HC Deb 16 June 1967 vol 748 cc924-50
Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 16, at the end to insert: (4) This section shall not apply to Scotland. The House knows of the interest of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) in the preservation of wild life and the efforts which he has made to secure the passage of this Bill. It is an admirable Measure, and I support it, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I support it with one major qualification, which relates to Clause 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I received a letter this week from another constituent who writes: The number of geese has increased enormously in the past ten years. Greylag geese have always roosted on my land beside the River Tay, and where I had several hundreds in 1958 coming in every night I now have several thousand. In a mild wet spell of weather they do great damage to winter wheat crops as they pull the grain clean out of the ground and trample the field surface with their feet to such an extent that there is no chance of recovery. In harder weather the damage is less, as they graze the wheat shoots to the ground but they cannot pull out the roots. Geese also spoil and eat a great deal of autumn young grass, thereby depriving stock of winter keep. If they stay late into the spring, which they have done these last two years, they again destroy the early spring grass if they are in such large numbers as they have now become, fouling the ground to such an extent that cattle and sheep will not graze. That is the experience of a highly responsible farmer who suffers from these invasions of wild geese.

11.30 a.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

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

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

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

They concluded about wheat that there was no evidence that geese would dig up newly sown grain. They concluded that geese did not use potato fields and, as for spring corn, they concluded about the damage done by geese on spring cereal crops that: In a normal spring however geese will be away before the critical stage for damage is reached. They considered other methods of deterring geese.

Mr. MacArthur

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

Mr. Farr

There is not a shadow of doubt that the evidence shows that the grass yield will be reduced by excessive grazing of wild geese, but I have a few figures which I would like to present to the House to show by how much the yields are reduced. These two experts concluded, when they examined alternative methods of protecting the various crops, that … in practice killing is by no means easy, and is not likely to have a permanent deterrent effect on migrant flocks. When young cereals or grass have been damaged by geese, the most effective method of protection they found was to scare the birds away. Their general conclusion was that the geese usually arrive in East Scotland too late to damage the harvest of crops and feed on stubble in potato fields, where they do more good than harm.

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

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

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

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

11.45 a.m.

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

I would like to conclude by referring to the last paragraph of a letter written by the Scottish N.F.U. to Scottish Members of Parliament. It said that in certain districts: … the only means of controlling wild geese is by shooting them, and if dead geese were to become unsaleable, it would be even more difficult than at present to … do this. Shooting geese must nearly always be done at dusk or dawn and there must be some financial incentive to encourage people to carry out this task. I want to say to the author of that letter that there are many hundreds, if not thousands of people in Scotland, ready to pay for the privilege of shooting these geese. I am convinced that the machinery which is now being set up will provide both the Scottish farmers with a solution, and Scottish members of W.A.G.B.I. with many pleasant mornings and evenings of sport. I trust that in view of these few remarks my hon. Friend and his supporters will give this matter further consideration to see if they cannot change their views.

Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

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

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

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

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

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

12 noon.

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

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

Mr. Farr

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

Miss Harvie Anderson

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

We are discussing what is an agreed test, and I should like to quote a letter which I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who states: It seems to me that there is a very delicate balance here, because there is no doubt that wild geese are causing damage in some parts of Scotland … The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on the Protection of Birds is at present looking into the position in the one case especially, that of the grey-lag goose in the close season, in which killing for the prevention of damage is illegal. That shows plainly that not only is it regarded as necessary to shoot geese, but that at the same time as we are discussing this problem, the Secretary of State's office is considering the possibility either of etxending the time in which that is possible or finding alternative methods which may be effective to stop this pest. Therefore, we must accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said in Committee, that this is an agreed pest.

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

The point made by the N.F.U. is important. A letter which I received on 21st April from the headquarters of the Union stated: As you know, we are most disappointed that no action on Clause 2 was taken during the Committee stage of the Bill, and our main objective is to have Clause 2 removed altogether. Clause 2 has, of course, now become Clause 3, and it is an Amendment to Clause 3 which we are discussing.

The letter from the N.F.U. goes on to say: All that we are asking is that the status quo should be maintained. That is important to remember. We are not asking anything more than that the status quo should be maintained. The existing law makes a contribution towards the problem and it suggests that the present practice does good and should be allowed to continue.

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

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

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

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

As I have said, there is strong pressure from the National Farmers' Union. The immediate past president, Mr. Watson Peat, who happens to be a neighbour of mine in Scotland, and knows the problem at first hand, says: I hope, therefore, that some effective opposition will be mounted in this matter and we wish you success in your endeavour. The alternatives which have been offered this morning to the proposition put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is that the Wildfowlers' Association should be. I think the expression was, "rung up and asked to come along." In my part of the world, the nearest wildfowlers' association office is well over 50 miles away. At dusk, it is likely to have an office which is closed and, at dawn it is likely to have an office which is not yet open. Initially, therefore, there would inevitably be considerable delay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker

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

Miss Harvie Anderson

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

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

12.15 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish

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

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

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

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

Miss Harvie Anderson

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

Sir T. Beamish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miss Harvie Anderson

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

Sir T. Beamish

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

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

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

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Speaker

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

Sir T. Beamish

I shall not pursue that Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacArthur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment negatived.