My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the proportion of planning appeals against decisions of local authorities upheld by the department for the two-month period December 1980 to January 1981 was 35 per cent. This compares with 31 per cent. for the same period a year ago.

My Lords, may I offer thanks to the noble Lord for those figures which to some extent suggest that the position is not quite so bad as one might have thought. But would the noble Lord still take into account the feeling that since the issue of Circular 22 to local planning authorities last November the balance of decision in planning applications has been tilted too far in favour of the developer as against the judgment of the local planning authority?

My Lords, I should have thought that it was far, far too soon—after some two months—to come to a conclusion. The figures fluctuate on a month-by-month basis, as I know the noble Lord knows. We shall have to wait a little longer to see what are the real implications. Then perhaps we might have a better picture than we have now.

My Lords, will not the Minister agree that it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to counter the drab standardisation of many big developments by reflecting local building conditions or by being innovative? Will not being told not to be over-fastidious about the colour of bricks—paragraph 20 of the circular—discourage authorities, which should be encouraged to improve the quality of local life?

My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a very important point which I readily acknowledge. I would only refer to the circular itself. In the guidance which we give we say:

"This does not mean a lowering of the quality of decision but it does mean a greater awareness of the economic costs of planning control".

Nevertheless, my Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if he reads further on, in addition to the quotation of my noble friend Circular 22 says that planning authorities should recognise that aesthetics is an extremely subjective matter and that they should not therefore impose their tastes on developers? Similarly, the control of external appearance should only be exercised when there is a fully justified reason for doing so. These and other parts of the circular seem to suggest that speed is of the essence, not the judgment of local people who know the local situation.

My Lords, speed is certainly of the essence, but in my experience it is not likely that local people will make a decision against their local knowledge and their local aspirations as to aesthetics as well as to the other aspects we are discussing.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Government's CHP/District Heating Feasibility Programme is designed to identify and produce detailed proposals for one or two locations where there is the potential of early and economic development of large-scale CHP schemes. Any such schemes would necessarily involve the aggregation over a period of 10 to 20 years of a number of smaller schemes. However, as there is little evidence that these smaller component schemes could, in their own right, produce major economic and energy savings, it would be inappropriate for the Government to concentrate their own efforts on them. We would, of course, welcome any economically worthwhile small schemes that were self-financing.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. First, would he agree that the size of power station which the CEGB is thinking of for CHP combined heat and power is never really likely to come into being in the foreseeable future, simply because of the very great costs? Secondly, would the Minister agree that if one is thinking seriously of civil defence, the very limited number of large power stations which we have and which we are planning is not a very good idea? If there is a possibility of creating some smaller ones which are still economic, or reasonably economic, would that not be a matter worth thinking about in terms of civil defence?

My Lords, I broadly agree with the noble Viscount. The difficulty is, as he says, that there is quite a lot of argument about whether a smaller unit can be economic, particularly in this country where we have other favourably priced sources of supply.

My Lords, could the noble Earl say what is the position regarding Battersea Power Station, which had a district heating system? Could he also say whether or not there is a case for using the fluidised bed system in order to resuscitate Battersea Power Station and at the same time burn and absorb a great deal of Greater London's rubbish?

My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what the future of Battersea Power Station is to be, though as one of the most beautiful industrial buildings in the world one hopes that its future is very secure. On the general issue of using old power stations, refurbished plant may well have a role to play during the construction of the heat network in a major scheme, but the costs of maintaining a power station which has already served its design life would probably in most cases be too high for it to have a long term role.

My Lords, as the question of old power stations has been touched on, can my noble friend say what progress is being made in selling waste heat from existing power stations, which is now largely heating the atmosphere?

My Lords, I think I need notice of that question.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

No, my Lords.

My Lords, arising out of that splendid reply, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that I am not now concerned with the economic policies of the Government, but with the absence of money, without which one cannot conduct international trade, and that when the United States of America demonetised gold and tried to substitute the paper dollar as an international currency it failed hopelessly? Is he aware that we can do very little about it, but that—and this is the remaining point—unless and until some international action is taken rapidly to establish a viable international monetary system, the supply of money will remain out of control and the world recession will deepen? I cannot see any other alternative.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that he gives. He has, of course, campaigned tirelessly on this subject for 50 years and I am sure that he must, understandably, be disappointed at how little progress he has made. The tide of both opinion and policy has continued to flow against him throughout this period. So far as international trade is concerned, one of the problems of the old gold standard was that it did not provide sufficient liquidity. Steps have been taken in recent years to expand international liquidity, for example, by the creation of SDRs. This is a matter of great importance and I appreciate the point that he makes.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not only a matter of great importance but also a matter which, on this day of all days, raises the most fundamental question that can be raised? As the noble Lord has said that the Government have no policy in this direction, will they say whether they have any policy for establishing within the Common Market a currency system which offers hope of being viable, which will not produce a reduction of Britain within the Common Market to a second-class monetary nation by definition and which will give a real hope of establishing a monetary system which is not subject to world fluctuations, but which has the support of all the members of the Common Market on terms mutually and generously agreed?

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have policies to deal with all the problems with which we are faced.

Oh!

My Lords, so far as Europe is concerned, the noble Lord will be fully aware, of course, of the European monetary system, and this is a matter that Her Majesty's Government keep under constant review.

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept this unique occasion of my agreement with him without embarrassment, and will he further impress upon his colleagues in the Government that, while on occasion inflation may be inconvenient, deflation—that is the writing up of debts instead of writing them down—has been uniformally disastrous in economic history?

My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord agrees with the policies of Her Majesty's Government. So far as the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, of course it ranges over a very wide field. It is important to maintain the value of money and to ensure that money does remain honest money, and neither inflation nor deflation represent acceptable policies.

My Lords, I should like to ask one final question of the noble Lord, which is simply this: Does he realise that the whole world has never yet been able to get on without some kind of international monetary system until today, when it is not getting on at all?

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord has made. Of course it opens up a very wide field of discourse. The breakdown of the Bretton Woods system was in many ways the cause of many of the problems that we face. There are great difficulties in re-establishing an acceptable and workable international monetary system, but it is an objective which we all have in mind.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Trident I missile, like the Polaris missile, is a submarine launched, inertially guided, ballistic missile. It differs in that it is larger—2 feet longer and 20 inches wider—has three rocket motor stages compared with two, and has a range of 4,000 nautical miles with a full payload, compared with 2,500. It is designed to carry up to eight independently targetable warheads compared with the three warheads in Polaris which are not independently targetable.

We need these differences to maintain invulnerability against increased anti-submarine threats and to maintain penetration against improved anti-missile defences. The future effectiveness of our deterrent depends on this modernisation.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I wonder whether he can elaborate. Is it the case that Trident will enable us to strike enemy missile sites and thus lead to a new strategic doctrine of more feasibility in warfare?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity of going into a fraction more detail than I was able to in reply to the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on 25th February. The Trident I missile, known as the C4, which the United Kingdom is planning to buy, does not have the precise accuracy needed to engage Soviet missile silos. This was made quite clear in the report to Congress in January of the outgoing United States Defense Secretary, which stated that today's sea-based strategic forces are ineffective against missile silos.

My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain the difference in costs, and how that has been taken into account?

My Lords, in the debate on 25th February, and in the debate since then in another place, the question of costs has been gone into in depth. I believe that that is another question, and, if the noble Lord would like to put it down, I should very much welcome the opportunity of once more stating in detail the fact that we believe this to be the most economic answer for maintaining an effective British strategic deterrent through the 'nineties and into the next century.

My Lords, will the noble Viscount the Minister be good enough to recall in a recent debate the thoughtful and penetrating speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the subject of the Trident, when he appeared to cast some doubts on its validity and its capabilities? Is it at all possible in an assembly of this kind, with the utmost respect to Members of your Lordships' House, to come to a definite conclusion about the comparative values of the Polaris of the past and the possible Trident of the future without having available every technical and technological detail? Is it at all wise, with all the uncertainty and tension that exists in the international sphere, to spread doubts about the inefficiency, or suggested inefficiency, of a missile, a weapon, which might make all the difference between surrender to an aggressor and our security?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those supplementary questions. We did have a very good and deep debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, a week or two ago. I believe that in this House we should be able to get very much closer to an agreed view, and I shall certainly work, both in the House and with the committees of the House, in trying to arrive at that situation. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that there is no need to cast doubt either on the current effectiveness of our Polaris deterrent, or, in my view, on the effectiveness of the modernisation of that deterrent which will come in with Trident.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he will confirm that in his reply he was referring exclusively to the Trident C4 missile? Will he also confirm that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to acquire the D5 missile, which is equipped with ten warheads, not eight?—the Mark 12A warhead, which has an accuracy of 400 feet and is specifically designed for the destruction of point targets such as Soviet missile sites.

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has himself intervened. Yes, I am talking of the C4 Trident I missile, which is the missile about which we have reached agreement in principle with the United States, including broad estimates of costs on which our cost estimates are based, for the continuation of the British strategic independent deterrent. The Trident II missile to which the noble Lord now refers—and I am glad to have, if I have it, his confirmation that it was to this missile that he was referring in his debate—is still very much at the development stage. I understand from the United States Defense Department that its full characteristics are not yet entirely decided, and it has not been the subject to date of any discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the United States. I should not like to rule out such a strategic missile for this country for all time, but the decision so far is to modernise, and keep effective to the same degree of deterrence as we have had in the past, through the 'nineties and into the next century.

My Lords, will the submarine being built for the C4 missile be capable of carrying the D5 if Her Majesty's Government agreed that it had become necessary, and would this involve very great extra cost?

My Lords, that again, if I may say so, is a separate question, and not one to which we have addressed ourselves at this stage.

My Lords, will my noble friend, when he comes to answer about costs, point out to the House the cost of the Tornado programme, which appears to be three times as much as the present planned cost of the introduction of Trident? And will he perhaps confirm to the House that this Government will plan down to the cost of £5,000 million while at the same time keeping an effective deterrent through the years until 2010?

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to keep my powder dry for a separate question on the matter of costs, I will answer in detail at that time. But certainly the Tornado programme has been more expensive, or will have been more expensive, than the estimates of the Trident I deal overall. Certainly we believe that the Trident I deal is perfectly accommodatable, if that is not a terrible word, in terms of our defence budget as a whole in more or less the same way as we have accommodated Polaris and previous independent deterrents.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there are not three differences: first, is not the cost greater, as my noble friend Lord Peart has indicated; secondly, is it not much more an offensive weapon than a defensive weapon; and, thirdly, will it not intensify the arms race in the world when there is now some hope of disarmament, in the United Nations Geneva Committee, in the Madrid Conference for a European Disarmament Conference, and in the proposals of Mr. Brezhnev for a summit conference?

My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's premise, any more than the Government did in Lord Chalfont's debate, that the Trident I is a greater cost. It is over a longer timespan and it is for a system to last for a longer period. I do not agree that it is different and more offensive, for the reasons that have perhaps been touched on in the questions today. We shall certainly, as is our constant policy, lose no opportunity to intensify moves towards arms control, and, if they can be made effective on both sides, the cost of investments that have previously been made will not deter us from moving towards a more peaceful world at a lower balance of arms.

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, after ("use") insert ("or being built").

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

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

moved Amendment No. 2:

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

moved Amendment No. 4:

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 14, after second ("is") insert ("in").

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 17 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").

moved Amendment No. 6A:

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

As did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I also received a letter from Sir Peter Scott about this matter, following our debate in Committee. I think that it is important enough to quote fully two sentences from the letter. Sir Peter Scott said:

"Another British practice that is impossible to defend in the international forum is that of night shooting. Britain is almost alone in permitting this sport, which carries the increased likelihood of protected species being shot by mistake, reduced chances of picking up wounded birds, and particularly in cold weather disturbance of birds forced to feed at night by shooting and other human activities during the day. It also makes wardening of protected areas much more difficult".

He went on to say:

"I believe that night shooting is a major cause why more than a third of the Bewick swans X-rayed at Slimbridge carried lead shot implanted in their tissues, despite their being protected in every country through which they pass to reach us".

I also had some additional evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the effects of this and they say, in contradiction to what was said by some noble Lords in Committee, that it is not a fact that night shooting is confined to the period of full moon, or just before or just after. They say that their wardens and other staff on many occasions have seen night shooting carried out on moonless and even misty nights, and in some cases under artificial lights. Apparently, some reserve wardens have said that shooting after dusk is increasing, and they believe that it is responsible for increasing numbers of pricked birds, including protected species, and is causing severe and sometimes continuous disturbance to roosts used not only by quarry species but also by protected birds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("which is shown to have been")

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

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

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 2, line 20, after ("bred") insert ("and keep").

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

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

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 36, leave out ("if that nest is in use by") and insert ("of").

moved Amendment No. 9A:

Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("on Sundays") to the end of line 43 and insert ("in England and Wales").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 3, line 1, leave out ("section and section 1") and insert ("Part and in Schedule 3").

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

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

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("woodcock (except in Scotland)").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 11A:

Page 3, line 2, leave out ("except in Scotland)").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 11C:

Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:

Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("period") to ("as") in line 22.

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

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 3, leave out lines 29 to 32.

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

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

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

moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 3, line 35, leave out ("species") and insert ("kind").

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

moved Amendment No. 15A:

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

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

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 4, line 2, at end insert ("or being built").

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 4, line 5, after ("is") insert ("in").

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("disturbs") to end of line 8 and insert ("dependent young of such a bird").

moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 4, line 26, leave out second ("the") and insert ("dependent").

moved Amendment No. 20A:

Page 4, line 28, after ("(3)") insert ("where").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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