growing in the wild state which does not ordinarily grow there. Even if there is some very occasional example where that happens it is very much better to put it in Part II of Schedule 8, rather than having this all-embracing paragraph (a). Therefore, I want to ask the noble Lord whether he can give any example at all where the Government would not wish a plant of this kind to be grown in the wild state. I beg to move.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, Schedule 8 is designed only to ensure that further specimens of species already introduced into the wild in Great Britain are not introduced without full evaluation of the likely consequences. If subsection 13(2)(a) were to be deleted there would be no general control of the introduction of wholly alien species which the Government are obliged to introduce under the Berne Convention, and indeed wish to do in order to conserve the existing ecological balance.
  I cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and I think it would be unwise if I were to quote any species of which I personally have knowledge but which I have not verified with either the Government's own sources of information or indeed private sources which may be outside the Government's remit. I cannot, I regret, go further at this stage, and I call on the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment if he feels so able to do.
  Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, surely it is preferable that any new species that they want to ban should be
  250
  put in Part II of Schedule 8, rather than having a blanket provision which covers all forms of plant that do not normally grow in the wild. I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord has said, but I cannot see that he has made out any grounds whatever for the wording of this clause as it stands. I think it is the feeling of the House that it is an unnecessary provision, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 111A not moved.]
  Schedule 8 [Animals and plants to which section 13 applies which are established in the wild]:
  12.42 a.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 111B:
  Page 54, line 25, at end insert—

  ("Rabbit

  Oryctolagus cuniculus").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is an error in this amendment as printed on the Marshalled List in that page 55 "should read" page 54 The reason for this amendment follows a question I put in Committee, in col. 1166 on 3rd February. Since then I have had a reply to my question from my noble friend Lord Avon which I am afraid I cannot understand. As I understand it, the species on Schedule 8 are not allowed to be brought into the British Isles from outside. But I am not clear whether it is illegal to transport species in Schedule 8 from one part of the British Isles to another.
  From the letter I received from my noble friend I got the impression that the answer was yes, in which case should not the rabbit be put on Schedule 8, because it would then prevent the introduction of the rabbit into one part of the British Isles from another? As the Bill stands, should an area become clear of rabbits there is nothing to prevent someone from bringing a rabbit into that area from another part of the British Isles. Perhaps I should say that I had it in mind to add the whole of the pests schedule for birds, plus a number of animals, to this amendment, which to my mind is logical. Maybe my noble friend will say that such an action is totally nonsensical. I look forward to some elucidation. I beg to move.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, I have not in front of me the copy of the letter sent to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I am afraid I cannot give him immediate elucidation, though I well understand that it may have caused some anxiety. Although the rabbit has been established in Britain for many centuries, and is believed to have been introduced into this country in Norman times, I agree with my noble friend that it is precisely this sort of animal whose introduction should be controlled. I should therefore be pleased to consider the amendment.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that reply. I hope, perhaps, that my noble friend will be able to write to me before Third Reading so that I know what to do before that stage.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment I would be very interested to have a copy of the letter—if the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, could take that on board—because I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that I should first assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that correspondence will certainly be copied to him. In reply to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, my noble friend did ask about translocation—the moving of species from one part to another. Clause 13 does not cover translocation in this country.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend again. I must say that from the letter which I received I thought that it did do so. However, my noble friend is going to write to me. I am glad that other people are in the dark, too, as regards this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 54, line 39, at end insert—
  ("NOTE. The first column of this Schedule, which gives the common name or names, is included by way of guidance only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the second column is to be taken into account.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 112A not moved.]
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 112B:
  After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
  (". The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the† passing of this Act, Restriction on import of live animals, make an order under section 5 of the Endangered Species Act 1976 restricting the general import of all live animals to the limited number of ports and airports specified in the Order.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 112B where we stay with imports, but return to a subject which noble Lords on all sides of the House have discussed a number of times, particularly when the Endangered Species Act was going through your Lordships' House in 1976 and beforehand and at the Committee stage. We return to the question of the restriction or control of the import of live animals. There is a provision in the Endangered Species Act 1976 which allows the Secretary of State to make an order under Section 5 of that Act to restrict the import of animals to certain ports and airports, and those should be specified in the order. We had a long debate on this in Committee and I do not want to repeat it all, but I should like to summarise the points, first, in favour.
  It seems to those who have been concerned about the working of the Endangered Species Act that the only way of ensuring effective control at the point of entry is by having some restriction on the ports and airports through which live animals come into this country. In that way the customs officers at those ports and airports can build up expertise and will be able to spot the usual form of illegal import which is one or two rare and endangered species, which it is illegal to import, hidden among a number of more common species which it is legal to import and for which no licence is required. That sort of offence will only be spotted by experts, and customs will only become expert about this matter if there are a limited number of ports and airports through which live animals come.
  Secondly, there is an animal welfare argument. We
  252
  all know of the excellent work of the RSPCA at Heathrow, through which I would guess that something over 90 per cent. of all trade in live animals comes, and, of course, the handling facilities for animals at Heathrow are excellent and there are provisions there for dealing with all the sorts of abuses that inevitably crop up—for example, birds of prey hidden in the false bottoms of crates which contain common and non-endangered species and where the birds and animals attempted to be smuggled in in similar conditions will need a great deal of veterinary care when these abuses are discovered, not to mention the simple overcrowding of animals or birds in crates which is unfortunately still a fairly regular occurrence in this trade.
  As I understood it, the arguments against this amendment in Committee were, first, that if simply those animals covered by the Endangered Species Act—that is, those listed on the CITES Convention—were restricted to certain ports and airports, roughly 50 per cent. of the trade in live animals would continue to come unrestricted through other ports and airports. The amendment that we have moved at this stage of the Bill meets that point by restricting the import of all live animals to certain ports and airports and, therefore, there would be a simple, straightforward system where the airports and ports listed in the order would be the only ones through which live animals could be introduced to this country, unless of course somebody applies for and gets a licence to import something at a particular place. The example which has been given to me is that of the polar bear going to the north of Scotland, in which case it would be undesirable for the poor bear to have to travel all the way to Heathrow and then all the way to Scotland. That is exactly the kind of thing that can be covered by the licensing provisions of the Bill.
  The other major objection—and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, among others, raised this in Committee—is what happens if something turns up somewhere it is not meant to turn up. What do people do with it? First, I would hope that the clear and simple proposal in this amendment will enormously reduce the likelihood of that happening, because all carriers—airlines and shipping companies—import agents and everyone else concerned will know exactly which ports and airports it is legal to bring live animals into, and if they attempt to carry an animal elsewhere they will know that the animal will inevitably be impounded. That is the first answer to the problem.
  The second answer is that this is already a problem. There are a number of restrictions on the import of live animals. Anything that is likely to carry fowl-pest or similar diseases of poultry has to go into quarantine under MAFF disease control regulations. If, for example, a pheasant is imported from India, China or South-East Asia and goes to a port to which it is not meant to go, and not into quarantine facilities, it has to be seized. Anything likely to carry rabies has to go through one of the rabies ports, and if that animal goes to a port not covered in the rabies order it, again, has to be seized and impounded and put somewhere in quarantine until it can be dealt with.
  These problems exist at the moment. There are, in fact, a large multitude of controls on live animals. This amendment would greatly simplify the position and, I would suggest, make problems of that sort much

  253
  less likely to occur. This seems to be a simple, straightforward solution to a problem which has bedevilled our discussions of the Endangered Species Act since well before it was passed, and I hope it will be acceptable.
  One further point that I should make is that the order provides for a great deal of flexibility. The Secretary of State can limit the number of ports and airports to those specified in the order. He could make a very wide list, if he was so minded, or a narrow list. He could, for example, limit this to rabies ports, and that would have the advantage of bringing it into line with MAFF's existing regulations on that. Or, if he felt that it was desirable, he could list a large number. But in any event, we would have a clear and straightforward system through which live animals were imported into this country. It would have animal welfare advantages, and enforcement advantages so far as the Endangered Species Act is concerned, and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I understand that the words on the second line of the amendment:
  "…Restriction on import of live animals"
  should have been printed as a sidenote to the clause.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when speaking to this point during the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Cullen told the Committee of the practical problems which result when animals turn up at a port not nominated in any order made under Section 5 of the Endangered Species Act. Those problems remain, but we have of course had a lot of thought given to this subject since the Committee stage.
  Although I should like to ask your Lordships to reject this particular amendment on the grounds that we could not accept a restriction of this kind on farm and domestic animals, I should like to assure your Lordships that we believe we have now found a way of operating the type of restriction which this amendment seeks without a new and elaborate bureaucratic apparatus.
  It is a complex subject requiring consultation with a surprisingly large number of interests. This consultation has started. What I can offer tonight is an undertaking that the Government intend to make an order under Section 5 restricting import and export of all live animals of a kind that may loosely be called wild animals to a list of ports and airports likely to be substantially similar to the present list used in the Rabies Order 1974. We will make provision for exceptional cases under licence and we will ensure that the welfare conservation of these animals is the key to to the rules that we make. We will not delay in taking this action, to which we are committed, but I am not able yet to say when the order will be made. I hope with this undertaking that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, that is excellent. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and others who have taken such an active part in this debate over the years, many more active than I, will be delighted at the news. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  12.56 a.m.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115:
  Page 54, line 45, leave out ("For") and insert ("After").
  Page 54, line 47, leave out ("substituted the following sub-section—
  "(3)")
  and insert ("inserted the following subsections—
  "(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply in relation to an application of any description if the scientific authority concerned has advised the Secretary of State as to whether licences should be issued in pursuance of applications of that description and, if so, their terms.
  (3B)")
  Page 55, line 12, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(3B)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115 en bloc, as all three are complementary. In Committee my noble friend Lord Cranbrook moved an amendment to retain in the 1976 Act Section 1(3) which obliges the scientific authority to be consulted on every application for a licence to import or export under the Act. The noble Earl, however, withdrew his amendment on our undertaking to put down a Government amendment which would reinstate Section 1(3) subject to a proviso that where a scientific authority had given general advice to the Secretary of State with regard to a defined category of application, and had informed the Secretary of State that they did not wish to be consulted on individual applications falling within that category, the Secretary of State should not be required to consult them. These amendments fulfil that obligation. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as I said at the time that I withdrew the original amendment, I believe that this form of amendment will be widely welcomed by the scientific authority.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 120:
  Page 55, line 20, at end insert—
  ("Expenses of returning animals and plants to the wild
  1A. After subsection (8) of section 1 of the 1976 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(9) Where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise incur any expenses in connection with or with a view to the return to the wild of any live animal or plant which is condemned or deemed to be condemned as forfeited, those expenses may be recovered, as a debt due to the Crown, from the importer or intending exporter of the animal or plant or any person possessing or having control of it at the time of its seizure; but any amount so recovered shall not exceed three times the value of the animal or plant at that time.
  In this subsection expressions which are also used in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 have the same meanings as in that Act".").
  Page 55, line 22, leave out ("At the end") and insert ("After the subsection inserted by paragraph 1A as subsection (9)").
  Page 55, line 24, leave out ("(9)") and insert ("(10)").
  Page 55, line 32, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").
  Page 55, line 33, leave out ("(9)") and insert ("(10)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119 and 120, which are consequential to this one. Article VIII of the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora calls for measures to prohibit trade in specimens in violation of the provisions of the convention. These measures

  255
  include penalising the trade in specimens and provision for the confiscation or return to the wild state of such specimens. The article also allows for a party state to make provision for the reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the confiscation of a specimen traded in violation of measures applying the provisions of the convention.
  In the United Kingdom, the Commissioners for Customs and Excise have the power, under the Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979, to dispose of goods condemned by a court or deemed to have been condemned in the absence of a claim against forfeiture, in such a manner as they care to direct. They do not, however, have the power to reclaim the expenses incurred in the return of a specimen to the country of export. In certain cases, especially when the specimens are live and of a comparatively rare species, there is a good conservation reason for arranging the return of animals to their country of origin.
  It is reasonable for the cost of that return to fall on the person or persons who have attempted to import such animals illegally. This amendment would enable Customs to seek reimbursement of their expenses in these circumstances; although, in conformity with common practice in such an indemnity provision, it is limited. This limit is three times the market value of the consignment, which value must at least be the cost of shipping it to this country in the first place. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chelwood, whose amendment in Committee suggested the need for these powers. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, Amendment No. 121 has been wrongly marshalled. The next amendment is No. 121 A.
  [Amendments Nos. 121A and 121B not moved.]
  1 a.m.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 121:
  Page 56, line 46, leave out ("after") and insert ("of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to correct the wording of paragraph 5 of Schedule 9.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 56, line 48, leave out from first ("words") to end of line 49 and insert (""1(2), (3) and (4), 2(4)" there should be substituted the words "1(2) to (4) and (10), 2(4), 4(1B)"").
  The noble Lord said: This is consequential, my Lords, to Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115, which have been accepted. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 14, line 27, leave out ("1 to 8") and insert ("1, 3, 5, 6(3), 7 and 8").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak at the time same to the following amendments: Nos. 126, 128, 133, 136, 137 and 138. The first three amendments to this clause are of a purely drafting nature and do not alter the scope of the clause in any way. As to the rest, when we were preparing the amendment to the registration provisions in
  256
  Clause 6 to replace the word "taxidermist" by "person", we concluded that inadequate provision had been made for the sale of birds, where the seller was not selling on a regular or frequent basis, for example where stuffed birds had been in a family for some time. The proposed sale would not necessarily be for any of the purposes listed in Clause 15(1). It also became apparent that a similar problem existed in respect of animals and plant.
  We therefore considered including in Clause 15(1) and 15(2) a purpose called "the purpose of sale" but on attempting to draft an appropriate provision, concluded it would be too vague, too general and would not sit well with the other purposes. Our solution is to transfer the prohibitions prohibiting selling contained in Clauses 6(1) and (2), which relate to birds, and Clauses 9(3) and 12(2), which relate to animals and plants respectively, to Clause 15(3). Thus, actions which would otherwise constitute offences under those clauses may be licensed.
  The licensing authority in all cases will be the Secretary of State. Though there are a number of amendments relating to Clause 13—introductions—they do not alter the position in the Bill as currently drafted but are necessary because of the other amendments. The amendments are consequent on the amendment which achieved this by amending subsection (3). Additionally, we have in mind a general licence or regulation to provide that anyone satisfying a dealer registered under Clause 6(2) that he was in possession of a bird before the Act came into force or that he obtained a bird from such a dealer—all such birds will be marked by the dealer—will not require a licence to sell the bird to the dealer, who will have the duty to record sufficient details as to allow enforcement checks to be made if required. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 123A I have to point out that if that amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call No. 124.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 123A:
  Page 14, leave out line 33.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will with permission speak to Amendment No. 126A at the same time. Both amendments delete the words
  "or facilitating transfers between such collection",
  in Clause 15(1)(d) and 15(2)(a) respectively. The words are obsolete by virtue of new provisions in Clause 15. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 124A:
  Page 14, line 35, leave out ("providing") and insert ("taking gulls eggs for").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a go at this in Committee, when we ended up in total confusion, and I ended in despair by withdrawing the amendment. I have brought it forward again, however, because it is clear that Clause 15(1)(f) is far too wide to remain in the Bill. It does not make sense. It makes it possible to take blackbirds and make pâté out of

  257
  them, which is just the sort of thing we do not want people to have leave to do. "Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie" is out of date. I believe that under a new EEC directive the collecting of eggs will have to be controlled. The only form of food which reasonably could fall within paragraph (f) is that derived from the collecting of gulls' eggs. I think that this provision should state that, and that only, and leave out the rest.
  At this time of night I shall not go into this matter any more fully. The provision simply will not do as it is; it cannot be left in this way. The Government have done nothing about it, and therefore I greatly hope that they will accept this very limited amendment. So far as I can see the amendment cuts out nothing that anyone wants to make legal, and it leaves legal the one activity which is acceptable; namely, the collecting of gulls' eggs under the limited authority which is insisted on by the EEC directive. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord has bowled me a fast one on the point about making blackbird pâté, which I must confess is something had not thought of in relation to this particular amendment. The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to issue licences for human consumption—for gulls' eggs only. As I said in Committee, while the Government will not issue licences that would go further than was allowed by the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended by the 1967 Act, the amendment, we think, is too restrictive. Subject to the statutory consultation procedures we intend to issue licences for the taking of lapwing eggs before 15th April, and the taking of young gannets on Sula Sgeir by the Nessmen. Neither of these traditional practices does any conservation harm, though in the case of lapwing licences it is unlikely that licences will be issued for areas where the bird is in decline and there is no justification in stopping them.
  I should like to take back the question about the pâté, and make sure that eggs are not necessary in that regard. I should very much like to be able to include collection of the other eggs that I have mentioned. The other points are being dealt with in another amendment.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I feel that my noble friend has an important point here, and that is why I put my name to the amendment. If the noble Earl is to look at this matter, perhaps I may make a couple of further points, and I hope that we shall be able to clear this up before the Third Reading. As I understand it, the EEC directive does not make any provision which allows for all birds or their eggs to be used for food. Consider the undesirability of this country having that kind of provision in our own legislation implementing the directive. If we are seen by the rest of Europe taking such powers, whether or not we are to issue licences is immaterial. People will look at the wording of the Bill when it becomes an Act. If the powers taken in it are as wide as they are currently, it seems to me inevitable that those countries in Europe which shoot song birds for the table, for food, to be put into cans, bottles, or whatever, will look at this provision and say, "Ah! bingo! That's how we can carry on
  258
  doing what we have always done". The whole of the EEC bird directive would be undermined in one single, simple blow.
  If the noble Earl wants to cover plover's eggs—the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is not present, but I think he was concerned about this at the Committee stage—not much of an alteration to the amendment would be needed to meet that point. I should personally need to take some advice on the taking of young gannets. I assume that they are taken for human consumption, though I find that hard to believe, I must say. I should have thought that they were quite inedible. But if that is what they are taken for, all right. Even so, if that is a legitimate activity, and if what have been mentioned are the only three points that we can think of, I should have thought that the Bill ought to cover them explicitly, and not go any wider; otherwise we really are going to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the directive.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment, on the basis of the terms that the noble Earl has put forward, so that there is a specific provision for the collecting of certain agreed types of birds' eggs only. As for the gannet, I think that that is a very odd point, and I hope that it will not be pressed, but if it is, it should be included in a separate subsection, and should not be mixed up with the eggs. But, on that understanding, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 14, line 36, leave out from ("consumption") to end of line 37.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another amendment to the same sentence, from which we remove the words
  "or for poultry, ornamental ducks, ornamental geese or swans",
  which I must say I had hoped was going to satisfy your Lordships on this particular line until the previous amendment. However, I beg to move.
  On Question amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 125A not moved.]
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 15, line 7, leave out ("9 to 12") and insert ("9(1), (1A) and (2), 11 and 12(1)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 126A:
  Page 15, line 14, leave out from ("collection") to end of line 15.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 15, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
  ("(e) for the purposes of photography;
  (f) for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety;").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135, which are consequential. This amendment transposes the purposes at Clause 15(2)(e) and (f). Amendment No. 134 provides that the licensing authority for new purpose (f) is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State, and Amendment No. 135 provides for consultation procedures. They would bring the position for animals into line with that for birds agreed to by your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 128:
  Page 15, line 25, leave out ("Section 13 does") and insert ("The following provisions, namely—

  (a) section 6(1) and (2);

  (b) sections 9(3) and 12(2); and

  (c) section 13,

  do ").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 123 and 126. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  1.13 a.m.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 15, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, with this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 131A, 131C, 132A, 136A and 138A, which are consequential. A number of suggestions were made in Committee that we should be more specific in the Bill about the operation of these purposes which allow for the killing and sale of wild birds and wild animals. The consultation process related to licensing and the period of time for which licences should be valid. The Government accept that it is possible and appropriate to make more specific provisions, and these amendments do this. With this revision of Clause 15(9) by Amendment No. 135A, the Government Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 are not needed, and will not now be moved. I beg to move.
  Lord Melchett: May I ask a point for clarification? I thought I heard the noble Earl say Amendment No. 135A, which does not exist, but it may be that I heard him incorrectly.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is 136A. I think I may well have said 135A.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think my noble friend was also speaking to No. 131A. Is that not right?
  The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: There is one point I should like to raise here. As I understand it, after two years the licence will terminate. If the pest is still a nuisance, can my noble friend assure me that the system for renewing the licence will be simple and, indeed, will not cost anything.?
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I cannot give a guarantee at the moment on the latter, although when we come to costs I think my noble friend will find my answer as satisfactory as it could be. Obviously, the renewal of a licence causes much less palaver than having a new licence, so I think I can give my noble friend an undertaking that if it is legitimate it will be done speedily.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I say that we very warmly welcome this amendment. Again, I think it is a very helpful clarification of the provisions in the Bill. Certainly I shall not be moving Amendment No. 128B, which was put down in the expectation that the Government amendments would not be put down. But the Government amendments meet my point rather better than mine does. I am really very grateful indeed, and I think it is a great improvement.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 128B not moved.]
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 15, line 30, leave out ("to all persons").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, we propose removal of the words "to all persons" as we have not been able to identify a situation where it would be justified to licence all persons to carry out an otherwise prohibited act. A licence would not normally be wider in scope than "authorised persons" and this counts as a class of person. I beg to move.
  Lord Chelwood: My Lords, this amendment about terms on which licences are granted gives me an opportunity to put a question to my noble friend to clear up any doubts there may be about a minor point of some interest; that is, swan upping. As I understand it, swan upping is a process of catching young birds and marking them by notching their beaks. Swans "upped" on the Thames are wild, protected birds which normally could not be taken legally for upping or any other purpose. In the normal way, a licence would have to be issued under Clause 15(4). This is a unique situation and both the Dyers' Company and the Vintners Company are anxious that there should be no doubts about how they are placed under the amended law. Is it correct that because of the Crown royalty, the Dyers' and Vintners companies can continue their traditional swan upping activities without Clause 15 licences and without let or hindrance? This is my understanding, based on a letter from Mr. Hector Monro to the chairman of the NCC. I know my noble friend does not often up swans, but I hope he will confirm that what I have said is correct.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is my understanding that there will be no problem for the Dyers' and Vintners companies and a licence could be issued under Section 15 if needed.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 15, line 36, leave out ("such period as may be") and insert ("the period").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, on consideration of a recent case we have concluded that the present

  261
  wording in Clause 15(4)(e) could be unsatisfactory because it would be possible by use of the powers in Clause 15(4)(d) to leave a licence without a period of validity. The amended wording prevents this from happening. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 131:
  Page 15, line 39, at end insert—
  ("Provided that no such charge shall be made in respect of the grant of a licence—

  (a) for the purpose of preserving public health or public or air safety;

  (b) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease; or

  (c) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries.")

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is to Clause 15 and it is there to suggest that the licensing charges should be waived, for instance, on the grounds of preservation of public health; for this would only be one public authority charging money to another public authority, which would mean people taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another of the taxpayers' pockets at a certain amount of expense. This would apply also for the purpose of preventing disease and I would suggest where we say at (c) "for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock et cetera" the person concerned who is applying for the licence will be under financial pressure, anyway, and that financial pressure should not be added to by charging him for the licence.
  I think it can be argued that it is reasonable to charge a fee for the issue of a licence to things like falconry or aviculture or collection of wild birds. In other words, sporting or hobbying interest should certainly pay for a licence. Between public health authorities I think it would be unreasonable to charge for a licence. I beg to move.
  1.20 a.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, briefly I should like to support this. My feeling is that if the cost is very high there will be a terrible temptation not to apply for a licence. On the other hand, if the cost is very low the bureaucracy will not pay for the cost of the licence. So either way I reckon there should be no cost.
  Earl Peel: I should like, my Lords, to support this. May I take this opportunity of asking my noble friend something on a point of interpretation? In Clause 15 I note that the word "livestock" is used on two occasions regarding licensing. In the original Bill the interpretation of licence included game birds. I notice that in the Bill we have in front of us it does not. I am wondering therefore why this is so. It would appear to me that it is no longer possible to apply for a licence for the protection of game birds. Earlier my noble friend Lord Burton made reference to the hen harrier. I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Avon assured us that a licence would be possible for the protection of game birds against the hen harrier if applied for. As I interpret the Bill as it has been redrafted this is not the case. I should be grateful if the Minister could give me his opinion on this.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may come first to my noble friend Lord Onslow's amendment, this is identical to one put down in Committee. I am afraid that I can add little to my remarks at the time. It is Government policy to ensure that they are not inhibited by law from making charges for the issue of licences which place additional costs on all taxpayers for the benefit of the few where such charges are appropriate. Charges will not necessarily be levied but the Government should not be restricted in their ability to charge an appropriate fee.
  At this stage I think I can give an undertaking that there have been no decisions at all on this. It is an agreement that we should like to have. Having said that, we listened sympathetically to the points made by my noble friend and will feed them into the review of charging for licences which is not yet complete. I hope in the light of what I have said my noble friend will not press me.
  I can also add at this stage that my noble friend the Minister of State for Agriculture Lord Ferrers has assured me that there is no intention to charge for licences issued under Clause 15(1) or (2) by his Ministry. My noble friend Lord Peel asked about harriers. It would not be possible to issue licences. This is the same as in the 1954 Act. It is not in our view appropriate to protect wild birds against predation by other wild birds. Your Lordships took, I understand, the same view in discussion in Committee. Captive game birds can be protected. That does not sound as though it ties up with what the noble Earl is saying I said earlier.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, it might be simpler if we considered just the amendment for the time being. Every farmer in your Lordships' House has considerable sympathy, particularly with (c) of this amendment. As a farmer, I should declare an interest before commenting on it. The licences under this are going to be issued by the Minister of Agriculture. I would have thought that farmers on both sides of the House could be reasonably satisfied that that department would take a sympathetic view to the problems which noble Lords opposite have raised.
  I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is raising his eyebrows at that, but it seems to me that the Ministry of Agriculture in the course of their discussions on this Bill have been all too sympathetic to the farming point of view at times. I would have thought that we could have left it as the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench has suggested, which goes a long way to meet the point.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am not clear at all what the noble Earl means by his reply. I thought when we discussed the Farne Islands we opened up this problem that if one species predates upon another it may need to be controlled for the benefit of the other species. I am not sure that that principle was allowed by the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I wonder whether he could explain it further.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I make the suggestion that one answer to this would be the removal of the species from the specially protected list, if it really was so numerous as to be affecting the population of some other species?
  Viscount Thurso: But the situation I am envisaging is that, just as in the Farne Islands a particular situation arises where one species harms the habitat or survival of another species, so one might in certain areas take a protected species as being harmful to certain other species which live in that area and therefore allow control of the species which is protected over a wide area within a specific area where it is causing more harm than good.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, cannot speak again, may I say that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, did not answer his question. He wanted a definition of "livestock". The noble Earl gave me one in a letter a couple of days ago which I think would meet the case very well, if it can be found.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think I am allowed to speak again. I would accept totally the remarks of my noble friend Lord Avon about the Ministry of Agriculture and the licensing fee under (c) of our amendment. I should really like much stronger undertakings on the fact of one public authority charging another public authority for licensing, because this can be purely bureaucratic muddle. If the Ministry of Agriculture charges the Department of Health for killing some particular bird or animal which may be spreading some, form of disease, the only thing this is going to do is to charge the taxpayer for one civil servant passing a piece of paper across Whitehall to another civil servant. That is the first point. Secondly, could my noble friend give us some idea of what these licences might cost?
  The Earl of Avon: With the leave of the House—
  Noble Lords: No!
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 131A:
  Page 15, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(4A) A licence under subsection (1) or (2) which authorises any person to kill wild birds or other wild animals—

  (a) shall specify the area within which, and the methods by which, the wild birds or other wild animals may be killed; and

  (b) shall be valid for the period, not exceeding two years stated in the licence.")

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 128A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 131B:
  Page 15, line 39, at end insert—
  ("( ) The appropriate authority may not issue a licence under the foregoing provisions of this section unless they are satisfied that no other satisfactory solution exists.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 131A, which we have just accepted, goes a long way, as I have said, towards removing the worries a number of us had about licensing procedures in Clause 15; but there was one other point which came up at Committee stage and which is not covered by the
  264
  Government amendment, and which I would hope would be acceptable. Noble Lords will remember that we had a debate on Committee stage on the effect of the wording of the EEC directive under which all this licensing has to be carried out. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that among the other points he was considering he would look at the possibility of why the Government had not used the direct words from the EEC directive anywhere in the clause. The exact words of the directive appear in Article 9, which says that member states may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8
  "where there is no other satisfactory solution for the following reasons …".
  It then lists the various reasons, which include public health and safety, air safety, prevention of serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and so on; in other words, wording which appears either exactly the same, or more or less the same, in Clause 15.
  It has been suggested that all that a farmer would need to do to get a licence to kill or control or any of the protected species would be to prove to the Ministry of Agriculture that the birds or mammals in question were, or were about to be, a pest in that farmer's locality. But that is not quite the position, because if that were the position that would clearly be a breach of Article 9 of the EEC directive. What has to be taken into account by somebody, whether the applicant or the person issuing the licence, is that no other satisfactory solution exists. In fact, it has to be taken into account by the person issuing, the licence.
  This point has been recognised in remarks which both the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made during the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said on 16th December 1980, at column 984 of the Official Report, in introducing the Bill, that licences will be issued in accordance with a number of things, including the availability of alternative methods of preventing the damage. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, repeated that, saying, at column 1089, that one of the things that would be taken into account when licences were issued was the availability of alternative methods of dissuading birds, apart from killing them. Both the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, were simply outlining the position as it is under the directive which governs now the actions of this country and the licensing authorities under Clause 15.
  It seems to me that it would be useful, rather than simply having those assurances in Second Reading speeches, to have the provision in the Bill. There does not seem to be any doubt that the wording used in this amendment does apply, because that is what the directive says. We shall have to report annually to the Commission on the implementation of the derogations under the directive, and presumably we shall get ourselves into extremely hot water very quickly if we have done anything which contradicts the wording in Amendment No. 131B. So I hope it will be seen as a useful clarification of the provisions in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, the words that he proposes for inclusion in Clause 15 are similar to those found in the

  265
  birds' directive. Unfortunately, when faced with our own lawyers, the answer comes out rather differently, because they found that the amendment is too vague, woolly and general for an Act of Parliament. The amendment could give rise to many interpretations. It would be an "all things to all men" provision, and it is difficult to see how for many purposes it will be possible to meet them in any satisfactory way. It sounds rather as though they had a look at it and found it all too difficult. But this is the truth of the requirements of the paragraph. Bearing that in mind we shall of course, think on what the noble Lord said; but I honestly do not think we can move very far to meet him.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, that may have been the view of parliamentary counsel, but how does that leave the licensing authorities? They are, because they are Government departments or agents of the Government, bound by the provisions of Article 9 of the directive, so that they have to interpret these words which are used in the directive. If they are found to be in breach of them, we shall be hauled up in front of the Commission, or whatever happens to a Government if they are in breach of the directive. If the words are vague and uncertain, then the Government should try to find some words which are not vague and not uncertain and put those into the Bill.
  This must be implemented by the people issuing the licences, and both the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said in introducing the Bill and in winding-up the Second Reading debate that it would be implemented by the licensing authorities. If that is the case, it surely must be useful to have these words written into the Bill. The noble Earl said that he would look at this point and I hope he will, because it seems a bit of a nonsense to have these words in Article 9 of the directive and to have Clause 15, which is implementing that article and which, in part, lifts straight from it, a lot of words which have not been objected to by parliamentary counsel. But when one comes to the bit which is important from the conservationist's point of view—this is meant to be a nature conservation Bill, among other things—immediately they get left out because they are vague or general, although the Government are explicitly committed, having signed the directive, to implementing them. If the Government have to implement them they must have worked out how to do so, vague and general though the words may be.
  If the noble Earl will agree to look at the point before Third Reading and come back to me before then, I shall happily withdraw the amendment. I should like an assurance that we shall be able to look at this and, if necessary, discuss it between ourselves before the next stage of the Bill, because I think that it is important. If the noble Earl would care to nod, I should be very grateful. He has nodded. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  1.36 a.m.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 131C:
  Page 16, line 1, leave out ("may authorise any person to whom it is granted") and insert ("which authorises any person to take or kill wild birds or other wild animals may authorise that person").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 16, leave out lines 22 and 23.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this could be called the "stopping of Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all "amendment. Subsection (7) on page 16 seems to allow an enormous amount of delegation by licence holders. It says:
  "may be framed by reference to any circumstances whatever including, in particular, their being authorised by any other person".
  The object of my amendment, and that of my noble friends, is to prevent particular individuals or classes of person who have been granted certain permission under licence from delegating such permission to others. In this way, only those authorised under licence would be able to make use of it. The risk of improper use through wide delegation would be averted. It is important that permission should be given under licence and not delegated indiscriminately. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this was a point which my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt raised in Committee. I had rather thought that at that stage I had satisfied him. I explained then that we have included the provision to give greater flexibility to the system and I quoted the example that it would enable us to make an arrangement, for instance with the British Trust for Ornithology to authorise its members to ring birds. The alternative is the present system of a mass of individual applications, with all the attendant bureaucracy which I know my noble friend does not like, and of course the waste of valuable Nature Conservancy Council resources. Avoiding this kind of bureaucratic nonsense is dear to the Government's heart.
  I should stress that if a licence is given to a person it will not automatically be given to other persons at the same time. The licence would need specifically to state that the person or body licensed could authorise other persons to carry out the permitted action, subject to the terms and conditions of the licence.
  I hope my noble friend will see that we shall be very specific and not use this power haphazardly, but it is a power which is required for specific technical reasons. Incidentally, I think noble Lords will find that Amendment No. 131A has also greatly strengthened this point. With those assurances, I hope my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, those assurances seem to be reasonably satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 132A:
  Page 16, line 24, after ("section") insert (""the agriculture Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 128A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 133:
  Page 16, line 32, after ("(1)") insert ("or paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 123. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  1.40 a.m.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 134 and 135:
  Page 16, line 35, leave out ("(f )") and insert ("(e)").
  Page 16, line 38, after ("paragraph") insert ("(f)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to both these amendments with Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 16, line 38, at end insert ("or a licence under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) which authorises anything to be done in relation to fish or shellfish").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this when I moved Amendment No. 123. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 136A:
  Page 16, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert ("the agriculture Minister").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 128A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
  Page 16, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 44.
  Page 16, line 45, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (c) of").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these two amendments when I moved Amendment No. 123. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 138A:
  Page 16, line 47, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
  ("(9) The agriculture Minister—

  (a) shall from time to time consult with the Nature Conservancy Council as to the exercise of his functions under this section; and

  (b) shall not grant a licence of any description unless he has been advised by the Council as to the circumstances in which, in their opinion, licences of that description should be granted.")

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 128A. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is one small point here in connection with subsection (9)(b). I think this is unduly restrictive on the Minister of Agriculture. What happens if there is a situation where the Council say, "We cannot advise you because this is a totally new situation"? Can the Minister go ahead and grant the licence, or does he say, "Well, you must come back with a better answer than that"? This is something which is giving some of us who are connected with farming a great deal of worry and perhaps my noble friend could take it a stage further.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I do not see why it is giving some worry. I welcome this amendment. I was not going to say anything, but I was going to withdraw the next amendment in my name. It seems to me that this goes a long way towards meeting the worries—not by any means so far as I should like, but it is certainly a very welcome move. At Committee stage the noble Earl, and some of his noble friends, said that the Bill already required the Minister of Agriculture to consult the NCC about the licences he issued, and at that stage in our discussion it took quite a lot to persuade noble Lords opposite that the Bill did not actually say that. When the Government put in what they thought the Bill then said, it seems to be a bit rough for there to be a complaint about it. I wish this went a good deal further and required the Minister of Agriculture to consult with the NCC before they issued a licence. Indeed, I think we should have gone a great deal further than that and not had MAFF issuing licences at all. I really think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, should not complain about this very modest improvement which really meets the case.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I understood my noble friend's point correctly, he was slightly worried about an emergency or some new form of occasion which might arise. I do not think he need have any worry, but I will look at it again when I can read his comments on another day, and I will write to him if I have any doubts.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 138B not moved.]
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved manuscript Amendment No. 140A:
  Leave out Clause 15.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very small point and will not take a moment. At the Committee stage we raised the question of keeping a register of licences issued under Clause 15 and the possibility of the public being allowed access to this register. I had a letter from the noble Earl which I thought quite reasonably pointed out—as he had done at the Committee stage—the danger of allowing people unrestricted access to a register of this kind because it might well help people who were disposed to steal, for example, falcons to find out where they were being kept. I therefore have not moved the amendment again, but what I wanted from the noble Earl was an assurance that reputable organisations, voluntary or otherwise, would be allowed access to the records of licences which would inevitably be kept. The kind of organisations I had in mind were those representing farmers and landowners, like the NFU and the CLA, those representing conservation interests, like the RSPB or the County Naturalists' Trust, those representing shooting interests, like WAGBI and so on. If the noble Earl can give an assurance that such organisations would be allowed access to these records when they had a legitimate interest, that would meet my worry entirely. My Lords, I beg to move.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance he wants, although I cannot say it would be a 100 per cent. assurance because one

  269
  cannot guarantee that all the information would be available to all the bodies all the time. It is the Government's duty to act as an honest broker in the matter, and I can assure both those who confide in the Government and those who see this information as a necessary tool in their work of enforcement that we will uphold the public good in a way which both can agree would be the fulfilment of the purpose of licensing and the registration as laid down in the Bill. The Government see these registers as something to be used by the bodies such as those the noble Lord mentioned.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 18 [Enforcement]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 141:
  Page 17, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(1A) If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person is committing an offence under this Part, he may, for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1), enter any land other than a dwelling-house.")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide a constable with the power to enter onto land but not into buildings when he has reasonable cause to suspect an offence is being committed. For example, where a constable is walking down a country road and sees a man in an adjoining field shooting a protected bird it would give him the power to enter that field and apprehend the suspect—what in other context, is known as hot pursuit. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who put forward a similar amendment in Committee. I hope he will find ours more straightforward. I beg to move.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for this amendment, which meets the point fully.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 142:
  Page 17, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 2 on page 18 and insert—

  ("(a) an offence under section 1, 3, 5, 7 or 8 in respect of which this Part or any order made under it provides for a special penalty; or

  (b) an offence under section 6, 9, 11, 12 or 13, has been committed.").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment extends the search warrant powers in the Bill in respect of birds to cover all special penalty offences, not merely offences in respect of Schedule 1 species—all of which are special penalty offences. It is entirely appropriate that the power to grant a search warrant should be available for all rather than some special penalty offences—and brings the position in line with that for animals—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for suggesting this in Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Summary prosecutions]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 143:
  Page 18, line 11, at end insert ("or the taking of an egg of such a bird").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment corrects an omission in Clause 19, which is a new clause added to the Bill in Committee and extends the time limit on prosecution from six months to two years. We noticed after Committee that a reference to the taking of eggs had not been included. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Penalties, forfeitures etc.]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 149:
  Page 18, line 29, leave out ("sections 1 to 8") and insert
  ("section 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 8 shall be liable on summary conviction").
  leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert ("to a fine not exceeding £1,000").
  Page 18, line 35, leave out from ("case") to end of line 36 and insert ("to a fine not exceeding £200.").
  leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("under section 9 or 11 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000.
  (2A) Subject to subsection (4), a person guilty of an offence under section 12 or 16 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.").
  Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 2 and insert ("a fine").
  Page 19, line 6, leave out ("or (2)") and insert ("(2) or (2A)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I shall speak at the same time to amendments numbers 144 to 149. These amendments to Clause 20 are designed to adjust the penalty structure in the light of the views expressed during the Committee stage. Together they represent a fresh approach which, with your Lordships' permission, I will now explain.
  We heard much in Committee about the need to provide adequate financial sanctions against the various offences. We were told that the value of certain species might, in certain circumstances, offer the prospect of illicit financial rewards greatly in excess of the available fines, and of the importance therefore of hitting the offenders' pockets. There was also a general feeling that while the protection of our wildlife heritage was of prime importance, the offences were not of the order of gravity for which imprisonment would be appropriate.
  The Government have responded to these arguments, first, by proposing to increase the maximum fines for certain of the offences and, secondly, by removing the sanction of imprisonment. We consider that the penalty structure which would be established by the amendments is consistent with the preponderance of opinion in your Lordships' House and with the general provisions of the criminal law relating to penalties. In this last connection I should explain why we do not favour the term "statutory maximum" for specifying the maximum fine of £1,000 available for purely summary offences. The effect of the term would be to link that maximum fine to the provisions first introduced in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and now consolidated in the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 which enable the Home Secretary, in the light of changes in the value of money, to alter by order the maximum fine on summary conviction for offences which are triable either summarily or on indictment. These provisions do not apply to the fines for purely summary offences; they are confined to offences which are triable either way.
  The background to that approach is that the Criminal Law Act 1977 established a standard maximum fine on summary conviction across the board for offences triable either way, which represents a clear dividing line between the powers of the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. In order to preserve the integrity of that dividing line, the power was given to the Home Secretary to adjust it from time to time to accord with changes in the value of money. It is, of course, desirable that a similar arrangement should apply to the fines for purely summary offences but, in order to do this with consistency across the board, it will be necessary, first, to assimilate all the summary maxima to the four-point scale of summary fines—£50, £200, £500 and £1,000—established following the Criminal Law Act 1977. When that is achieved it will be possible to index link the scale and thus secure an orderly and cohesive adjustment to summary fines.
  In the interim, we would prefer to avoid piecemeal index linking of summary penalties in individual legislation, since that would detract from the consistency with which, as a matter of principle, such a measure should be applied. There have been, as some noble Lords will be aware, exceptions to this policy but both the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 and the Companies Act 1980 dealt comprehensively with well-defined and self-contained areas of commercial activity in which a departure was justifiable. This Bill does not meet these criteria.
  Against that background, the first amendment specifies more precisely in Clause 20(1) the clauses under which offences relating to birds are created. The second increases in Clause 20(1)(a) the maximum fine from £500 to £1,000 for the more serious offences related to wild birds. It also removes the sanction of three months' imprisonment. The third increases in Clause 20(1)(b) the maximum fine from £50 to £200 for the less serious offences against birds. This increase to the next point on the scale of summary fines is consistent with the increase proposed in Clause 20(1)(a).
  The fourth amendment substitutes in Clause 20(2) the figure £1,000 for the term "statutory maximum" for reasons which I have already given. It then applies the maximum fine of £1,000 to offences in respect of animals in Clause 9 and 11. We consider that offences in respect of wild plants and making false statements to obtain registration or licences are of a lesser order of gravity and therefore the maximum fine for these offences has been maintained at £500 by the creation of sub-clause (2A).
  The fifth amendment removes from Clause 20(3) the sanction of two years' imprisonment available on conviction on indictment for offences under Clause 13, which is concerned with control over the introduction of new species. The sixth is a consequence of the creation of sub-clause (2A) and merely makes an appropriate reference in Clause 20(4) so that offences in respect of wild plants may continue to attract the multiplier device. I apologise if I have spoken a little long on these amendments, but it is an important subject which we covered in some detail in Committee. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that somebody should thank the Government for these amendments. We carried a vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, which made the point. The Government have changed it slightly, but I am sure that it will be acceptable. I think that the figures that they have come up with and the removal of imprisonment and so on—indeed the whole combination—do meet the points made on all sides of the House and have a great deal of support. I think that once again it is a major improvement to the Bill.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend particularly for the removal of the prison sentence, for which I asked. I hope that we shall all be able to pay all the fines that will be imposed for planting bulbs in the woods! I hope that my noble friend gets that right before Third Reading.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 19, line 17, after ("any") insert ("vehicle, animal, weapon or other").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, moved a similar amendment in Committee so as to make it clear that a court may confiscate. The Government agree that the position would be clearer if this is done. Additionally, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, it would be in line with the wording used in the Deer Act 1980. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Power to vary Schedules]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 151:
  Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another of the amendments designed to tidy up the consultation procedures. Clause 21(4) is not needed because of the provision in Clause 25(2)(b). I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 152:
  Page 20, leave out lines 24 to 30.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Craigton asked in Committee if Clause 21(7)—20(7) previously—could be re-drafted to make it clearer. Parliamentary counsel can see no way of usefully simplifying this provision which is simply an extension of Section 9(3) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954. However, he advises that since it is a statement of the obvious, it could be dispensed with and this we have chosen to propose. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Advisory bodies and their functions]:
  The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 156:
  Page 21, line 4, after ("it") insert ("or on which it considers it should offer its advice—
  (a)").
  Page 21, line 5, leave out ("so far as it relates to the protection of birds").
  Page 21, line 6, after ("or") insert ("(b)").
  Page 21, line 7, after ("birds") insert ("or other animals or plants").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 153, 154, 155 and 156 en bloc. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady David, proposed an amendment which would make advice a two-way process. In addition to the Secretary of State requesting advice from the advisory body, the advisory body could approach the Secretary of State with advice. We undertook to take away this suggestion and arrange for a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 153 and 155 are the consequences and in fact reflect existing practice. I beg to move.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, this is the last thing that I intend to say this evening. First, I should like to welcome this amendment, which is a major improvement again and meets a point a number of us made in Committee. Secondly, I think that it is appropriate at the end of a long day to thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for the many really considerable improvements that we have been able to make to the Bill during the course of the day, not always with his wholehearted support but very often with his wholehearted support and with a great deal of help. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, his colleagues and all his advisers for the enormous amount of hard work that they have had to put in in a very short time, with some extra difficulties yesterday, to produce all these amendments and to meet all the points that they have been able to meet. We really are very grateful indeed.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I also should like to thank noble Lords for their co-operation.
  Lord Chelwood: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, it would be only right that someone on this side of the House also should tell him how very much we appreciate the skill, patience and understanding with which he has handled this Bill throughout this very long day. We are very grateful indeed.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we, too, feel like that, but perhaps we should reserve our formal thanks until we reach the end of this stage.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I was rather thinking that everybody was getting far ahead of their guns. I, too, am grateful for the co-operation from the Front Benches opposite and from my colleagues who have taken on a great burden today.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  PRISONERS: PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
  PRISONERS: PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY AND LEISURE INDUSTRIES
  TECHNOLOGY AND LEISURE INDUSTRIES
  AIR FARES: WESTERN EUROPE
  AIR FARES: WESTERN EUROPE
  EPILEPSY IN SCHOOLCHILDREN
  EPILEPSY IN SCHOOLCHILDREN