HC Deb 30 November 1965 vol 721 cc1365-80

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I beg to move, That the Grey Seals Protection (Farne Islands) (Suspension of Close Season) Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament. be not made. I want to make clear from the outset that I move the Prayer, in the terms set out on the Order Paper, to invite my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to explain the views of his Ministry on this matter, and not to embark on a full discussion of the complicated and argumentative issue which has been debated, sometimes bitterly, in the country now for some years.

It is of the greatest importance that the culling of grey seals on the Farne Islands should be briefly discussed this evening and the circumstances made clear. I do not want to discuss the whole background of this issue, except to say that there is very real division of opinion among scientists in this country and elsewhere about the procedure that is being adopted, and I want to make clear that I have always opposed this procedure of the culling.

I move the Prayer on behalf of the National Trust. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and I are members of the executive of the Trust and we believe that it is important that its view on this matter should be expressed in the House. As I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the National Trust agreed some three years ago that culling should take place over a period of three years, although there was very strong opposition to this from among members of the Trust and more widely in the country, and certainly in the North-East. The National Trust agreed to this culling for three years, but it has made clear publicly that this year is the final year of that three-year period and that it is unable to accept the position that further culls should take place next year.

Now we understand that the Ministry requires some extension of its present facilities for carrying on the cull for some further period this year to complete this existing year's cull. The National Trust has accepted this year's cull and therefore cannot object to the completion of the cull within this season. We understand that because of weather conditions and other matters it may be necessary for some further day's culling to take place. I gather, for example, that it was not possible for a cull to take place yesterday, when it was officially recognised as such, because of weather conditions, and no one knows how many more days may elapse before culling can take place this year.

The National Trust, therefore, accepts the necessity for the completion of this year's cull, but the Order would authorise a cull to take place next year as well if we do not insert a caveat now—a warning to the Minister and my hon. Friend that the National Trust has declared publicly that it would not agree at present to a continuation of the cull for a further year. As is known, the National Trust is the owner of the property concerned in this case—the Farne Islands. It became the owner for the very purpose of protecting wild life there, including the seals as well as bird life, and for the protection of the wonderful scenic beauty of that area which is admired by people from all over the world. Another related object of the National Trust's coming into ownership of the area is to preserve facilities for people to see the wonders of the district. As a Northumbrian myself, I can, I think, acclaim with some personal pride the undoubtedly unique quality of this area.

It is important, therefore, that we should receive from the Minister tonight an indication of his Ministry's purpose in bringing the Order forward. We can understand its necessity in order to complete this year's cull, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that he does not intend to use the Order to carry the culling procedure on for further years, or, at least, that he will ensure that there is another opportunity for full discussion of the matter before a further cull takes place next year.

For myself—this is not only a personal view but is that of some scientists, too, including some in the North-East—any suggested extension of culling is not based upon sufficiently accurate scientific evidence, and we should be most unhappy if the Minister used this Order to carry on a procedure which has aroused very strong opposition. We understand very well the views of fishermen with regard to the salmon fisheries, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that there will be an opportunity for further discussion before any continuation of the Order is proceeded with. On the assumption that that will be forthcoming, I and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will be prepared to let the matter rest at this stage, hoping that further scientific evidence can be brought forward during the coming weeks and months to establish much more accurately what the true position is.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I seek not to oppose the Order but to elicit a little more information from the Minister about it. It is not surprising that this should be a slightly controversial question. Not only is it a controversial subject but the Fame Islands in particular, which are visited by many people especially to see the grey seals, are bound to be an area of special interest not only to visitors but to others who are aware of the background of this controversy.

The topic with which the Order deals was examined in great detail in the report of the Consultative Committee on Grey Seals and Fisheries published about two years ago under the auspices of the Nature Conservancy, which I have consuled with the object of discovering where the balance of fact in this matter lies. The Committee estimated at that time, when discussing the Farne Islands, that there were about 3,500 seals there, or about 8 per cent. of the total population, and it was agreed that, unless some measure of this kind were taken the potential increase would be about 1,000 a year. It was further agreed that the object should be to reduce this figure by about one quarter, to 750. I do not think that anyone can dispute the authenticity of that point.

Two other points were made. It was desirable to keep the killing to a minimum, and it was desirable to avoid disturbance, if possible. With those two objects in mind, it was recommended that the procedure should be spread over five years. Then, since suggestions were offered as to the prospective results of killing only cows and female pups, the Committee recommended that there should be a combination of the two methods.

My first question is whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us how the Order will bear on the recommendation of the Committee. Is it to be the culling off of a combination of cows and additional female pups and the numbers adjusted accordingly? Until that is clear we are not arguing about the same thing. My second point is that the Committee recognise that the effect of the increase of the Farne Island seal population on fisheries was not clear and that the biological prospects were obscure. Is any more information available now?

These recommendations, on which, I take it, the Order is based, were scientific and were agreed by the Nature Conservancy, in which I have a great deal of confidence, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a possibility of the National Trust withdrawing its agreement in the future. The reason for this is not clear, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say a word about it.

I think that the real source of anxiety is whether the slaughtering of the seals will be limited to the cull authorised by the Order. Early this year it was made clear that the Order exposed the seals to promiscuous hunting and killing. The point is that under the 1932 Act the close season is 1st September to 31st December, and the penalty for a breach of the close season Order is about £5 a seal. But the effect of this Order is to suspend the close season, and that means that poachers are liable only to a fine of £5, a nominal penalty of £5, regardless of the slaughter that they achieve—a single fine of £5 under the byelaws of the National Trust. This is an important point because it makes a difference between scientific killing and other killing that may be introduced or encouraged by the Order. I think we are entitled to ask what the consequences will be. Elsewhere on the coast there have undoubtedly been raids, with killing and cruelty, such as on parts of the Norfolk coast. What are the prospects for the Farn Islands?

I overwhelmingly accept the need for a sane view about this and not an unduly sentimental one. Baby seals are, unfortunately, endearing objects, and their slaughter is bound to arouse protest even if authorised by the hon. Gentleman. That does not concern me unduly. What concerns me—this is a point that the hon. Gentleman may accept—is the knowledge from past experience in other fields that control sometimes advocated with a wealth of circumstantial scientific data leads to the most unexpected results. Unexpectedly species are rendered rare or extinct by measures which have the most solid backing from the most respectable sources. This is where I have a twinge of uneasiness about even this Order, in spite of the respectable recommendations that it has.

The Committee I mentioned recommended that there should be continual study of distribution, population and biology on the seals and, in particular, of the changes which would be brought about by control. Is this continuing? Can the hon. Gentleman say a word about this? If it is, who is responsible for it? We should like to be quite sure that the scientific supervision is still in hand. Can it be guaranteed that the future of the Order will depend on the results of such a study and not simply upon pressure, however legitimate, from the fishery interests, which could lead to unforeseen consequences for seals? I should like more information on these points before the Order is passed.

10.45 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

I do not speak with the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) or of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). Probably I represent more the public point of view, which is very much concerned about this Order and the killings of grey seals which have been taking place and are to continue. I prefer to use the word "killing" rather than "culling" because it is easy to deceive ourselves with a gentle word like "culling" into forgetting just what we are really undertaking.

The public is concerned about this continuing killing of grey seals because it does not understand why such continuance is necessary. Quite frankly, neither do I. I have heard the arguments advanced for it in the past, arguments which have been advanced again tonight. But it is still not clear to me why it has to go on nor how long it is to continue.

Although the Order is to continue the process for only a further 12 months there is public concern that the process may be repeated indefinitely year after year. It is very easy, once a process has started, for it to go on because no very strong movement is organised against it or because no very strong arguments are put against it. It gains a momentum of its own which can be dangerous.

As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, in matters of this kind it is extremely easy to go wrong. The grey seal is a very attractive creature to everyone, it seems, except the salmon fishermen. It is an animal which we should be very sorry to lose completely as we have lost so many other animals and birds through misguided control measures. It is possible, with the best will and advice in the world, to go too far and reduce the seal population to a point where it dies out altogether. Therefore, we must watch the position very closely. We must have the facts. We must have full knowledge of what we are doing and that is why we ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say more about this Order and what is proposed.

A big problem of our time—it is big even in relation to so many world events—is to find the right balance in the world between men and animals and the other species. It is necessary from all points of view to do so. We live in a tight civilisation, so densely populated and with so many claims on our resources from men and animals, that we have to be very sure that we get the balance right.

It is particularly for this reason, because there is concern about these continual killings of grey seals, that there is a feeling that we have perhaps reached the point where we ought to stop. I ask my hon. Friend for more information. If he will not agree to take back the Order, I hope that at least he will assure us that he will look at the matter again before any further killings or cullings take place.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) that it is certain that we are unlikely to lose the grey seals around our coasts. They are to be found not only in the Farne Islands. We have the largest colonies in the world at North Rona, in the Orkneys, where there were over 900 in 1964. I hope she will realise that there are far too many grey seals. We are the only country in the world which does not pay a bounty to fishermen to kill them and which protects them. We have more than enough.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) talked about the balance of nature. The grey seal has been protected for so long and the protection of our fisheries has been so poor that, as the Nature Conservancy Report for September, 1964, said, there is little evidence of seals disappearing from around our coasts. Indeed, the colonies have been getting completely out of hand.

This matter has been debated for many years and it would be wrong tonight to reiterate all the arguments as to why the cull is necessary. One of the reasons is the damage done to fisheries and nets——

Mr. Blenkinsop

Is it not true that there has been a good deal of improvement in the design of nets and that the new form of net has succeeded in avoiding the kind of damage to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Kimball

I agree, and accept the point. But I do not think there is any doubt that the cull itself is necessary. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked for further information. In 1964 there was a symposium at Cambridge, at which no fewer than 34 learned professors who had studied the whole problem of seals came together. They came to the conclusion that the culling of the seals round our coasts was the only possible way to handle the problem. The House should not delude itself into believing that there is any lack of research into the problem.

I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance, bearing in mind the feelings which have been expressed, that the work of management and the major cullings of grey seals around our coasts will be allowed to continue. Otherwise very serious damage will be done to our fisheries.

It seems that the National Trust is now experiencing qualms about the management of the grey seal on the Farne Islands. I think that the best thing would be for the National Trust to hand over this business to the Nature Conservancy. I do not see why the National Trust should be managing a herd of grey seals on the Fame Islands at all. If the National Trust is worried about it, it should get out of the grey seals business and leave it to people who understand it and who have the confidence of this House.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

I come from a constituency on the north-east coast of Scotland where a lot of damage happens every year to salmon and salmon nets. I have seen it at first hand—not only the damage that is done physically to the nets but also damage to the salmon through being clawed and part-eaten by the seals.

Therefore, I should like to reinforce the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) that we must not allow sentiment to cloud our views of this issue, much as I respect the expressions of sentiment and the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).

I believe there is plenty of scientific research into this subject, and I would particularly mention the Marine Research publications by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. I should like to refer to the report in Paper No. 2 on "Seal Damage to Salmon Fisheries", published this year. In that report, which is based on scientific evidence which has been collected properly, it is estimated that the annual damage to salmon round our coasts is of the order of £67,000 a not inconsiderable sum.

I know that these arguments have been debated before, but there is a slightly more worrying factor which has not been mentioned in this debate. It is brought out in another Marine Research publication by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1963, on the incidence of the cod worm and its infestation of cod and salmon. A great deal of research has been done on this subject since 1945 by various research institutes, and particularly by the Torrie Research Institute at Aberdeen.

As the result of representations by medical officers of health and doctors in hospitals and elsewhere, the research was instigated and it has shown that the incidence of infestation of codworm rises around the area of the Farne Islands. A definite relationship has been established between the distribution of seals and the incidence of the codwormֵ This is one factor which may have been overlooked but which has a considerable bearing on this matter and on the interests of the fishing industry beyond the immediate interests of salmon which are usually mentioned.

We must get into perspective the figures for the seal population so that the talk about the disappearance of the species may be ended. In 1914, it was estimated that the total grey seal population was about 500. In the light of later research, this was obviously a conservative estimate and a 1963 report showed the estimated population as being about 30,000. Bearing in mind those figures and the obvious increase over the last 40 or 50 years, we have to get the matter into perspective.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I join with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) in inquiring what the Minister's intentions are if the Order goes through the House. The hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the Executive of the National Trust. He on balance is inclined to be against the culling of seals. I am not so certain that I agree with him, but it shows our considerable disquiet that I am happy to join with him tonight in questioning the Order.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the beauty of the Farne Islands. The prosperity and health of the people who live there, and of the fishermen, are obviously also very dear to his heart, as to mine. Apart from our joint membership of the National Trust, the other reason why we can agree about opposing the Order is that we are both Northumbrians.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) asked some very pertinent questions and in so far as some of them concerned the Trust, it may be to the advantage of the House if I try to answer them. He asked why the Trust had apparently changed its policy. The answer to that answers his second question. He asked if the effect of the cull was obscure, and what would be the result of killing seals on the Farne Islands. The Trust agrees that the effect of the cull is obscure and for that very reason the Trust has unanimously concluded that we cannot tolerate this culling without in our own minds being completely convinced that it is both necessary and beneficial.

We have allowed three years of the cull to take place and there does not seem to be good enough scientific evidence to support the view that it is essential to the preservation of the fisheries, or that the population of the seals has grown to such an extent that it is necessary forcibly, so to speak, to reduce it.

He referred to people other than the Minister and his servants who might try to take seals on the Farne Islands. I can assure him that the Trust will most rigorously prevent any other person from landing on the islands with that purpose and if someone were to land and attempt to take seals or kill them, we would certainly invoke our byelaws and arrest him.

We cannot prevent people taking seals in the middle of the sea or on some other island or shore, but the Order relates only to the Farne Islands, over which the National Trust has rights of ownership. I agree with my right hon. Friend that from past experience it seems that the strength of the 1932 Act probably is not sufficient to allow others to be prevented when the Minister takes power to make a cull.

My right hon. Friend raised the question of the balance of natural forces which would result from the culling of seals. My hon. Friends the Members for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) and North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) both touched upon this, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). This underlines the doubts in the minds of the Trust about what the effect of all this will be.

The effect of any action upon animals and their whole way of life and their habits is difficult to predict and is something about which we know surprisingly little. I do not believe that the scientists are certain what the habits of the seal are, what its life span and its main diet are and what would be the effect of killing a certain proportion on the Farne Islands. It may well be that a reduced population would breed all the harder, or that if the population grew too much, serious disease would control the population in its own natural way. Possibly the cod worm, of which I had not heard before tonight, is an important factor which we should consider, and we will be expecting from the Minister a dissertation on the effect upon the population of seals of the cod worm, if that is in order in this debate.

These, however, are uncertainties. The Trust would like these and other uncertainties to be cleared up and to be presented with evidence which is so strong and sure that it would have no doubt and no reasonable possibility of objecting to the killing of Farne Island seals. Without those assurances and that evidence, however, the Trust is quite right to question the wisdom of doing this.

The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green objected to the word "cull" and preferred "kill" as being more accurate. I am inclined to agree with her. The word "cull", I think, derives from the French cueillir, which is normally taken to mean plucking, as of flowers. I recognise the point made by the hon. Lady that it is rather too soft a word to use for the process by which these seals are killed.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tonight give us the assurance which we seek that whatever may be his policy in the future, he will not use the Order to institute killing in the year 1966. We recognise that the Trust has undertaken to give him permission to complete this years' killing, but that does not, in our opinion, allow him to enter into the Farne Islands next year.

If during the coming few months the Minister can produce evidence to convince the Trust that the stand which it has taken is wrong and that the policy it is pursuing is unwise, surely it can reverse its decision and allow future culling to take place. I do not believe, however, that this will happen, and I believe that the evidence will be unlikely to persuade the Trust.

We would not, therefore, tonight want to oppose the Order simply on the ground of preventing the Minister going to the Farne Islands this year. If he will give us an undertaking to that extent, I am sure that the hon. Member for South Shields and I would allow the Order to pass and then, perhaps, we could discuss the matter early in the season next year and come to a conclusion before the 1966 cull.

11.4 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove)

I am very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Not only do scientists lack exact knowledge of the habits and the life of seals but they lack considerable knowledge of the life and habits of the salmon which we are seeking to protect.

I appreciate the erudition of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), but I suggest that it is more than sentiment that makes me question this Order. Like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I worry very much about interfering with nature. As a doctor, I think that this is justified on occasion, but it must be very strenuously and strictly controlled. Unless it is, we, as mere human beings, do not know what forces we are unleashing. I hate to suggest that because these seals are grey, and presumably coloured, this is another instance of colour prejudice and that if they were white they would not be subject to this Order.

I have no strong objection to the Order itself, but I ask that the position be watched very closely. In this country we do not have an over-abundance of wild life of any kind. By means of culling, or by other methods used for thinning out animal populations, we have in the past exterminated some species. I ask my hon. Friend to watch the position very carefully, and to make sure that if there is the slightest indication that this process has gone far enough, the whole position will be reconsidered next year.

11.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), for putting down this Prayer. It gives me the opportunity to explain the reason for this Order.

Perhaps I might deal first with the question of cod worm. I shall not give the House a dissertation on this topic, even though I know a little about it because I have had to discuss it with the research people at Torry and with our own scientists at Lowestoft who have been examining this question for some time. As with many other things, it takes time before one can say that one really believes that one thing is the cause of the other. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that he would like me to be able to give an assurance on scientific knowledge, but he is asking a little too much, because even scientists do not agree about what should be done. In fact, there is a certain difference of opinion about that, but I shall say why we have decided to take action.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, may I say that culling means what it says—killing if she prefers it that way. It is a revolting thing. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, do not like making Orders of this kind. Indeed, we do not like having to ask the Ministry's servants to carry out Orders of this kind, so I hope that once and for all we can get rid of the idea that we get some sort of satisfaction from having to make Orders like this. We do this on the advice of the scientists who assure us that it is absolutely necessary, not only for the protection of fisheries, but for the existence of the seals themselves.

I am told that, unless certain precautions are taken, considerable suffering would take place among the seal pups on the Farne Islands because of the tremendous increase in the population of the seals there. Culling of grey seals took place on the Farne Islands in 1963 and 1964, and the need for the draft Order arises from my right hon. Friend's decision to authorise a further cull this year—a cull which should, in fact, be taking place this week, but I will come to that later. The cull has been authorised because of the damage which is continuing to be done to the fisheries; and it must be remembered that the number of seals in the Farne colony is now more than 4,000. Their numbers go on increasing.

The Minister has acted throughout on the advice of an expert committee, mainly composed of scientists. I give that assurance to the right hon. Member for Ashford. This committee was formerly a committee of the Nature Conservancy and is now a committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. It has investigated each year the facts of the damage and has advised the Minister. The committee recommended in 1963 that, to control the amount of damage, the culls should take place annually for five years. It was recommended that 360 female pups should be culled during each of the five years. However, my right hon. Friend felt that he should make a decision each year in the light of the most up-to-date information available to him. Thus, this Order is made annually so that he can look at the position each year.

The current Order, which was made on 4th December, 1964, made provision for one year. This suspension comes to an end on Friday of this week. If the cull which should have been carried out at this very moment had been taking place there would have been no need for my right hon. Friend even to have made the Order. I am bound to tell the House that at the time my right hon. Friend took his decision there was always the possibility that adverse weather conditions might delay the cull and, as I have said, that was why my right hon. Friend took the precaution of laying the Order.

The cull was due to start yesterday, but because of strong winds of up to 60 m.p.h. I am told that the helicopter which is used to carry our officers to the Fame Islands has so far been unable to take off. The forecast is that the winds will drop tomorrow, but I do not think that we can rely on completing the cull by the end of the week. Thus, the Order is not designed to legislate for another year, as it has been suggested. It is designed to cover this particular period; no more than that.

I agree that this has given some trouble to the National Trust because the Trust is the proprietor of the Fame Islands. I have some sympathy with the members of the National Trust. I am a member of the National Trust for Scotland and for some years I have served on its executive committee. I know just how they feel about the matter.

Before I conclude, I should like to say a word about the National Trust, first of all expressing my right hon. Friend's gratitude for the way in which the Trust has co-operated in the carrying out of the culls which have so far been authorised. I am very conscious that this has not been an easy matter for the Trust, that some of its members have very strong objections to the culling of the grey seals, and that, indeed, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and my hon. Friends have said, it has indicated that it would be unwilling to agree to culls being carried out on its property in future years.

While I have great sympathy with the positon in which the Trust finds itself, I hope that it will not prejudge this question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is keeping an open mind on whether or not a fresh cull will be necessary, and I hope that the Trust will do the same. If the evidence next year convinces my right hon. Friend that the culls should continue, he will be very ready to furnish the Trust with that evidence, and I hope that the Trust, too, will be ready to consider the matter on its merits in that event.

That is the reason for the cull, and the way in which it is carried out, and that is our position vis-à-vis the National Trust. The position is that if we could have guaranteed that the whole operation would have been over this week, my right hon. Friend would not have found it necessary even to lay the draft Order. It will cover the period necessary for completing this year's operation. I give the House the assurance that if any further action is to be taken next year, we shall provide the House with an opportunity of discussing it.

Mrs. Joyce Butler

Before my hon. Friend sits down, can he say whether the evidence which may be produced next year to the National Trust will also be made generally available?

Mr. Hoy

I would not like to say off the cuff that we would do this. This is a matter, first of all, between the Ministry and the National Trust, and I think that the National Trust would want the information in confidence in the first place. It may be that as a result of consultation taking place, another decision would be arrived at. In the meantime, I give the assurance that we will first give it to the National Trust if we are to ask the Trust to do something. I would not like to venture an opinion on what would happen after that.

Mr. Blenkinsop

With the leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the further assurance, for which we asked, that this Order will not be used to determine the issue as to future years but is necessary in order to complete the present cull. I had heard that weather conditions had not enabled the cull to start. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to see that every possible piece of scientific evidence is provided to assist us in this matter. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.