I have had put in the appropriate places lists of the Amendments selected today.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The new Clause is almost the same as the Clause 3 that was struck out of the Bill on a Division in Standing Committee, but it contains—this is what is important about it—an entirely new subsection (3), which makes it perfectly clear that no offence is committed in the circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection. I submit that this change meets the principal objections voiced in Standing Committee to retaining the original Clause 3.

When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) moved the deletion of Clause 3, he said that he did so with a heavy heart and that it was a good Clause and a Clause that he wished to retain in the Bill. In his remarks about the Clause, he paid a very special tribute to his predecessor as President of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Lord Hurcomb, and made it clear that in another place Lord Hurcomb had said how important the Clause was and how much he wished the Clause to be retained in the Bill.

A Bill containing this Clause less subsection (3,a and b) was passed twice in another place and once in this House on the nod before the last General Election. Hon. Members opposite voted in Standing Committee, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), for the retention of the Clause. So I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support the restoration to the Bill of the Clause in its amended form.

The important thing about the alteration is the word "wilful". It is the key to the Clause. I am advised by many hon. and learned Friends that "wilful" means deliberate and intentional and not accidental. The principal objection raised to the Clause in Standing Committee was that someone could be prosecuted for accidentally disturbing a bird's nest. The Clause as now drafted makes clear that the disturbance has to be wilful and intentional.

The House may wonder why we attach so much importance to the Clause. I will give a practical example. Not long ago the red-necked phalarope decided once again to nest on the mainland of Scotland close to where I live. This particularly beautiful little wader is rather unique as birds go because the hen is much more beautiful than the cock. Not only that but the hen, once she has laid her eggs, gets fed up with the whole business and does not hatch them. The result is that the cock phalarope has to hatch the eggs. No doubt he feels somewhat abashed at having to take on this female task, so once he gets on the eggs in the nest he draws all the surrounding grass around himself so that it is practically impossible to see the nest.

However, once keen ornithologists and not so learned ornithologists found that the red-necked phalarope was nesting in central Sutherland, they came from far and wide, and although they were told that it was nearly impossible to find the nest because of the protective action taken by the cock bird sitting on the nest, they proceeded to go backwards and forwards line upon line until they disturbed the nest, and in this case the cock bird is unlikely to return to the nest.

It is in such circumstances that we need this Clause whereby we can tell such people, "However keen you may be, if you disturb that area the bird will desert." The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds needs these powers in order to meet practical cases like the one I have just given.

It is perhaps interesting to know that one of the reasons why the red-necked phalarope is so rare in this country is that in the old days, when there was a lot of cattle on the mainland, the cattle used to eat down the long grass around the marshes, so that the birds had no nesting habitat. Therefore, when we have a limited number of habitats it is important to protect them from negligent and wilful intrusion. In view of this argument and the practical example I have given, I hope that the House will agree to the new Clause.

I have listened with close attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball), who made a fascinating speech. He made a carefully reasoned argument in support of the reinstatement of the Clause, in amended form, which, during the Committee stage, was deleted. I myself moved the deletion of the former Clause in Committee on two main grounds. I was the principal objector to it.

First, after taking some legal advice, I believed that the words would give rise to difficulties of interpretation and that the chance of bringing a successful prosecution was slight. I felt that to decide what was "near" and what was "wilful", or to prove that a bird deserted its nest because it was wilfully disturbed, would be complex and uncertain.

Secondly, I agreed with the bird photographers who represented to me strongly the risk they would face under that Clause if, as is sometimes inevitable, they disturbed a rare bird, however much care they took. I had strong representations from the photographic societies on this point.

Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that it would be better if bird photographers were to photograph rare species in places where they are common? For example, the phalarope is common in Iceland and many hawks are common on the Continent.

I agree but it would be difficult to legislate for that.

At the same time, during the Committee stage, I was afraid that any further extension of a licensing system might prove cumbersome and administratively difficult. These are the factors that I weighed against the one strong argument in favour of the Clause as then drafted and which I clearly stated—that it had a psychological value which I believe to be strong. There is much to be said for demonstrating in legislation that it is wrong and foolish to disturb rare birds when nesting. This Clause does that, but in Committee, with regret, I decided that its disadvantages outweighed that one clear advantage.

I still have doubts on the question of enforcement, and if the House accepts the Clause in its amended form, as I suggest that it should, I hope it may be regarded in this form as being in the nature of an experiment and that careful note will be taken of the way it works in practice. This would provide a basis for a review of the law in future if that proves necessary.

I am glad to say that not only am I satisfied that the interests of photographers are adequately protected in the reworded Clause; but that I have had assurances from leading bird photographers that this is also their view. I have had a letter from the Royal Photographic Society, a very representative body, saying that the Clause as redrafted is acceptable to it.

I think that the individual example my hon. Friend gave about the red necked phalarope—which I have never seen near his home in Sutherland, but which I have seen in the Outer Hebrides—was a good way to demonstrate the need for the Clause. He added to my comparatively small ornithological knowledge when he said that the cock sits on the eggs, just as the ostrich does. I do not know whether he knew that about the ostrich. But there are no ostriches in Scotland yet.

On the question of the licensing system, I am assured by Nature Conservancy, which will administer the procedure of approving persons for the purpose of the Clause, that an orderly and simple routine is likely to be worked out, as it has been for licences issued since 1954, when the principal Act was passed. Consultation is still going on with the voluntary bodies concerned to evolve a workable scheme, and a photographic advisory committee of Nature Conservancy will make recommendations for administration as it concerns photographers. If any hon. Member wants further details about the lines on which Nature Conservancy is working, I have them here.

I still have reservations about making certain voluntary societies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology, subject to the authority of a Government Department in carrying out their expert and valuable work. I do not think, however, that this is an overriding disadvantage on balance and, with the reservations I have mentioned, I am in favour of reinstatement of the Clause as amended.

I know that it has been scrutinised by a number of legal experts in this House and in another place and approved by them. I know that Lord Hurcomb, who introduced the Bill in another place, is very keen to see the Clause reinstated in its amended form. I would not, therefore, wish to press my layman's doubts about the feasibility of enforcement any further. I hope that the House will approve this Clause.

I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) now feels that he can accept the new Clause, which is an amended version of the old one, deleted in Committee. I was one of those who, on balance, were against the earlier Clause and I realise that there may still be difficulties in enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) gave an excellent example in telling about the red necked phalarope in Sutherland. The red-necked phalarope is a shy bird which easily deserts if disturbed and, on hearing about the somewhat human characteristic which my hon. Friend ascribed to it, I would compare it with perhaps a man who has been discovered by his male pub-crawling friends as having been left at home with the duty of baby sitting in the evening.

I have one question which I want to put to the Minister of State for Scotland. He and I have been much concerned lately with the Countryside (Scotland) Bill. I wonder whether there are any difficulties which may arise from this new Clause in relation to the fact that, in Scotland, we are hoping to open up much more of the countryside to visitors and people from the towns so that they may enjoy the amenities and natural beauties of Scotland. I hope that the word "wilful" and other words in the Clause will make sure that, on the one hand, people who unwittingly disturb birds will not be proceeded against and, on the other hand, that the Scottish Office is satisfied that action—not necessarily by the Scottish Office—would be taken, where there were protected birds of special significance nesting, to ensure that persons who were within their rights in the area were warned and knew about the situation and could not therefore disturb the birds unknowingly. I would be glad to hear, because of the changes which we hope will take place in the coming years in Scotland, that the Scottish Office is satisfied on this aspect.

I am glad that the sponsors of the Bill have agreed that this amended version of the Clause is acceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) said, the operative word is "wilfully". I think that this insertion should remove any doubt among those who feel that they might be liable to prosecution for having inadvertently disturbed a wild bird on its nest.

The debate has ranged over a wide field, from birds in Scotland to ostriches elsewhere, but it would be useful to hear whether the Government agree that the new Clause meets the legal objections which were raised to it in its previous form. It would be very useful to hear that from the Under-Secretary before we pass the Clause.

The Government have not taken any position on this, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I think he should be informed that the Advisory Committee for the Protection of Birds for England and Wales has reaffirmed its support for the general principle, and the Nature Conservancy, whose views we take very seriously, has indicated that it is satisfied with the new version. Therefore, we are not raising any objection to the proposal in its present form.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:

(4) This section shall not apply to Scotland.

The House knows of the interest of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) in the preservation of wild life and the efforts which he has made to secure the passage of this Bill. It is an admirable Measure, and I support it, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I support it with one major qualification, which relates to Clause 3.

I remind the House that the sale of dead wild geese is already prohibited between the end of February and the end of August in any year. The effect of Clause 3 extends this prohibition, with minor exceptions which do not affect the argument, throughout the whole year.

If the wild goose were a rare bird, or a declining species, I would welcome any proposal for its preservation. The number of wild geese in Britain, however, is large, and even increasing, and in Scotland, particularly in Perthshire, the number is very large indeed.

A most interesting and authoritative paper appeared in the Wild Fowl Trust Annual Report for 1961–62. This showed that the number of greylag geese in Scotland had increased from 21,000 in November. 1957, to 38,000 in November, 1962, and over the same period the number of pink-foot geese increased from 31,000 to 45,000. Although these figures have a margin of error of about plus or minus 15 per cent., they show that over these five years the number of wild geese in Scotland increased by about 60 per cent. Figures for the years since 1962 have not yet been published, but I understand that the trend of increase continues.

I said a moment ago that there is a large concentration of wild geese in Perthshire. The latest census figures have not been published officially, but it is likely that the figure for March this year will show a substantial increase over the previous year in the number of greylag geese in that county and a slight decline in the number of pinkfoot geese. The extent of the concentration can be illustrated by my own calculation that in March this year more than one-third of all the greylag geese in Great Britain were actually in Perthshire and nearly a quarter of the pinkfoot geese in Britain were also in Perthshire. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes will accept, therefore, that, first, the numbers of geese in Scotland have been increasing steadily, and, secondly, that the concentration of these geese in Perthshire is very large. He will also know that there are large numbers of these geese in other parts of Scotland—notably in Stirlingshire, Fife and Galloway.

The second plank of my argument is the damage that these geese cause to farmers. I do not claim that the damage is highly significant in terms of the total agricultural enterprise in Scotland, but it has a marked significance for certain farmers whose farms are in the densely goose-populated areas.

The House will know that geese are hungry birds. In particular, they like grass. Further, they have the trying habit of liking particular farms and even particular fields. Just as the gourmet has his favourite eating places, so the geese have the trying habit of descending on to their favourite fields, with wily outriders and leaders who act as a sort of good food guide for the following flock.

The plight of the farmers who farm those fields is a most unhappy one. I have discussed this with a number of affected farmers who agricultural knowledge and opinions I respect and trust. One has described to me how thousands of geese—this is a literal figure, not exaggerated—descend on his farm to devour his grass. Grass is an important agricultural crop. It is not an ornament or waste; it has an important farming purpose. All the farmers I have spoken to have described the damage that these geese do to their grass—competing for this feed with ewes in lamb and other stock.

There is other damage, too. Another farmer, whom I know well, lost 34 acres of barley, and others have lost their winter wheat.

I received a letter this week from another constituent who writes:

"The number of geese has increased enormously in the past ten years. Greylag geese have always roosted on my land beside the River Tay, and where I had several hundreds in 1958 coming in every night I now have several thousand. In a mild wet spell of weather they do great damage to winter wheat crops as they pull the grain clean out of the ground and trample the field surface with their feet to such an extent that there is no chance of recovery. In harder weather the damage is less, as they graze the wheat shoots to the ground but they cannot pull out the roots.

"Geese also spoil and eat a great deal of autumn young grass, thereby depriving stock of winter keep. If they stay late into the spring, which they have done these last two years, they again destroy the early spring grass if they are in such large numbers as they have now become, fouling the ground to such an extent that cattle and sheep will not graze."

That is the experience of a highly responsible farmer who suffers from these invasions of wild geese.

11.30 a.m.

I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes will accept that geese cause damage to crops and that the damage on these farms attacked by them can be extensive and expensive. It follows, therefore, that in order to protect their interests, farmers should not be hampered in any way from taking action to disperse the geese which threaten them and which are doing so in increasing numbers.

The House will know that the most effective way to deal with marauding geese is to disperse them by scaring them away and keeping them on the move. The most effective way to disperse geese is to shoot at them. The goose is not an easy bird to shoot and the dispersal is effected not so much by actually killing the geese as by shooting at the birds and frightening them away repeatedly. Given that Clause 3 will lead to less shooting at geese in Scotland, it will therefore be a hindrance to farmers, and particularly small farmers. This is the central point of my Amendment—that, as it stands, the Clause will lead to less shooting at geese.

It is at this point that disagreement may arise today. The Clause does not prohibit shooting at wild geese. What it prohibits is the sale of dead geese in what is at present the open season between 1st September and the end of February. This is the period when geese do a very large part of the damage. The extent can vary according to local climatic conditions in a particular winter, but I hope that the information which I have given to the House from farmers who have suffered in this way will be accepted as evidence of the extensive damage which these birds do.

My belief is that this prohibition will remove the financial incentive which encourages farm workers and individuals or groups from outside to shoot on farmland by arrangement with the farmer. I accept that no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend is concerned about large-scale and highly organised shoots, but I doubt whether this Clause as it stands can have any major effect on the letting of wild-fowling rights for sport. The man who shoots on that scale pays large sums for the sport, and I find it hard to accept that the sale of the few geese which he shoots has any influence on him. His interest is in the shooting and not in the 8s. or 10s. or so which he can get for a dead bird. I do not dispute that there are some cases of mass shooting for commercial purposes where the sale of the geese is the main consideration, but I doubt whether those commercial operations are on a large enough scale to outweigh the disadvantages which farmers, and again I stress especially small farmers, will suffer from the prohibition.

These farmers often have an arrangement with a few people who go on their land and shoot at geese. It is not the farmer's practice to advertise that shooting is available, because the prudent farmer—and every farmer is a prudent man—does not want to have strangers wandering over his land with a gun. It is therefore done by private arrangement with certain people or groups.

For the small farmer, the sort of man with whom I am most concerned, the only financial consideration which is involved is the money which the shooters themselves get for the geese, generally the very few geese, which they shoot. These people are not wealthy sportsmen, but are simply local people who enjoy the sport, but who are unable to pay for it. The money which they get for the birds covers the cost of cartridges and perhaps also the cost of the journey to and from the farm.

I have been assured over and over again by the farmers whom I have consulted that they have no doubt that without this financial incentive many of these shooters would not continue to shoot at the geese on the farmland. More often it is the farmers themselves and the farm workers who shoot the geese and it is in their farming interests to continue the practice. The sale of the dead birds, however, covers the cost of the cartridges. If the Clause is accepted, it will lead to yet another increased cost for the farmer, and I do not have to remind the House of the serious plight in which many small farmers in Scotland find themselves today.

I am convinced that this is a correct argument. The House will observe that the Amendment is supported by a number of my hon. Friends, a growing number as I see this morning. It is also supported by my own local National Farmers' Union and by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, from whom I received a telegram a few minutes ago emphasising its support for the Amendment. Above all, it is supported by the farmers who are most affected by wild geese and who are anxiously awaiting the outcome of this debate. Their hope and mine is that my hon. and gallant Friend will accept the Amendment.

The House has listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), and perhaps I shall be forgiven if I try to explain why my hon. and gallant Friend included the Clause. He probably acted upon the advice of the specialist committees which deal in these affairs, and the advice of these specialist Home Office Advisory Committees, which, incidentally, includes representatives of W.A.G.B.I., the R.S.P.B. and the Wildfowl Trust, was that the Clause should be included to remove the commercial incentive to destroy wild geese in large numbers.

My hon. Friend gave some interesting statistics, but I think he will be the first to agree that in this connection we are both laymen and that it is as well if I give one or two details of some tests conducted by experts into the actual damage which feeding wild geese do on Scottish farms and farms elsewhere. These tests were conducted exhaustively by people with the highest credentials. I will not weary the House by reporting other than a couple of findings and conclusions.

One was concerned with the examination of the whole problem of the damage done by feeding geese on farmland in Scotland, and it was conducted by Professor Rodger of the Edinburgh School of Agriculture in conjunction with Janet Kear of the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge. My hon. Friend mentioned certain crops which he regarded as being largely the quarry of these wild geese when they came ashore to feed. These crops were mentioned by these experts in the paper which they published fairly recently and related to the winter of 1963–64.

They concluded about wheat that there was no evidence that geese would dig up newly sown grain. They concluded that geese did not use potato fields and, as for spring corn, they concluded about the damage done by geese on spring cereal crops that:

"In a normal spring however geese will be away before the critical stage for damage is reached."

They considered other methods of deterring geese.

I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that the figures I quoted came from the most expert source. Secondly, the winter wheat and other crops which he mentions are secondary areas of damage. The primary area is grass, and I hope that we will have some information from him about that.

There is not a shadow of doubt that the evidence shows that the grass yield will be reduced by excessive grazing of wild geese, but I have a few figures which I would like to present to the House to show by how much the yields are reduced. These two experts concluded, when they examined alternative methods of protecting the various crops, that

"… in practice killing is by no means easy, and is not likely to have a permanent deterrent effect on migrant flocks."

When young cereals or grass have been damaged by geese, the most effective method of protection they found was to scare the birds away. Their general conclusion was that the geese usually arrive in East Scotland too late to damage the harvest of crops and feed on stubble in potato fields, where they do more good than harm.

The other experiment, conducted in detail at the Rosemaund Experimental Husbandry Farm in Herefordshire in 1962 to 1965 relates to the application of a certain number of penned wild geese on a plot of land which gave the equivalent density of 11,000 wild geese feeding on once acre of grass in an hour which, as my hon. Friend will recognise, is a far higher density than is ever encountered in real life, even I imagine in Perthshire. The equivalent of 11,000 geese were grazed on an acre of various crops for one hour.

I hope that my hon. Friend will listen to me, because I am trying to relate my remarks to the point he has raised. He mentioned the damage that wild geese were doing to grass. This experiment shows that on grass and clover lays—the trial was conducted in October—the yield of the subsequent grass the following summer season was increased by 11 per cent. over grass which had not been subjected to the wild geese grazing upon it. For winter oats it was found that the yield was down by 4 per cent. Winter wheat was found to be unaffected, compared with a neighbouring plot upon which wild geese were not grazed. For spring barley the yield was found to be down by 4 per cent.

Those figures are not excessive and my hon. Friend will, I think, agree that they are interesting. They are the results of experiments carried out over four successive years by experts at this experimental farm. They are certainly worthy of consideration if this Amendment is pursued. There are several ways that a farmer can have wild geese removed from his farm if they are doing damage, without recourse to people coming into shoot them for financial reward. I have already mentioned several forms of scarers. One particular form is a carbide gun, which will remove geese or any other birds alighting on fields for grazing or feeding purposes. Another way, and we discussed this in Committee, is through W.A.G.B.I. members, of whom there are about 20,000. They would be delighted to come, without making any charge. In fact they will even pay the farmer for the privilege of shooting these geese if they are causing execessive damage or annoyance.

Another point that must be considered in relation to this Clause is the international aspect of this problem. These thousands of flocks of geese to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which we are delighted to see, are not summer residents in this country. They migrate from their breeding grounds abroad during the cold winter months. They visit the hospitable, I hope, shores of Scotland and feed and rest for a while and winter before returning to their breeding grounds in various parts of the world, such as Greenland, Iceland, Siberia and Spitz-berg. As was brought out very clearly in the two European Wildfowl Conservation Conferences which have recently been held, we have an important international obligation not to desolate these flocks purely for financial gain when they arrive on the shores of Perthshire.

11.45 a.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) raised this point in Committee when we were discussing the damage that wild geese do to farmland in Scotland. He made a very able speech on this point and suggested to me that perhaps the Scottish National Farmers' Union could get together with the Wildfowlers Association of Great Britain and Ireland to see if some simple machinery could be established where, as soon as a farmer was in trouble, all that he had to do was to ring up a local W.A.G.B.I. member and instantaneously W.A.G.B.I. members would come and clear the farm of geese. They would be delighted to do so at no charge whatever. I took this suggestion up forthwith with W.A.G.B.I. authorities and I am pleased to say that it is now in consultation with the Scottish N.F.U. It is sending a representative to see the Scottish N.F.U. this month and I am confident that an efficient and effective organisation will be working by the time the new goose-shooting season starts later this year. That initiative from W.A.G.B.I. has come directly as a result of my hon. Friend suggesting this in Committee.

I would like to conclude by referring to the last paragraph of a letter written by the Scottish N.F.U. to Scottish Members of Parliament. It said that in certain districts:

"… the only means of controlling wild geese is by shooting them, and if dead geese were to become unsaleable, it would be even more difficult than at present to … do this. Shooting geese must nearly always be done at dusk or dawn and there must be some financial incentive to encourage people to carry out this task."

I want to say to the author of that letter that there are many hundreds, if not thousands of people in Scotland, ready to pay for the privilege of shooting these geese. I am convinced that the machinery which is now being set up will provide both the Scottish farmers with a solution, and Scottish members of W.A.G.B.I. with many pleasant mornings and evenings of sport. I trust that in view of these few remarks my hon. Friend and his supporters will give this matter further consideration to see if they cannot change their views.

I hesitate to intervene in what at first sight may appear to be a Scottish matter. However, on reflection the House would agree that this is not purely a Scottish matter. It would be taking a very large measure of independence to that country if it were to have different laws on this subject to those in England.

I am sure that it has not yet been pointed out that the first thing that will happen if this Amendment is accepted will be that all those Englishmen who wish to sell dead wild geese which they have shot in England will either take the first train to Scotland or will put the geese on the first train and sell them in the markets in north Britain rather than in south Britain. It would clearly provide a means whereby the value of wild geese in England would fall to the ground immediately.

I have more fundamental objections to the Amendment because, although I recognise the importance of shooting to shooting men, I have a deep regard for wild geese. I may be very old-fashioned and emotional, but I think that there is something wrong with selling them for profit. The motive of killing for profit is totally wrong and should never be a foremost motive in anybody's actions. The idea that it is necessary to pay people to shoot geese is most unsporting and should not be tolerated by anybody.

It has been said that the numbers of geese are increasing. If that is so, I very much welcome it. I wonder whether it is the reverse effect of the drift of population to the South. As more people come into England, so more geese leave England and go to Scotland. It is difficult to see how geese are increasing when they are coming under such very heavy shooting pressure. If their numbers are increasing, perhaps it is because better feed is available to them through improved agriculture. A thousand years ago there were no winter crops; there was only grass. This surely is the only new factor which could account for the apparent increase in the number of geese. There can be no doubt that geese do damage. If we are to have geese in Scotland, it is inevitable that they will eat a considerable quantity of feedstuffs. Anyone who argued that geese did not do damage would be arguing very foolishly.

But let us examine the damage which they are alleged to do. They mostly frequent the grass fields, particularly during the shooting season. Although they reduce the amount of winter grass, it is not the winter grass which is so important. It is the spring grass which is important, and by the spring the geese have left our shores. Therefore, I believe that the damage which they do to grass fields is not very exceptional unless we have a concentration of them such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. However. I readily admit that they do damage by stripping winter corn crops in the spring. But, as my hon. Friend mentioned, one cannot sell geese after the shooting season. They do damage to the spring wheat in April and March when the sale of geese is banned. Therefore, the Amendment would make no difference to that problem.

The proposition which my Scottish colleagues have put forward is that by banning the sale of wild geese more damage will be done to crop. I do not think that that can be right, because the total number of geese in Scotland will eat the same quantity, unless they are killed. By leaving the geese alive there is bound to be merely a redistribution of the fields in which the geese feed. But the proposition does not seem to me to hold water, because we are told that if one bans the sale of geese the farmer will not have a financial incentive to shoot them himself. Despite the fact that they are doing hundreds of £s worth of damage to his crops, apparently there is, according to my hon. Friend, no financial incentive to shoot them. But surely he has a financial incentive to let out his shooting rights.

As has been said, the number of people who are very keen to pay money, and sometimes large sums of money, for the right to shoot the farmers' geese is considerable. This must be far more profitable than the sale of the corpses. I believe that one gets only about half a crown for a wild goose. But even if one could get twice that sum the proceeds of selling the geese would not be anything like as great as the proceeds from letting the shooting rights.

I support the Bill as it stands. The danger is that if we ban the sale of wild geese we may cause more geese to be killed because farmers will be more inclined to let their shooting rights and the sportsmen who do the shooting will perhaps be more inclined to shoot a larger number of geese than otherwise would have been the case. This is the only ground which my hon. Friend could usefully put forward as being an objection to the Bill.

One of my hon. Friend's remarks needs comment from me. He said that the Bill as drafted would result in less shooting at geese. Shooting at geese results in wounding geese. If one fires a gun from a rather extreme range at a flock of geese and none of them is killed, there is no knowing how many have been wounded. The worst thing that we could do would be to encourage shooting at geese. I hope very much that geese will be kept off fields by being scared by bangers and scarers and non-lethal devices. We should all regret wounding the birds.

Therefore, the House should not accept the Amendment. The logical grounds on which it is said to rest do not exist. It will have the effect of resulting in an impossible legal position between England and Scotland. I therefore earnestly entreat the House to leave the Bill as drafted and to get the shooting of birds on the basis of sportsmanship rather than commercial profit, because it seems to me that this is the worst motive for which people could shoot. This is a sport which many enjoy and would be loth to go without.

First, I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on the Bill, to which I give my wholehearted support with the notable exception of Clause 3, which we seek to amend.

Before dealing with the Clause, I should like to refer to my hon. Friends who support the Amendment. There are two very interesting things about those who support the Amendment. It is sponsored by Members who cover a very wide area of Scotland which includes practically every corner where this is an active problem. Secondly, those Members who support the Amendment live in Scotland all the year round. They have their home there. They are not just interested in coming to Scotland for two, four or six weeks' sport annually, but they spend 52 weeks in the year in Scotland, with the exception of the days on which they are engaged in the House. Therefore, some attention must be paid to those of us who understand what goes on in Scotland and who have lived there all our lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) condemns shooting for profit. I do not think that he can know very much about Scotland, except for what he learns during those happy weeks which he spends engaged in profitless sport. There are a great many people in Scotland who have to have their shooting paid for somehow because it is a luxury which they cannot normally afford. Curiously enough, the people who have come up the good way to learn shooting—and, after all, poachers make the best gamekeepers —are very good shots. This is a sport in which they have a particular interest and to which they make a special contribution.

Therefore, I do not condemn the idea of selling geese. If my hon. Friend had gone into greater detail, he would know that he could get 10s. for a goose in a shop. I am sure that he would be very happy to sell his geese and pay for his day's sport.

My hon. Friend mentioned the numbers of geese and where they like to feed, but the goose, like the gourmet, chooses the best, so it does not necessarily go to the land where it does less damage but rather where it gets the best meal. That is worth remembering, too.

12 noon.

The tests to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred have two points of interest to me. First, the tests were conducted in the east of Scotland. That is very significant. If my hon. Friend looks at the Amendment, he will see that my hon. Friend who represents that area has not put his name to it. It is not an area where the problem is as acute as in the areas to which we are referring this morning.

When my hon. Friend talks about 11,000 geese sitting down on one acre, all I can say is that they must have been put there on a dry day and that it cannot have been carse land. That is an important point.

I noticed that when I was talking about this matter my hon. Friend was engaged in conversation with another of her hon. Friends and, possibly, she did not catch what I said. I said that the tests were conducted partly in the east of Scotland and partly in Herefordshire and, secondly, that the density of geese in the trials was the equivalent of 11,000 per acre for one hour. The number of geese utilised in the trials was 171. They were given a correspondingly smaller piece of land in each case, which gave the equivalent density. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene to make this clear.

My hon. Friend has not altered my two points that it must have been a dry day and that it cannot have been carse land. That is important to remember. [Interruption.] I do not think that carse land is to be found either in the east of Scotland or in Herefordshire.

We are discussing what is an agreed test, and I should like to quote a letter which I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who states:

"It seems to me that there is a very delicate balance here, because there is no doubt that wild geese are causing damage in some parts of Scotland …

The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds is at present looking into the position in the one case especially, that of the grey-lag goose in the close season, in which killing for the prevention of damage is illegal."

That shows plainly that not only is it regarded as necessary to shoot geese, but that at the same time as we are discussing this problem, the Secretary of State's office is considering the possibility either of etxending the time in which that is possible or finding alternative methods which may be effective to stop this pest. Therefore, we must accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said in Committee, that this is an agreed pest.

As to numbers, the latest returns which have been published, and which have not been challenged, show that the trend of increase is dramatic. The figures published in May this year show that 76,000 pink-footed geese are estimated to come into Scotland annually and that this constitutes three-quarters of the world population of the breed. That is a very grave problem and it is small wonder that the National Farmers' Union is so concerned about it.

The point made by the N.F.U. is important. A letter which I received on 21st April from the headquarters of the Union stated:

"As you know, we are most disappointed that no action on Clause 2 was taken during the Committee stage of the Bill, and our main objective is to have Clause 2 removed altogether."

Clause 2 has, of course, now become Clause 3, and it is an Amendment to Clause 3 which we are discussing.

The letter from the N.F.U. goes on to say:

"All that we are asking is that the status quo should be maintained."

That is important to remember. We are not asking anything more than that the status quo should be maintained. The existing law makes a contribution towards the problem and it suggests that the present practice does good and should be allowed to continue.

The custom deserves merit, because in many of the carse areas of Scotland the custom is clear. These small farmers do not make an easy living. They deal, in many cases, with carse land and there is need for a permanent arrangement to cope with the problem of geese. The shooting of geese in these circumstances is usually undertaken by one or two people who have a keen interest in the sport and have taken it from generation to generation.

It has been represented to me that those people use guns costing £150. I do not know where that figure comes from, because my experience is that the sort of person who copes effectively with the problem has probably had a gun which has been handed down in the family for two or three generations. My gun is three generations old and it is quite good enough for me. Those who follow this traditional practice usually use an old gun which belongs to the family. They license the gun, pay for the cartridges and reckon to have a good day's sport. In my view, they have a right to get back their expenses. They do no more than that. By the selling of the geese they get, perhaps, 30s. at most, and this covers their expenses and is perfectly reasonable.

An additional point which is worth mentioning is that many of these people in central Scotland work on shifts. It is a very good thing for those who are shut up by working on shift to have as a sport something which takes them out into the open air where they can spend an equal amount of time in a very good sport such as this.

If the Amendment is rejected, the position of farmers will definitely be worsened. We have evidence, however, to show that the Scottish Office is considering how to tackle the problem. One cannot rule out of consideration the possibility of geese being accepted as a pest in the same way as the pigeon, which is dealt with by a method of toxic spray which should be far more repulsive to the sponsors of the Bill than anything we are discussing in the Clause or the Amendment.

As I have said, there is strong pressure from the National Farmers' Union. The immediate past president, Mr. Watson Peat, who happens to be a neighbour of mine in Scotland, and knows the problem at first hand, says:

"I hope, therefore, that some effective opposition will be mounted in this matter and we wish you success in your endeavour."

The alternatives which have been offered this morning to the proposition put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is that the Wildfowlers' Association should be. I think the expression was, "rung up and asked to come along." In my part of the world, the nearest wildfowlers' association office is well over 50 miles away. At dusk, it is likely to have an office which is closed and, at dawn it is likely to have an office which is not yet open. Initially, therefore, there would inevitably be considerable delay.

Having surmounted that delay and having had the field eaten in the interval, we would then find some enthusiastic wildfowlers arriving the following day to find that the geese had gone. Moreover, it is not very likely that those people would necessarily be prepared to drop what they were doing to motor 50, 60 or 70 miles to get very wet sitting out all dawn or all dusk and go back looking smart into their offices in Edinburgh the following day. I do not really think that people who suggest that this is a practical solution are very accustomed to living in Scotland except for the brief, happy spell when they come up during the shooting season.

There is also the question of bangers —not sausages—balls inside barrels. I wonder how many people have experience of how this works. Mother Goose is no fool. She circles round a field three times, the wind blows, the barrels make a noise and the warning goes out, "Look out, boys. There are barrels in this field." It may be true that they may be scared off for two or three days, but at the end of three days at the most they will make up their minds whether this is something which is for them or against them, and so the effectiveness of some of the mechanical devices of this nature is of very limited duration indeed, I can assure hon. Members who have not gone into this question that this is a fact.

The other question is as to how much damage the geese do. Well, of course, damage is frequently done by weather conditions as much as by the number of geese. Weather conditions in Scotland are certainly not favourable to the small farmers' getting away with little damage from many geese because the actual puddling of the ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, is perhaps one of the greatest difficulties of all.

I should like to emphasise finally that this is a small farmer's problem, and, therefore, I should like to point out that this Amendment is aimed at getting as much support as is at present available in the North for the small farmer and I should like to point out that this Bill, in my view, will not stop the mass slaughter of geese and the reason why it will not stop the mass slaughter of geese is this.

Guns are sold for a price, and when I used that phrase once before the Minister in question thought I thought there was an auction of the guns. I mean that, for the privilege of shooting, an individual who takes on that privilege pays a substantial sum, and when I say a substantial sum I mean a substantial sum; the general belief is that that sum may be as much as £500 per gun, and that is putting it at a modest level. The figures which have been quoted to me I do not propose to go into in detail, because they might identify those who sponsor shoots of this order who are paid sums of this order for selling the privilege of some shooting. The slaughter at shoots such as this may be as many as 300 geese.

I would ask the House to consider the finances of this matter. For the sale of four guns someone will get £2,000; for the sale of geese slaughtered in consequence someone will get £150. It does not make sense as a mathematical calculation and, with respect, it makes a great nonsense of the belief that by passing the Bill as it stands without the Amendment it will control mass killing.

Therefore, I think that there is no evidence of abuse by the people who have agreed over the years, and, indeed, over the generations, to shoot over the small farms; there is no evidence of abuse by the small farmers themselves if they, or, more likely, their young sons, do this themselves. There is every reason to suppose that these people have paid a modest sum for their output and there is every reason to suppose they would wish to do this.

One point I think should be mentioned just in passing is this, that, after all, the food value of a goose is quite considerable. I must say that it does not appeal to me to consider the prospect of shooting 20 geese over a period of a week and seeing someone bury them at the end of the week—because this is what will happen. We are very pious in our hopes for food production—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They could be given away."] It is very easy to say "Give them away", but who will motor that distance to give them away all round the place?

Order. The hon. Lady is drifting now beyond the Amendment to the Clause as a whole.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I was, unwisely, tempted away.

I would say that this is an Amendment which is sponsored by every single hon. Member who represents an area where the problem is acute, and which is supported by the whole of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, and which does not seek to amend the present law but seeks to maintain the status quo. I hope it will get the support which it deserves.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. McArthur) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) have deployed a very interesting case for making this Amendment, but I think that a very interesting argument has been deployed by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) from the opposite point of view. I shall do my best, I hope fairly, to try to sum up what has been said.

We had a short discussion, and an interesting one, about this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who also has very strong feelings about this, originally raised the question.

I am sorry that this Amendment which, for practical purposes would make the Clause ineffective, has been moved at this very late stage. There have been three opportunities for such an Amendment to be put down in another place since 1963 when it was first introduced there as a separate Measure, as well as ample opportunity during the proceedings of the Standing Committee of this House.

The argument, as I see it, is a simple one. If this Amendment were accepted it would allow the shooting of wild geese for profit outside the close season to continue, which has been the situation in the past. That was clearly stated by the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East. This would include in the sale of dead wild geese not only the small numbers of geese normally shot for sport or to protect crops but also geese shot in large numbers in organised wild goose batteries which are conducted for the purpose of financial gain, a point which has also been mentioned.

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to point out that the Committee stage was brought forward—for quite good reasons—and took place suddenly after a Recess, when there was not the expected opportunity to put down an Amendment, and that that was why it was not put down then.

I appreciate that, and I think it is a perfectly fair point to make. The Committee stage was advanced a week unexpectedly and immediately followed a Recess. However, I think I am making what is also a valid point when I say that such an Amendment as this could have been put down in another place. That is a valid point, I think my hon. Friend will agree.

The House may wish to know how various authorities and organisations view this Clause. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland, as we have been told, has criticised the Clause severely. I myself received a telegram an hour ago asking me to accept the Amendment. The union has very strong feelings about this, but I must say that a number of its members have other views not sounded by the union, and many branches of the union have not had opportunity to assemble to discuss the question.

I understand that the Scottish Office does not support the National Farmers' Union of Scotland in its desire to see the Clause amended, although I know that it wishes to be guided by the views of this House and, as a result, maintains a neutral position. W.A.G.B.I., the Wildfowl Association, which represents the sporting interests of many wildfowlers throughout the country, is strongly in favour of the Clause. Its members have no wish to sell the geese which they shoot.

I have made it clear to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and other critics of the Clause who have approached me that I am willing to consider any reasonable Amendment which will help farmers in the areas most affected by wild geese. Evidently, no suitable formula has been found apart from this Amendment. I am sorry that I am unable to accept it, mostly because it is drawn so widely.

It is true that wild geese visit such parts of Scotland as the Tay Estuary, the Strathmore area, Fife and Kinross in large numbers. Incidentally, perhaps I might say that I do not mind my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East saying, "Down with the Sassenachs", or whatever it was. Fife happens to be where I was born.

Wild geese visit these areas in far larger numbers than is generally realised. To illustrate the extent of the problem, the count last year of pink-foot and grey-lag geese in Scotland was about 130,000, although that estimate may be wrong by 10 or 15 per cent. It will be seen, therefore, that they are large in number and that last year the figure was double that which we have been given for 1962. In Perthshire particularly the concentration of wild geese is very heavy.

It is also true that these birds attack crops and grass, especially in the spring. Earlier this year, I saw them in thousands feeding on farmers' fields in the area of Loch Leven, so I do not seek to minimise the complaints of farmers about them.

Reference has been made to the prolonged scientific studies of the damage caused to crops by wild geese. The results seem to show clearly that even heavy grazing has only a marginal effect on subsequent harvests, though they may be delayed. Geese arrive in east Scotland too late in the year to damage un-harvested crops, and their grazing in stubble and harvested potato fields is beneficial in that they destroy insect pests and weeds, and their droppings enrich the soil. During the winter period, grey geese graze on winter wheat and grass, although the damage which they do is much in dispute. There are two views about it, and we have heard them both today.

It is during the spring that farmers find geese a real pest, and, of course, this is the close season. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury reminded the House, the sale of dead wild geese is not permitted during the spring, so that the Bill does not suggest any Amendment of the exist- ing law, and neither does the Amendment which we are discussing. Wild geese may not be sold during the close season, when it is recognised that they do the greatest damage.

The experiments which have been conducted were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. They covered a period of about four years from 1962 to 1965 and included the penning of captive flocks of pink-foot and greylag geese on various crops which normally give high yields, and comparing the yields from the intensively grazed areas with ungrazed crops.

At certain periods, wild geese provide farmers with a serious problem, though, after listening to the debate today and from the researches which I have made, I think that the size of the problem may be exaggerated. My own careful and detailed researches into what has been written and into reports of practical experience in Scotland lead me to the conclusion, broadly speaking, that even in areas which harbour large numbers of geese most farmers gain as much on the swings as they lose on the roundabouts. I shall be making a suggestion in due course as to how the facts can be arrived at more clearly.

It has been shown that large-scale slaughter is unnecessary to deal with the problem; and, certainly, it is not the best method of keeping geese away from farm land. From parts of Scotland where geese are a pest, landowners and farmers have written to tell me that modern scaring devices coupled with occasional shooting are all that is necessary for crop protection. In any case, there is no law against the shooting of wild geese outside the close season. There is nothing to prevent a farmer or his friends or employees from shooting geese outside the close season to protect crops or for pleasure, nor is there anything to stop landowners letting shooting rights.

The secretary of one branch of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland told me in a letter earlier this year that he gets constant applications from sportsmen to shoot wild geese, but he added that these offers are usually turned down because farmers do not want strangers on their land. As a countryman, I know that that is the case. There is a snag here, although I have a suggestion to make which may help overcome it and satisfy my hon. Friends about my attitude to this Amendment.

W.A.G.B.I. has many members scattered throughout Scotland, and I was not very impressed by the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East that the local W.A.G.B.I. office may be closed, assuming that there is an office at all. All the situation requires is a better liaison between members, because I think that my hon. Friend will find a number of keen wildfowlers living within a few miles of any point, even though the nearest branch of W.A.G.B.I. in Scotland may be 50 miles away.

I have gone into this matter in some detail and, while there are a number of members of the association living round about, none of them actually shoots. That makes a substantial difference. The nearest wild-fowlers who shoot are probably 32 miles away.

I recognise that that presents a problem in parts of Scotland, and it would be idle to deny it.

Under the present law, a farmer is permitted to shoot wild geese during the close season only if they are doing serious damage to crops. The exception to the rule is the greylag goose, because, some 15 years ago, very few bred in this country, and it was urged upon the Home Office and the Scottish Office that greylag geese should be given special protection. As a result, they were included in Schedule 1, unlike the more common varieties at the time, such as the pink foot.

This means that they cannot be shot during the close season without incurring the risk of a penalty of £25 for each infringement, and letters which I have received from Scottish farmers complain bitterly about the greylag being a Schedule 1 bird which may not be shot during the close season, even if it is doing serious damage to crops. The position has clearly changed because of the large number of greylag geese that visit our shores. This is a well-established breed now, and I think that there are strong arguments for putting it into the Third Schedule so that it can be shot during the close season.

In Committee, my hon. Friend and gallant Friend complained about a suggestion that one bird should be moved from one Schedule to another, yet he is now proposing that.

Order. We have enough to do this morning in dealing with the present Bill. We cannot amend the Schedule to the main Act.

I shall not pursue that Mr. Speaker.

I was not suggesting that we should take any decision. We are not discussing an Amendment to move greylag geese from one Schedule to another, but I feel that this question must be considered because if it is it will go part of the way to meet the points made by my hon. Friend, and this is confirmed by letters which I have received from farmers in Scotland.

The Home Office Advisory Committees keep a watchful eye on this problem, but I would appreciate it if the Minister of State at the Scottish Office would say that this question can be looked at and thus go part of the way to meet some of the criticisms which have been made. I know that it has been looked at by the Scottish Advisory Committee, but it would help us in reaching a decision on the Amendment if this matter could be looked at again.

The purpose of the Clause is simply to remove the commercial incentive for the shooting of wild geese. I have evidence of a large number of geese being shot on the ground to make a profit out of selling them. When I visited Scotland earlier this year to look into the question, I received some evidence of the price at which they are sold. I shall not go into detail, but we have been told that the price varies between 2s. 6d. and 10s. I understood that the figure is somewhere between the two, about 6s. 6d., or maybe 7s. 6d. Many of them are sold to hotels all over the country, and many are exported to Northern Ireland where it is illegal to shoot them for sale.

I suggest that the slaughter of these birds in large numbers cannot be justified as a sport, nor as a means of protecting crops. A high proportion of birds get wounded, and, inevitably, when shooting is indiscriminate, often in half-light, some rare breeds of geese which cannot be distinguished from the commoner breeds get killed in error.

I said earlier that the N.F.U. of Scotland had represented to me on behalf of its members that the Clause might handicap them in controlling the wild geese in certain areas. I am not suggesting that the large-scale slaughter of wild geese is approved by the N.F.U. In fact, I know it is not. I am told by one branch of the union that the number of wild geese shot on any one farm in one day is unlikely to exceed half a dozen. If this is so, the selling of them, is, in my view, really neither here nor there.

If the amount of damage which they are doing is so great, it must be worth while shooting them in any case without the commercial incentive. The Clause is not specifically directed against shooting on a small scale, which is often necessary, but against the commercial incentive to large-scale shooting. I cannot see any grounds for excluding the whole of Scotland from the Clause, and I think that it is unreasonable to expect the House, without prior opportunity for study, and discussing the question, to take a decision about it and to accept the Amendment at this moment.

I would like to point out in conclusion that, if the Amendment were accepted, this being a Lords Bill the whole Bill may be in serious trouble. This is the last day for Private Member's Bills. I was very pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire said that he regarded the Bill as a whole as admirable, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East said that the Bill as a whole had her wholehearted support. I would like both my hon. Friends to know that the Bill is likely to be jeopardised if the Measure, which another place has passed three times, is changed in this radical way today.

I therefore express the hope that now that they have made the important points which they put forward they will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

I intervene for only a few moments to say that the Government intend to preserve their general attitude of neutrality to the Bill because the balance of advantage is even and that it is up to hon. Members to decide the importance of the Amendment and say whether it should be incorporated into the Bill.

If it were accepted it certainly would do considerable damage to the cause and render it ineffective in terms of what the advisory committees in both countries have made clear to the Government. On the other hand we recognise from what we have been told by the Scottish N.F.U. about the objections which they have received, that there would be some financial disadvantage to the farming industry if a heavy financial burden were placed on farmers. If it could be demonstrated that this provision would have a substantially adverse effect on the industry, this would clearly outweigh the advantages of the conservation of wild geese, and the Government would intervene.

I think that it is a fair point to make, which the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) acknowledged, about the studies in connection with greylag geese. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has been carrying out a detailed survey of the damage done by geese during the past winter, and it is clear that in a few limited areas in Scotland geese are causing a lot of damage. The matter must, therefore, be kept under review, and I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the assurance for which he asked about raising this again with the advisory committee.

If the Clause remains unamended, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will be anxious to see what is happening in Scotland, and, if necessary, it will no doubt ask the Government to intervene.

I think that the House will agree that we have had a good and interesting debate, and I am very grateful to all those hon. Members who have taken part in it, even if they have disagreed with me.

I want to comment on the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) about the lateness of the Amendment. He will know that for many months there have been discussions about the whole question, and it was my hope that we might have reached some basis of agreement on our objection to the Clause. I would not like it to be thought that this is a last-minute effort to wreck the Clause, because it is nothing of the kind. I am not sure that I support the point of view that because the matter has not been raised publicly before it should not be raised at all. This is an important issue. We have had a good debate, and I think that some very useful and interesting suggestions have been made.

I know that there is some dispute about the extent of the damage which wild geese cause to crops. There is also some dispute about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of various devices to keep geese away. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to tests which had been carried out, and I have the greatest respect for experiments and research of this kind, but the test on which I must rely in the present state of research is the test of experience, the experience of farmers who are concerned with this problem, the experience they have of the damage to their crops, and their experience of various dispersal methods. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) referred to this. It is clear to me that the shooting of geese is the most effective form of dispersal.

My hon. and gallant Friend thought that the price obtained for geese was so low—I suggest that 8s. to 12s. is a reasonable average price—that it really was neither here nor there. With respect to him, this is not so. The sale of geese is an important consideration to the small farmer. It covers the cost of his cartridges, and I do not think that we should press yet another financial burden on the small farmer—because this is what it will mean—and make it more difficult for him to obtain help from outside.

I was interested in what was said about the plans which W.A.G.B.I. have in mind for the development of an approved list. I have some doubts how practicable this will prove to be, but I am glad to know that a plan of this kind is being discussed with the Scottish N.F.U. Despite that, however, as late as 10.33 this morning the Scottish N.F.U. dispatched a telegram to me supporting the Amendment as it stands.

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his courteous reply, and I am interested in his passing comment about the transfer of birds from the First to the Third Schedule. I appreciate that if I tried to develop that point, Mr. Speaker, you would rightly rule me out of order, which is an experience which you and I would very much dislike.

My hon. and gallant Friend was right in saying that the damage now being done by greylag during the present close season is of serious consequence to farmers. If it were possible to open that close season for the greylag it would greatly assist the position. I am grateful to the Minister of State for saying that he will refer this matter to the Scottish Advisory Commitee. That represents some progress from the point of view of the farmers.

At one point in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend it seemed that he was on the verge of accepting the Amendment; he was so kind about what he had to say. I am sure that he will appreciate that, grateful as I am to him for the tone of his remarks and for certain positive and helpful suggestions that he made, I am not disposed to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 17, at the end to insert:

(4) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the reference in section 5(1)(d) of the principal Act to one and three-quarter inches (being the maximum muzzle diameter permitted for shot-guns used for killing wild birds) a reference to one inch.

In effect, the Amendment gives the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State power to ban punt gunning. It is only right to return to this matter, which I raised in Committee, when there was a considerable debate on the point. Consultations were to take place, and it is only right that I should report the results of those consultations.

Many punt gunners still exist, and I have consulted many of them. It is only to be expected that bear baiters and cock fighters will continue to support bear baiting and cock fighting, and it was no surprise to me that the punt gunners wanted their sport to be allowed to continue. I was surprised, however, at the strength of feeling which the Wildfowlers Association—which is opposed to the punters—expressed for a continuation of the sport. Ninety nine per cent. of its members do not go punt gunning, and it would therefore seem to be in their interest that the sport should be brought to an end.

I wonder what arrangements the association has for consulting its members on their attitude. It is all very well for the directorate of the association to express a view, but we would like to feel that in an organisation of this sort arrangements have been made for democratic consultation of its membership.

I am not suggesting that the directorate is a tightly-knit group of politically motivated men, but I feel that it has based some of its views and comments on this question on most inaccurate and unfortunate grounds.

Immediately after the debate in Committee I received a letter from the association in which it said:

"The damage is not done in October. In any event punting is rarely practised in October."

After the association had made some inquiries, six weeks later I received the following letter:

"On Fenham Slates … experience has clearly shown that without punt gunning in September and October the widgeon tend to remain out on the Slates."

This clearly shows that the association did not know the answer on the first occasion.

12.45 p.m.

There are more serious grounds for opposing their position, namely, the ignorance about the numbers of bird shot by punt gunning. There was a long dispute between us as to the maximum number that had ever been shot. The wildfowlers were under the impression that the maximum number had been 103 in one shoot, which had been bettered by a shoot of 117. They now admit that there was a day when over 300 birds were shot by two, three or more shots from the same punt and on the same day. This clearly shows that the previous record has been broken. I have been told privately, although I cannot believe it, that there was an occasion when 360 birds were shot by two shots and not by one, as I said in Committee. I felt I ought to correct what I said at that time.

I do not want to argue about records, but I want to make clear the scale on which birds are killed by this sport. I have obtained from people who participate in it details of their bags as a result of shooting from punt guns. On Holy Island in the winter of 1961 they shot 1,341 birds; in 1962 they shot 470 birds; in 1963 they shot 1,150 birds; in 1964 they shot 889 birds, and in 1965 they shot 746 birds—a yearly average of 910.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether this was with the 1¾ in. double punt gun or the 1 in, single punt gun?

I am not sure. It may be the 1¾ in. or a different size. These were two-man punts, and I think that there were three or four principally concerned.

In the Solway the number varies between 1,000 and 2,000 a year, so that in the two estuaries the kill is between 2,000 and 3,000 a year. I want to address my remarks solely to these two estuaries, because nowhere else is there any threat. It is the excessive killing in these two places which gives rise to my feeling that this sport should be investigated more closely.

It is a pity that the Wildfowlers Association was not aware of the scale of killing which still goes on in these two places. It was quite wrong of the association to attack me and my figures with such violence when it appeared to be ignorant of what was going on. I am satisfied that the association was genuinely ignorant of the scale of punt gunning on Holy Island and in the Solway, and I attribute no desire or intention on its part to cover up the truth—

The hon. Member must come to his Amendment. He must show that the substitution of the 1 in. gun for the 1¾ in. gun has something to do with a problem to which he is referring.

I was coming exactly to that point, Mr. Speaker. The effect of the substitution of 1 in. for 1¾ in. is to end this sport. It is virtually impossible to practise punt gunning with a small bore gun. I therefore address my remarks to showing that there is ground for believing that the sport should be ended.

The Home Office Advisory Committee—the hon. Gentleman kindly told me that he would consult it—reported on this question as follows:

"Members of the Scottish Committee are generally opposed to punt gunning as a sport but they are of the opinion that it would not be wise to try to push an Amendment"—

on the lines that I propose—

"as it might have the opposite effect to that intended and lead to awakened interest in the sport."

It said that members of the English Committee were in favour of the sport being allowed to continue, adding:

"The Committee has considered the question whether the present maximum permitted size of shot-gun should be reduced; the majority view is that it would be inadvisable to make any change in the law in this respect …. It is a dying sport pursued nowadays by only a few amateurs and it would be preferable to let the sport die out rather than to take active steps against it. …"

The Nature Conservancy opposed the plan for the following reason:

"It is simply that the experts consider that the surest and least troublesome method of achieving a cessation of punt gunning is to let it die quietly."

Thus, from all the non-involved bodies we have the view that the sport should be allowed to die quietly. Some are in favour of it and some oppose it, but the general view is, although undesirable, it should not be banned outright.

I question that view. It is fair to quote from Mr. Peter Scott at the last Convention of the European Wildfowl Conference at St. Andrews in 1963:

"It is unwise to consider that, because this sport is arduous, it will die a natural death. There is a danger that the fashion may revive again, and I do not think it is necessary that young people should for their enjoyment follow a sport which involves so much destruction of wild life."

The House should take that view seriously. The question is whether we should allow it to die out or legislate to make it illegal.

It is not right to allow the sport to continue, as this is rather like allowing a practice of which one disapproves because very few people practise it. That is not an honourable ground for argument. The International Convention on this subject, in Article 5(f), proposes that adherents to the Convention should undertake:

"… to introduce gradually into their legislation measures which will prohibit all firearms apart from those which can be shouldered."

This is the origin of my suggestion that the size should be reduced to one-inch bore, as that is the largest gun which can easily be shouldered—

Is my hon. Friend aware of experience behind the Iron Curtain, where certain countries are assisting in this respect over the International Convention, as punt gunning is practised to a considerable degree in the mouth of the Danube?

I was not aware of that and would hesitate to quote too many parallels from so far away, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House the benefit of his views and experience on this matter.

I have stated the position fairly. On two estuaries, between 2,000 and 3,000 widgeon are shot every year. Although the total population of these species, which is 14,000, is well able to withstand that, what matters is the population in these estuaries and one must be satisfied that that population can withstand an annual kill of between 2,000 and 3,000.

Mr. Peter Scott's words should also be remembered, that is, that it is unnecessary to indulge in a sport which involves so much destruction of wild life. I have never pretended that it is unsporting or too easy, but after stalking it is surely better not to kill so many birds at one shot. Therefore, the limitation of size of gun is desirable. A bag of 10 or 15 is a fair reward for the labour involved.

Consistent with my argument is the fact that many people have agreed with it. One friend of mine said that it is like throwing a hand grenade into a salmon pool. "So much destruction of wild life with one shot" is what Peter Scott has called it. This is therefore a difficult position. On most grounds, this sport should be banned. On the other hand, it has some supporters and an honourable tradition which one hesitates to terminate. Suggestions which I have canvassed for ending it are not tremendously practical.

I suggested that it might be banned until November, which would be a step in the right direction, but that does not really solve the problem. I believe that it was suggested that it should be stopped at night, but, on reflection, I am against that. The suggestion of limiting the weight of shot is not policeable and I would not recommend it. Finally, it has been suggested that there should be a period of detailed observation on the two estuaries concerned to see what the effect of this heavy shooting is over three, four or five years. If it were shown that the effects were deleterious to the widgeon population, it could be banned. This is why the Amendment gives power to the Home Secretary, if he finds it necessary, to ban the sport.

I therefore recommend that the House should accept the Amendment, which allows for a full and detailed study of the effects of the sport in these estuaries and does not prejudice its banning at some stage. I do not normally favour giving Ministers more discretion, but we should not miss this opportunity and then have to rely on a separate Bill if it were later thought that the sport should be banned.

The Minister could exercise this power fairly if it were necessary. Whether or not the Amendment is accepted by my hon. Friend, surely the time has come to preserve the species of wild life with greater care. I hope that those who practise punt gunning or any form of shooting will increase their care and discretion, which will help to increase and prolong the sport for all those concerned.

I look forward to my hon. Friend's reactions. I do not want to prejudice the Bill's chances in another place. In passing, it seems extraordinary that we should have to rely on the goodwill of another place. I always thought that it was supposed to be the other way round. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, which would give the Home Secretary power to ban the sport if this were ever thought to be necessary.

I understand that there are about 20 1¾-in. punt guns in use in this country. These require a double punt with two people manning it.

I have been in touch with two punt gunners, and they absolutely deny the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made during the Committee stage. Now he has withdrawn a number of those remarks and corrected the evidence that he then gave. On that occasion he used the word "commercial" and emphasised the commercialness of the enterprise. Now he agrees that it is a sport.

On the subject of the heavy bag, my hon. Friend has changed the situation very much, indeed, but he still gives evidence that very large bags are taking place on Holy Island and on Solway. Unfortunately I have no information about this. It is the first that I have heard of particularly heavy bags there. I can give only the evidence that I have from a cross-section of 10 per cent. of those taking part in this sport. In contradiction of the statement my hon. Friend made in Committee that a bag of 100 per shot was frequent, I am told that there was once a freak bag of about 120 for one shot, but that is a very unusual occurrence indeed.

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the bag of 120 is the established and current world record for the number of wildfowl killed with a single shot.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.

The two people that I consulted have kept very careful records. I asked one for his average, and he worked it out carefully at just under five birds per shot. Also, the number of birds killed per trip is 2½, which means that he does not even get off one shot every time he goes out. He says that he is an average punt gunner, that many of his friends are worse than that and do not de so well, and that there may be some who are rather more skilful and do a little better. I think that this is much more the general picture of the sport outside Holy Island and Solway, for which I cannot speak.

I said that the problem is confined to the two estuaries, and I made no case in respect of other parts of the country.

I agree that my hon. Friend said that in his speech today, but his speech in Standing Committee was pitched in very different terms. I am seeking to contradict his evidence on the last occasion. I am sure that he has taken steps to be a little more accurate this time. I can only remind him that he was incorrect then.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend should take this view. The only correction that I have made compared with what I said previously was that the record bag of 360 birds was achieved with two shots and not one shot. In other respects, I do not think I have said anything different from what I said in Committee. If my hon. Friend would tell me what he thinks I have said this morning that is different from what I said in Committee, I shall be glad to know.

I think that the fact that my hon. Friend has retracted his statement that the record bag of 360 was achieved with one shot and now says that it was done with two shots is good proof. I think that he ought to give us the time and date of that occasion so that it can be entered in the world records. That information has not so far been revealed.

It was on 31st January, 1957, on the Solway.

By whom?

I am not prepared to say. I was told in the greatest confidence. Clearly, those who can do shots like this do not want to bring the sport into disrepute by admitting that they have done so.

It seems to me that my hon. Friend is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. He is proposing to ban the sport over the entire country in order to deal with apparently two punts which are doing this sort of thing in Holy Island and Solway. I do not know what evidence my hon. Friend has of more than two punts doing this. In the case of the great majority of guns it is a normal sport where birds are put down in order to ensure adequate numbers for shooting, and they are probably put down in greater numbers than are actually shot.

One of my correspondents tells me that he could do very much better in getting bigger bags by using a 12-bore gun rather than his rather cumbersome double punt, which cannot get as close to the birds as a less noisy single punt with a 1-in. gun. However, the single punt gives enjoyment to one person only as opposed to two persons with a double punt. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has differentiated between the single punt and the double punt in all his figures. My information is that the single punt with the 1-in. gun can do quite as much destruction as the double punt, and possibly more.

I was extremely impressed when I read my hon. Friend's speech in Committee, but since I have received this completely contrary evidence I simply cannot support him in what he is trying to do.

I am sure that all hon. Members present today are concerned about one thing, and that is to do their best for birds. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in that category. I am certain that he is trying to do his best to speed this worthy Bill upon its way.

However, one of my difficulties has been to try to follow exactly my hon. Friend's intentions with regard to the Bill. Just now he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) what he had said today that contradicted what he said in Committee. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that in Standing Committee on 5th April, only a couple of months ago, he said that the sport:

"I believe is vital to the future of wildfowling and is something which I want to see continuing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 5th April, 1967, c. 40.]

Yet five minutes ago he said, "I want to see this sport ended". I suggest to him that this is no slight contradiction in terms, and that it causes doubt as to what his exact intentions are.

I do not propose to go in great detail into the figures of wildfowl shot in the areas to which my hon. Friend referred. However, he said that 360 wigeon were killed with two shots in the Solway district. I would point out to him that any authenticated incident of this nature must be supported by chapter and verse, and I can assure him that, despite specific inquiry, no one belonging to the Wild-fowlers' Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, comprising over 200 clubs with more than 20,000 members, has ever heard of that shot, can give a record of it, or can substantiate it in any way.

My hon. Friend has given additionally to the House today a number of local figures relating to the Fenham-Holy Island vicinity. He gave details of the wildfowl killed in that area over the past years. Strangely enough—it came as no surprise to me that he was going to produce these figures—I have with me very detailed figurse taken in this vicinity since 1956. My figures do not correspond with his but are considerably less.

I add, however, that there is one assuring factor common to both sets of figures. This is a decline in the total of wild duck killed by punt guns in the district over the last four successive years. This decline is so marked that, in the last year, for which figures are just coming in—the season 1966–67—it is expected that the total bag by punt gunners in the district will be less than half what it was four years earlier.

It may be of help to hon. Members to know exactly what is involved in the sport of punt gunning, because many people are not familiar with it. I have talked to one or two hon. Members on both sides who are not completely au fait with the sport. They have no idea of what is involved. They had a picture in mind of someone taking a large gun, pointing it at a flock of semi-tame birds and pulling the trigger.

But a great deal of skill, hardship and knowledge is involved before one becomes a successful punt gunner. The days of the professional punt gunner finished with the beginning of the war. There are no professionals in the job now doing it for a living, thank goodness. No one would like to see people making a living in that manner.

There are only a few respected, hardy, skilled and courageous amateurs who amass their knowledge through many mornings, long before the dawn has come up, and during many freezing nights in November, December and January, by studying the conditions of wind, tide and weather over many years. It is only then that they can become successful punt gunners. There are perhaps as few as 20, perhaps as many as 40 or 50 operating from time to time.

Their difficult task is to propel, unseen and unheard by the wariest fowl on earth, a frail craft without a motor—motorised punting being forbidden—to within 75 yards of their quarry before they are in a position to release a shot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) has said, in about 50 per cent. of the cases a man can go out punting and not even fire one shot. The average works out that a punt gunner fires one shot in two outings and gets an average bag throughout the country—this has been established by record searching—of between seven and nine wild fowl for that single shot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I am pleased to say, made no suggestion that there was any undue cruelty in this occupation and certainly there is no question of any specific cruelty being involved. Indeed, the conditions in which a punt gunner operates make it essential for him to see that such quarry as are not killed outright are dispatched with the utmost expedience.

But I would point out that, if the Amendment were carried, it would have the effect, according to experts, of making it more likely that wild fowl would be wounded because punt gunners would still go out, but without having an effective weapon at their deploy—as they have now, with a gun of a muzzle diameter of up to 1¾ inches. A weapon of the size suggested in the Amendment would not be good enough for the job and additional cruelty would undoubtedly follow.

Why does my hon. Friend think that the International Convention on Wild Fowl has suggested this way of bringing an end to punt gunning, a way which has been taken in many other countries which have accepted the Convention?

My hon. Friend must not make rash statements without substantiation. The only recorded activities of the Convention's Conservation Committee occurred in 1963 and 1966. In 1963, when the Committee first met—at St. Andrews in Scotland—and 18 member nations were represented, it discussed the problem of punt gunning and decided that the sport should be allowed to continue in this country. In 1966, when it met for the second time, this time in Holland, with 22 European member nations present, the sport was not even considered of sufficient importance to warrant discussion at the time.

There have been a number of inquiries into the sport of punt gunning. The first one took place in about 1939 and there have been others since. One, conducted in 1941, made a very careful study into punt gunning as a sport and found, on the available evidence that, as a sport as then operated, it should be allowed to continue and that, broadly speaking, excessive bags of fowl were not taken. That inquiry, which was conducted by Mr. Dalgety, examined the evidence, the conditions under which punt gunners operated and made an assessment of the various bags.

1.15 p.m.

There must be a reason for tabling an Amendment of this nature. My hon. Friend said that his reason for desiring to limit the size of punt guns is the excessive bags which have been taken in a specific vicinity of the country. Statistics relating to the wild fowl population are taken on a national as well as a local scale from time to time by an authority which will command the respect of the House—those employed by the Wild Fowl Trust at Slimbridge.

Monthly during the shooting season and from time to time during the close season, through their representatives in various parts of the country, through affiliated organisations and through those who co-operate to assist, they make periodic counts of our wild duck population.

The remarkable thing is—and it will be satisfying and pleasing to the House—is that today there is a record number of species of wild duck in the country, with the exception of the teal which, in any case, is not the quarry of punt gunners, and possibly the tufted duck, which is just about holding its own. Mallard have increased considerably in numbers and the wigeon, the pochard and the shelduck have also increased. The tufted duck has only slightly increased.

These figures have been produced by the Wild Fowl Trust which deals with every specific variety of wild fowl including the pink foot goose and the greylag, which are well up while the national duck population is increasing. It is substantial and increasing and it cannot be said that it is because of a decline in duck numbers that this Amendment should be carried today.

Accepting that the Wildfowl Trust figures at Slimbridge are reasonable ones to accept and accurate, that the duck population is booming, why should an Amendment of this type be tabled today? Is there widespread national demand for curtailment of punt gunning? What is the opinion of the experts on the sport?

My hon. Friend a moment or two ago mentioned what Peter Scott, whom we all recognise as a great man in the wild fowl world, said three or four years ago at an International Conservation Conference. I can quote what Peter Scott said a few years before that, which is exactly opposite. For instance, in 1957, he said that punt gunning was a most adventurous form of wildfowling and, provided that it was pursued with moderation there was no good reason why it should be discouraged and prohibited. So one pays one's money and takes one's choice. For all we know, he may have a more up-to-date opinion to give to Members of Parliament. Up to date is what I wish to get by getting the latest opinions of the specialist committees which have been established by the conservationists and the wildfowlers to advise the Home Secretary and others concerned about the action they should take in relation to our wildfowl population.

Subsequent to discussions in the Standing Committee in April, the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds met to consider afresh, with the assistance of up-to-date information, the matter of punt gunning. Its very strong opinion—not completely unanimous, but its overwhelming opinion—was that there was no reason why it should advise the Home Secretary to alter the existing law.

The Under-Secretary earlier mentioned the weight he attached to the opinion of the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has considered afresh the matter of punt gunning within the last few weeks and, as a result of recent investigations, it has found nothing which would cause it to reconsider its view that punt gunning should continue without interference.

I agree with that, but, on the other hand, it suggested a period of observation on the two places concerned to see whether it should be banned after the study had been made. I want to keep the record straight.

I accept my hon. Friend's words. I was not aware of that.

I hope that I have satisfied the House about the level of the duck population, the special committees which have been set up to advise the Minister on this point see no reason for the law to be altered, and also that this is not a sport which is indulged in by professionals for money making, but solely enjoyed by a few hardy and experienced amateurs.

Over recent years there has grown up at an accelerating rate a unique association between wildfowlers and sportsmen, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Wildfowl Trust and the conservationists. That is a unique association which has flourished in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence—representatives of the shooters sitting on conservationists' committees and vice versa. If the Amendment was accepted, in contradiction of the advice which has been given by these committees, it would throw a big spanner in the works of co-operation relating to conservation. There is no cruelty in this sport. Wild duck in this country are prolific and are not affected by it.

Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will not seek to press his Amendment.

I have an open mind about this Amendment. I said that I had when we discussed this matter during the Committee stage, and I still have. I do not want to get involved in the discussion between my hon. Friends about the Amendment and take sides very strongly either for punt gunning or against it or for a 1-in. bore or a 1¾-in. bore. That would be a bore for the House, which wants to get on with other Measures.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment and I will explain briefly why. My main reason is that there has been insufficient time for the subject of this Amendment to be fully considered by the various organisations whose views ought to be represented to Members of Parliament before a decision is made. The whole essence of the Bill is that it has been patiently worked out and agreed, with the necessary element of compromise, by the many varied groups of people who are concerned with its provisions for one reason or another.

This is a Lords Private Member's Bill. It therefore seems inappropriate to introduce controversial changes—and this would be a controversial change—however excellent, at this late stage when they might well jeopardise the entire Bill, bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has on several occasions said that he likes the Bill very much.

There are other reasons why I hope that he will not press the Amendment. I understand that it is the consensus of opinion of the advisory committees for England and Wales, and for Scotland, that no change of this kind should be made in the law at present. They fear—or certainly some of their members fear, and I share the anxiety—that such an Amendment, contrary to its intention, might have the effect of encouraging interest in this sport. I can think of an immediate parallel—the £50 foreign travel allowance.

I do not know the figures, but I am told that publicity of the fact that one can have a lovely holiday abroad for £50 has meant that far more people have gone abroad because they had not previously realised how cheaply these holidays could be enjoyed. There is a risk that by passing legislation which would make the weapon used in punt gunning cheaper and easier to handle, with all the attendant publicity, this Amendment would have the opposite effect for which my hon. Friend contends. Punt gunning is, in any case, dying out rapidly—year by year fewer people take part in the sport—and I am inclined to think that it would be better to leave it to die a natural death.

It is also true that a decision to stop a sporting activity, taken in some haste as this decision would be, might well impair the present good understanding between sporting interests, on the one hand, and conservationists, on the other, who have managed to maintain a wide measure of agreement, and seek out the common ground which exists between them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) mentioned. The advances made in bird protection rest very largely on this good relationship and enable measures like this Bill to pass into law with the maximum goodwill and the support of disparate interests.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The Nature Conservancy, which he mentioned, is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by reducing the size of the bore of shotguns or attempting to restrict punt gunning by other means. It has, however, agreed without commitment—I want my hon. Friend to know this, because it was disputed just now—to carry out careful observations in suitable places over a three to five year period to assess the local wigeon population and the effect on it of environmental factors, including shooting and punt gunning, to see whether there is any evidence of a need to limit punt gunning and, in particular, any case for limiting the bore of the punt gun.

That has been achieved partly as a result of the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury in Committee and today.

It should be borne in mind that the Amendment would make no immediate alteration in the law. In practice, the Secretary of State would not consider exercising his powers unless representations were made to him by interested parties.

indicated assent.

The Under-Secretary has confirmed that that is so. Before making any such Order, the Secretary of State would be obliged to comply with the provisions of Section 13 of the principal Act of 1954 and consult the appropriate advisory committee and give to any local authority or other person affected an opportunity to submit objections or representations.

Those are the reasons, summarised as quickly and as briefly as possible, why I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment, and that he will come to that decision.

By leave of the House, the point of reducing the bore to 1 inch is to follow the course of action pursued in some countries where punt gunning has been banned, and it derives from the International Convention on Wildfowl, which is different from the European Conference. We have not ratified the convention, and I am not claiming that it is in any sense mandatory upon us to do so, but clearly this is the only sensible means by which the sport can be stopped, if it were decided to do so. That is why the Amendment is drafted in these terms.

I do not believe that reducing the permitted size of bore to 1 in, could conceivably encourage anybody to go punt gunning. That argument is a red herring. Anyone wishing to do so can do so at present—it is not illegal—but the cost of the equipment is far too great to justify such an investment. It would have the effect of prohibiting the sport which, both in Committee and today, I have made clear to be my intention. I have not changed my ground at all.

However, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend about the danger of losing the Bill if our severe taskmasters in another place feel that we have put something into the Bill which is not acceptable to them. While I am not certain that I entirely enjoy finding myself in the novel situation of another place calling the tune, I nevertheless respect the force of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument and agree with him that it would be quite wrong to jeopardise the excellence of the Bill.

I remain convinced that the time has come to end punt gunning, but I recognise that I cannot do so on this occasion. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind that it may be necessary to do something later, unless this sport is practised in moderation. The way in which the sport can be continued is, therefore, for those who practise it to practise some kind of moderation. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 33, after '10', to insert '(1)(e)'.

The purpose of the Amendment is to provide special protection in special conditions for those wild birds which are the subject of an Order made under the Clause as a result of severe weather conditions. If the weather is so hard and the birds presumably so weakened that shooting is stopped, it is undesirable to allow the widespread exceptions to the ban which are listed in Section 10 of the principal Act. Those exceptions were listed for operation during a normal close season, but I am referring to an artificial close season which would be brought into effect if the relevant Order were made, for a period not exceeding 14 days.

If an artificial close season were brought into effect, it would be during a winter, perhaps the middle of January, when the weather was so severe that the birds had become unfit to shoot and too weak a quarry, so that sporting interests would have decided that an artificial close season should be introduced. Some of the specifications in Section 10 would therefore not apply, because they are related to the conditions of a normal, warm weather close season.

This may have been an eventuality which had not been considered when the original Act was introduced. It was only as a result of one or two very severe winter periods in 1963 and 1959, after the original Act, that it was found necessary to have provisions such as those in Clause 6 to define the type of special protection which ought to be given to certain species of birds in severe weather.

The first four paragraphs of Section 10 are unnecessary during a period of an artificial close season. The fifth paragraph, (e), I do not find objectionable, for it relates to ringing, which would probably be expedited in such circumstances, as the birds would be easier to catch and handle. An additional reason why I am in favour of that paragraph is that when the birds were caught and ringed, they would normally be fed and strengthened before being released. Thus they would be more easily able to face bitter weather.

The first of the other four paragraphs relates to scientific and educational purposes and to nests and eggs. It is out of context in any case, because if there were an artificial season and Clause 6 were operated, it would be during the winter, probably in December or January, when there would be no question of nests or eggs being disturbed. Paragraph (a) is therefore unnecessary, and educational and scientific purposes would be served at this sort of especial time if the pupils concerned were informed why this practice was discontinued during an artificial close season.

Subsection (b) in the original Act refers to falconry. I am sure that it is not desirable during this savage little Arctic period of 14 day's that the sport of falconry should continue. I do not know why it has been left in. I know many falconers and none of them would dream of conducting their sport under such un-sportsmanlike conditions, when the quarry was too weakened to effectively evade capture.

Subsection (c) relates to the permission being granted as an exception to collectors, to protect their collections and to take specimens for the purpose of transfer between such collections. Again, this subsection is out of place in an artificial close season, because collectors want birds and specimens in tip-top condition. They do not want to exchange poor specimens which are in a weak or undernourished condition, as they would be as a result of a very hard spell of weather.

Subsection (d) in the original Act, which I propose should be left out, relates to the use of poisoned or stupefying baits of any description and the use of them in relation to the powers listed in the Second Schedule to the 1954 Act. I am concerned, the more I consider it, with this subsection, and feel that it should not be included in the Bill, because it gives people power to lay poisoned and stupefying baits on the ground.

In a period of an artificial close season, introduced because of the severity of the weather, the Minister will realise that a poisoned bait laid down for wood pigeon by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it is doing regularly at the moment, will not specifically be consumed only by wood pigeons. In very cold weather, every bird that can fly will endeavour to consume it as quickly as possible, and there will be a real risk that the poisoned bait laid by the Ministry inspector for a wood pigeon, which in any event could be picked off a tree in bad weather, will be consumed by some bird in Schedule 1, which would not normally have consumed the bait. For the reasons which I have listed, I suggest that another look should be taken at this Clause and that this Amendment of mine should be incorporated.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 43, at the end to insert:

(d) the views of those identified with the conservation and propagation of the species in question.

This Amendment relates to page 3 of the amending Bill. It will be seen that, again relating to Clause 6, the Minister, before making an Order under the Section, as to whether there is a sufficiently hard spell of weather to warrant the cessation of shooting activities, must consult and call for advice from three specialist bodies. Under the Bill he has to seek advice from

"(a) a person appointed for the purposes of this section by the appropriate advisory committee;

(b) the Natural Environment Research Council; and

(c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species proposed to be protected under the order."

And, if my Amendment is accepted:

"(d) the views of those identified with the conservation and propagation of the species in question."

My reason for moving this Amendment relates to the structure of the three bodies laid down to advise the Secretary of State. It appears that there is not a single advisor called for as a representative of an organisation which is predominantly and especially concerned with conservation and propagation of the species in question. It cannot be said that the person appointed under (a), which would be the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds for England and Wales is a Committee specifically concerned with conservation and propagation. It is not. The Committee is composed of many interests, those concerned with shooting, propagation, scientific activities and various other things. The Minister cannot hope to get the specialist advice on conservation from the Home Office Committee.

Again, he cannot expect to get this advice from the Natural Environment Research Council. That is composed of many people with a wide spread of interests covering such far-ranging interests as geology, meteorology, geomagnetism, hydrology, oceanography, forestry and nature conservation, fisheries and marine and fresh water biology. Obviously, this Council cannot provide the specialist advice required by the Secretary of State. The third advice called for under the Clause is a person who appears to the Secretary of State:

"… to be a representative of persons interested in the shooting of birds of the species …".

Again, that person must be a specialist or primarily concerned with shooting, and cannot be expected to have the specialist knowledge on conservation and propagation. Subsection (d) should be adopted, so that the Minister can obtain, from some authority, such specialist advice.

If he gives this matter further consideration, he may wonder where to find such specialist advice. He could turn to Slimbridge, which has perhaps the greatest name for the conservation and propagation of wild fowl species. Alternatively, he could turn to another body, which I shall mention in a moment, or he may establish a special sub-committee, with a representative from all the conservation bodies sitting on it. The other people I was about to suggest are the Wildfowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. It has produced more hand-reared duck than any other body in the country. In a few years it has reared and released nearly 80,000 duck. Last year, it released about 12,000. It has a very wide network of clubs and affiliated associations. It operates no fewer than three main wildfowl reserves where wildfowl cannot be shot, destroyed or disturbed, including one in Buckinghamshire, which is designed primarily for educational and scientific purposes. In addition to these three main reserves, some of which are operated jointly with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, its affiliated clubs and associations have numerous other reserves.

If the Minister sees fit to accept my suggestion, certainly one of the representatives who would provide him with the necessary expert information on the question of conservation—and in very hard weather it might be a question of the continuance of the species—would be from the Wildfowlers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland.

I commend the Amendment to the House.

I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) most interesting. I am sorry that I do not feel able to recommend the House to accept his Amendment. However, I hope that he feels that he has had the opportunity to put on record several important things about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could impose a ban on shooting in very severe weather, although it is more likely that there would be a voluntary ban, as was the case in the severe winter of 1962–63.

My hon. Friend, I think, exaggerates the situation when he says that the three people whom the Secretary of State would be required to consult do not have excellent advice on conservation and propagation of the different species of duck. I think that such advice is readily available to them. The body from which one of the representatives would be drawn is the Nature Conservancy, which comes under the Natural Environment Research Council.

My hon. Friend has made some thoroughly valid points of which I am sure account will be taken. Although I do not feel able to ask the House to accept the Amendment, I hope that he feels that by tabling it—it is not a dissimilar Amendment to the Amendment which he argued so cogently in Committee; incidentally, it would have the the same effect, although he argued from the opposite angle—he has performed a useful service. I hope that he will not press the Amendment.

In view of the kindly remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, which I much appreciate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has had various ups and downs since it was first introduced in another place by Lord Hurcomb, two years ago. It has all-party support. Because it received a Second Reading on the nod last Session, and this Session, there has been no explanation in the House of its contents. I shall be grateful if hon. Members will allow me to make the quickest explanation which I can of its main provisions.

The Bill sets out to amend the principal Act of 1954 which was so efficiently piloted through the House by Lady Tweedsmuir, who, sadly, is no longer a Member. It is based on the advice during the last decade of the Home Office Advisory Committees—one for England and Wales and one for Scotland.

I should like to explain what the Bill sets out to achieve. The principal Act permits the selling or importation of the eggs of lapwings without licence up to, but not after, 14th April. This provision was by way of an experiment, which was recognised at the time. Its intention was to protect the lapwing. There is a good deal of doubt about whether it has had that effect.

As a result, the Advisory Committees have given very careful thought to the question, and therefore we have Clause 1, which gives effect to their recommendations by prohibiting the sale or import of lapwings' eggs before 15th April—it is already prohibited after that date—while still permitting the taking of these birds' eggs before 15th April.

I think that we are returning the Bill to another place in rather better shape than that in which we received it by reinstating the Clause to extend the protection of eggs to the eggs of common wild birds. Under the principal Act the Home Secretary is empowered to issue a list of common birds whose eggs may be taken. Such a list was published in 1955, the year after the principal Act. It included such birds as the hedge sparrow, song thrush, linnet, chaffinch and moorhen. After the abnormally severe winter of 1962–63 which killed birds in their millions, both common and rare, the Home Secretary withdrew the list on the advice of his Advisory Committees without any parliamentary protest and thus gave these common birds protection against the ransacking of their nests. This has remained the position ever since as the list has not been renewed during the last four years.

When Lord Hurcomb introduced his Bill in 1965 in another place, and again when he reintroduced it the following year, he included a Clause to remove this power from the Home Secretary and so give permanent effect to the present position whereby the eggs of these common birds are protected. This was a step foreshadowed in our debates 13 years ago when the principal Act was passed. This Clause met with no opposition in 1965, but when it reached the Committee stage in another place this Session an Amendment to delete it was approved by a very small majority after a debate which, I felt, did less than justice to the important principle involved. About 80 noble Lords voted and the Amendment was carried by, I think, five votes.

That Amendment was entirely contrary to the Advisory Committees' views, which were strongly held, and to the advice of the sponsor of the Bill, Lord Hurcomb. I am glad to say that its reinstatement was approved by hon. Members in Standing Committee without a Division after I had explained in detail and at some length the reasons for the proposal. If any hon. Member wishes to know exactly what the reasons were, I refer him to columns 71–78 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings of 12th April. I hope that another place will welcome and confirm the step which this House has taken, which is in line with its own earlier views.

Clause 3 prohibits the sale of dead wild geese at any time of the year instead of merely during the close season, as at present. We discussed that matter on Report. Although I originally intended to put something further on the record, I will not now do so.

Clauses 4 and 5 are self-explanatory and non-controversial.

Clause 6 empowers the Home Secretary to put a temporary ban on shooting during an abnormally severe winter after consultation with one person appointed by the appropriate Advisory Committee, one by the Natural Environment Research Council and one representing the interests of wildfowlers. The Clause is based on the experience of the historic deep freeze in 1962–63. Then an appeal for a period of voluntary restraint on shooting met with a satisfactory response. When we discussed the Clause in Committee we were given an assurance, which both sides welcomed, that the Secretary of State's powers to enforce the ban would be exercised only if an appeal for voluntary restraint failed.

Clause 7 provides for licences to be granted for specific purposes and takes account of reasonable claims for such people as falconers and aviculturists and others whose hobbies, work or livelihood might put them at risk if the law were too stringent. I am not entirely happy with the Clause, because a very unattractive and unpleasant "racket" is going on on a widespread scale in spite of the strenuous attempts to enforce the law.

I am speaking of the "racket" in trapping wild birds and the cruelty involved in close-ringing adult wild birds for sale or showing. This is entirely contrary to the law. It goes on on a large scale. It ought to be stopped, but I have not been able to find a satisfactory formula for stopping it. if such a formula could be found, I would gladly do anything I could in the House to further any proposals that were made which, I feel sure, would meet with the approval of the Government, particularly if they were based—in which event, I suppose, it would be automatic—on the advice of the Advisory Committees.

That is an unpleasant feature of what is going on and I am sorry that it has not been possible to deal with it satisfactorily. There are some ways in which I think that it could be dealt with. Several suggestions have been made, such as a system of enforced coded close-ringing—this is under discussion between the organisations concerned with aviculture—and, possibly, registration and insistence that those who deal in wild birds should register the source from which those birds come. I must not pursue this, however, because it is not in the Bill.

I want to make a brief reference to Clause 8 simply because this is an example, of which the House should know, of the very great care taken by the Advisory Committees to consider the interests of very small minority groups or areas. It has been traditional for at least 400 years for crofter fishermen from the Ness district of Lewis, known as the Men of Ness, to make annual visits to the uninhabited rocky island of Sula Sgeir. I do not know how many hon. Members could put their finger on it on the map. The Men of Ness visit that rocky island to take the young of the gannet, known as gugas, both to salt down as winter food and to sell.

Under the principal Act the gannet is a protected bird throughout the United Kingdom, but an Order was made allowing the Men of Ness to take the gannets on Sula Sgeir outside the close season. This means that the annual trip to the island cannot be made until September, when it is made hazardous by rough seas. Clause 8 provides that the close season for gannets on Sula Sgeir will end two weeks earlier, on 14th August. This will allow the Men of Ness to visit the island and to collect what is described in my brief as "this delicacy" in reasonable weather.

It sounds to me like a fishy story, I have never eaten a guga. I have never seen it included on the menu in the Members' Dining Room, although I remember eating a whale and something once described as black plover, which turned out afterwards to be rooks and several other quite strange things. I give that interesting story as a serious example of the immense care taken by the Advisory Committees to make sure that minority interests are catered for.

Clause 10 is of especial importance. Under the principal Act, a police constable may stop and search any person found committing an offence against the Act and any vehicle, boat or animal which that person may then be using. Experience has shown that these powers are not enough in certain cases of determined and wanton vandalism.

By way of illustration, I would like to tell the House that only three years ago someone sawed halfway through the trunk of a Scotch pine tree in which that exceptionally rare and beautiful bird the osprey built its nest. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) knows all about that incident. Ten years ago, a man climbed up to an osprey's nest to steal the eggs, which he replaced with domestic hen's eggs daubed with brown boot polish. The avocet, the bee-eater and other rare birds have been driven away from these islands by that kind of persecution. It is something which we certainly all want to avoid in every way we can.

The reason behind such senseless destruction is, in most cases, money. The eggs of these rare birds fetch high prices and thieves find it worthwhile to take physical risks as well as breaking the law and risking the penalties involved. They are usually far too clever to be caught in the act of committing the offence. Societies like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I have the honour to be President, following Lord Hurcomb, and the British Trust for Ornithology keep a close watch round the clock on very rare birds during the nesting season.

Twenty-four thousand people went out last summer to get a glimpse of the osprey breeding. The work of the wardens in protecting these birds from the curiosity of people is sufficiently difficult without unnecessary problems being created about whether vandalism can or cannot be stopped by the police.

Clause 10 extends the powers of the police to this extent: it allows them to search any person or his vehicle, boat or animal if a constable

"has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person has … taken or destroyed an egg of a bird included in Schedule 1"—

that is, the rare birds which are specially listed in Schedule 1 to the principal Act. In other words, there is no longer any need to catch a vandal in the act. If the police have reasonable cause to suppose that the law has been broken concerning a rare bird, they have the right to search that person or the vehicle in which he is travelling.

Some people feel that the Clause does not go quite far enough in giving the police power to deal with serious offenders because it does not give the right of entry on land or property without the permission of the owner of the land or a warrant. I do not take that view. I think that the Clause is probably just about right. It has been fairly extensively debated. There is a proper reluctance to extend police powers too far. I hope that experience will show that this added power sufficiently eases the difficulty in dealing with the clever and determined egg thieves who, unhappily, exist. Certainly, the Clause reflects the public condemnation of those people's activities.

I have already expressed my rather mixed feelings on the reintroduction of the Clause which makes it an offence wilfully to disturb a Schedule 1 bird, which we debated on Report: that is, to disturb a bird when it is on or near its nest during the breeding season. I am glad that it has been possible to estalish this principle without interfering with the legitimate and useful work of scientists and expert naturalists or with the work of those who practise bird photography as a profession or serious hobby, all of whom contribute to our knowledge and, in many cases, to the protection of our rare birds.

The Bill makes no change in the penalties for offences specified in Section 12 of the principal Act, although I think that there are strong arguments for doing so on two grounds. The first is that with money so very much fallen in value, a fine of £5, which is the ordinary penalty, or £25, which is a special penalty, seems to some people to be too low to act as a deterrent, particularly as magistrates' courts seem very reluctant ever to impose the maximum fine. This I greatly regret.

The other reason why I am doubtful about the suitability of the penalties is that there is widespread concern about people being given very short prison sentences. The principal Act provides for a sentence of one month for certain first offences and of three months for second and subsequent offences. The general trend nowadays is not to provide penalties of very short prison sentences, something which I personally do not like. However, I was not able for various reasons to deal with penalties in this Bill and I would be wrong to proceed with this on Third Reading, since I must deal with only what is in the Bill. I will, therefore, leave that subject, having spoken on it only briefly.

Clause 11 specifies that the Bill shall not come into force until six months after it has been passed. I was asked in Committee whether it would not be possible to speed up this process. I looked into this carefully and came to the conclusion that for various reasons it would be too difficult to do it. We must, therefore, keep to the period of six months.

That is all I have to say. I have purposely speeded up my Third Reading speech. To try to make it easier for other Measures to come before the House today, I did not want to speak too long. I am very grateful indeed to the House for bearing with me while I explained the Bill at some length, and it is with confidence that I strongly recommend the House to give it its Third Reading and thus make some important and useful amendments to the 1954 Act.

I am very glad to be able to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), because I should like to congratulate him on the way in which he has piloted this Bill through its stages in this House. As he has explained, the Bill provides useful additions to the 1954 Act. I know that in this matter, while there is very often wide agreement on the objectives, there are sometimes divergent opinions, and sharply divergent opinions, on the methods of reaching those objectives. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend has taken immense trouble and has most conscientiously consulted all the bodies which could be interested in the subject, and he has contrived on occasions to bring them together and to compose differences. He has done a great deal of work in so drafting the text of the Clauses of the Bill that most of the bodies concerned could agree.

The Clauses which provide extension of protection should in particular help where rare or specially interesting birds are nesting—for example, Clause 10, which my hon. and learned Friend has just described. Now in Scotland, as was said on Report stage earlier this morning, we have the phalarope, but perhaps the best known bird which is nesting in Scotland, one which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned just now, is the osprey.

Only in recent years has this bird started to nest again by Loch Garten after an absence of a great many years, and more recently two nests a year have appeared. One of them has been in the same place. It has a covered approach and is, therefore open to the public, because they can come to a hide and observe the bird through a telescope. Even more people have come in some years than the number just mentioned, as many as 28,000 who, I know, came one year, just during a period of about two months, in the north of Scotland to observe the ospreys at their nest. The other nest is too open to be publicly visited, and the site of that nest has been a well-kept secret. A 24-hour watch has been kept on both nests during the nesting season by what I can only describe at a dedicated band of volunteers under the supervision of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Even with this surveillance, as my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, there have been regrettable attempts to steal the eggs and, inexplicably, to destroy the nests. Unfortunately, egg collecting can become a mania in certain persons, and this, of course, introduces the commercial incentive. Clause 10 in particular, and the other Clauses which extend protection, should help to provide additional safeguards against this.

There are other birds in greater numbers which nest only in certain areas, and problems will arise in the countryside, including the hills, as they are used increasingly for recreation purposes which, I am sure, both sides of the House fully support. I will simply give one example, and that is the dotterel which nests at 3,000 ft. and above, and can indeed be called, on that account, a Highlander. But the areas where it nests are now becoming, some of them, popular skiing slopes in the winter and ski lifts take people up to that height—I am glad to say—at other times of the year—in order to enjoy the countryside. This is the kind of problem which will increase in the future.

Fortunately, most of those who visit the countryside and the hills, even though they may be town or city dwellers, want to see these birds. It is a matter of great interest to many of them when they are able to see them. Therefore, they do not wish to do anything deliberately which would disturb the birds nesting and so reduce their numbers.

This Bill, if it can be carried out in the right spirit, should help by these additional provisions, and I myself have doubts only about Clause 3, which we discussed on Report. It is clear that there are difficulties concerning the question of wild geese in large numbers in certain parts of Scotland, and this, clearly, must be further examined. But the purposes of the Bill as a whole appear to have the support of the whole House, and I am very glad to think that soon we shall see it enacted.

I know that there are other hon. Members who want to get on with other business today, so I shall say very quickly only a few words. First, I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. And gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who has piloted this Bill through the Commons. He really has applied his expert knowledge to no little degree, and he has done an excellent job in applying his great knowledge to this subject.

There is only one point I wanted to raise in particular, in relation to Clause 7(2,d) about which I have received quite a number of letters, including one this morning. For the purposes of agricul- ture it permits people to take birds by licence granted by the Home Office. I would say to the Under-Secretary of State that I hope that these licences will be issued as infrequently as possible. It is repugnant that wild birds should be permitted to be taken and kept in captivity which is alien to them. That Home Office licences should be issued to trap birds, and cage them, is not really in accordance with the wishes of most people today.

I do not seek to detain the House for a moment longer, but I recommend the Bill to the House.

One of the pleasanter features of life in this House are the opportunities we have from time to time to switch our minds from great affairs of State to matters such as the welfare of birds, and I think it is particularly appropriate, perhaps, that this House should be giving a little of its valuable time this morning to discuss the welfare of birds at a time when bird life on the southern coasts of our country has probably suffered the greatest disaster in the whole of its history.

I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) upon having brought forward this Bill, and also, if I may say so, upon the very able way in which he combined a Second and a Third Reading speech in explaining the provisions of the Bill. I was glad that reference was made to the part which was played by Lady Tweedsmuir in the introduction of the 1954 Act.

The 1954 Act established the principle, leaving room for fairly wide flexibility, that wild birds in Britain, and their eggs, were entitled to protection. I think we knew, when the 1954 Bill was being passed, that it would need amendment in the light of experience. It is almost 13 years since that Bill was passed, and I think it is an appropriate time now to have opportunity of looking again at the provisions of the Act, and seeking to amend them in the light of the advice which has been received from the Advisory Committee and also from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As I understand it, this Bill incorporates the recommendations of those two bodies, and I am sure that we are grateful to all those serving on them for the work which they have done and the advice which they have given.

My hon. and gallant Friend has explained very cogently the main provisions of the Bill, and it is not my purpose to go over them again. I wish only to refer to two aspects, the first of which is Clause 2. One effect of that Clause will be to remove one of the main obstacles preventing our ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of Birds. When the matter was discussed in another place on 20th May, 1965, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham said, speaking for the Government:

"… if your Lordships will support Clause 1 of the Bill "—

which has now become Clause 2 of this Bill—

"a major obstacle to United Kingdom adherence to the Convention will be removed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 20th May, 1965; Vol. 266 c. 595.]

I have given notice of this point to the Under-Secretary of State, because I am sure that the House would like to be told what is holding up our ratification of the Convention. My understanding is that it was signed "ad referendum" by the British Government in 1950, and that the British section has been pressing the Government for many years to introduce legislation enabling us to ratify the Convention. I have found it difficult to obtain even a copy of the Convention, and I understand that there is no official English text of it.

One of the reasons put forward by the Government in a statement issued on 12th April, 1966 is:

"The main problem in our view is that the convention contains too much detail; the United Kingdom fully supports the principles embodied therein but is prevented from ratifying it because of inability to accept all the detailed requirements."

I have been through the Convention, and it is difficult to find any detailed requirements which would prevent our ratification of it, especially as Clause 2 of the Bill removes the principal objection.

The other aspect to which I wish to refer is Clause 9, which gives power to local authorities to take such steps as they think expedient for bringing the effect of the principal Act and the provisions of this Measure to the attention of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) referred just now to the destruction of the ospreys' nest. We have moved a long way towards educating public opinion on the welfare of birds. I welcome Clause 9 particularly, and the House will be interested to know what steps the Government are taking to bring the provisions of the Bill to the notice of the general public. The Royal Society has done a great deal of valuable work in seeking to bring the provisions of the 1954 Act to the attention of the public, but I hope that the Government will give an indication that they intend to take positive steps in that direction themselves.

I conclude by again congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on having succeeded in bringing his Bill to this stage. I want also to pay tribute to Lord Hurcomb who has played a tremendous part in bringing forward the Bill. It has all-party support, and I hope that, without more delay, the House will proceed to give the Bill a Third Reading.

I wish particularly to join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on the way in which he has guided the Bill through its various stages. His interest in the conservation of wild life is well known. He has shown his mastery of the subject, and we are all grateful to him.

The Bill originated as long ago as 1958, when a deputation from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is president, made a number of suggestions to the Home Office in the light of the discussions which followed the principal Act. Thereafter, the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds, to whom I am sure that the House would wish to extend its gratitude for the advice which we have received, undertook a long and painstaking review in consultation with a large number of interested bodies. It is much to the credit of the Advisory Committees that their conclusions have throughout a long period continued to command general assent.

The principal Act of 1954 was the turning point in the law relating to the protection of wild birds, and the present Bill is a fitting successor. For reasons which the House will understand, the Government have taken a neutral attitude to this Private Member's Bill. It is a relief for me, as a keen conservationist, at last to come off the fence and say on behalf of the Government that we welcome the passage of the Bill and regard it as a most useful Measure.

It provides something of help for everyone. For the birds, protection has been extended, directly or indirectly, by a number of provisions. The prohibition of the sale of lapwings' eggs, of the taking of eggs of common birds and of the use of certain devices and poisons except under licence, the control of ringing and marking, all have immediate effect. Less directly, the prohibition of the sale of dead wild geese and the possibility of special protection in severe weather will help in the protection of wildfowl. On the other side of the balance sheet, the extended powers of licensing will allow birds to be taken for aviculture and falconry, with discretion, and even allow rare birds to be destroyed to protect crops. The police, too, will be helped by the new powers of search where thefts of very rare birds' eggs are suspected. Last but not least, local authorities are given powers to publicise this legislation, and I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that we shall look into what we can do to make the provisions well known. The Bill reflects the interest and efforts of many organisations which have come together all concerned with the protection of wild life.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to say a word or two about the International Convention. The United Kingdom has not signed the Convention. As he said, its requirements are expressed in very detailed terms, and I am advised that it is doubtful whether the new provisions made by the Bill will bring United Kingdom law into line with it. That fact has been well known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Lord Hurcomb and the Advisory Committees in their preparation of the Bill.

One difficulty is that the Convention applies to game birds, whereas most of the provisions of the 1954 Act do not, and our game legislation does not protect game birds in the same terms as the Convention. Another is that the provisions of Section 6 of the principal Act regulating the sale of cage birds is almost certainly not consistent with those of the Convention. The Advisory Committees and the interested bodies who were consulted by them, however, advised against amendment of these provisions. Therefore, I cannot be encouraging about the possibility of the Government finding themselves able to ratify the Convention.

In 1965, the Advisory Committees on the Protection of Birds in England and Wales expressed the view that, because of its very detailed terms, the Convention was unsuitable for worldwide application. It might be better to try to secure a revision of the Convention itself, rather than try to adapt United Kingdom legislation to conform with it, and I understand that the interested organisation, the British section of the International Council for Bird Preservation, is pursuing this in consultation with similar bodies overseas. In spite of the fact that the Bill will not enable us to sign the Convention, I believe that it will make our standard of bird protection as high as that which exists in any other part of the world.

For this we owe very much to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has piloted the Bill through the House, and I conclude by paying my tribute to him for the part that he has played in bringing this legislation on to the Statute Book.