HC Deb 16 June 1967 vol 748 cc950-66
Mr. Ridley

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 17, at the end to insert: (4) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the reference in section 5(1)(d) of the principal Act to one and three-quarter inches (being the maximum muzzle diameter permitted for shot-guns used for killing wild birds) a reference to one inch. In effect, the Amendment gives the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State power to ban punt gunning. It is only right to return to this matter, which I raised in Committee, when there was a considerable debate on the point. Consultations were to take place, and it is only right that I should report the results of those consultations.

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

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

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

Immediately after the debate in Committee I received a letter from the association in which it said: The damage is not done in October. In any event punting is rarely practised in October. After the association had made some inquiries, six weeks later I received the following letter: On Fenham Slates … experience has clearly shown that without punt gunning in September and October the widgeon tend to remain out on the Slates. This clearly shows that the association did not know the answer on the first occasion.

12.45 p.m.

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

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

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

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

Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Ridley

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

The Home Office Advisory Committee—the hon. Gentleman kindly told me that he would consult it—reported on this question as follows: Members of the Scottish Committee are generally opposed to punt gunning as a sport but they are of the opinion that it would not be wise to try to push an Amendment"— on the lines that I propose— as it might have the opposite effect to that intended and lead to awakened interest in the sport. It said that members of the English Committee were in favour of the sport being allowed to continue, adding: The Committee has considered the question whether the present maximum permitted size of shot-gun should be reduced; the majority view is that it would be inadvisable to make any change in the law in this respect …. It is a dying sport pursued nowadays by only a few amateurs and it would be preferable to let the sport die out rather than to take active steps against it. … The Nature Conservancy opposed the plan for the following reason: It is simply that the experts consider that the surest and least troublesome method of achieving a cessation of punt gunning is to let it die quietly. Thus, from all the non-involved bodies we have the view that the sport should be allowed to die quietly. Some are in favour of it and some oppose it, but the general view is, although undesirable, it should not be banned outright.

I question that view. It is fair to quote from Mr. Peter Scott at the last Convention of the European Wildfowl Conference at St. Andrews in 1963: It is unwise to consider that, because this sport is arduous, it will die a natural death. There is a danger that the fashion may revive again, and I do not think it is necessary that young people should for their enjoyment follow a sport which involves so much destruction of wild life. The House should take that view seriously. The question is whether we should allow it to die out or legislate to make it illegal.

It is not right to allow the sport to continue, as this is rather like allowing a practice of which one disapproves because very few people practise it. That is not an honourable ground for argument. The International Convention on this subject, in Article 5(f), proposes that adherents to the Convention should undertake: … to introduce gradually into their legislation measures which will prohibit all firearms apart from those which can be shouldered. This is the origin of my suggestion that the size should be reduced to one-inch bore, as that is the largest gun which can easily be shouldered—

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

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

Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Allason

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

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

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

Mr. Farr

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

Mr. Allason

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

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

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Allason

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

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Allason

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

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Allason

By whom?

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Allason

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

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

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

Mr. Farr

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

However, one of my difficulties has been to try to follow exactly my hon. Friend's intentions with regard to the Bill. Just now he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) what he had said today that contradicted what he said in Committee. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that in Standing Committee on 5th April, only a couple of months ago, he said that the sport: I believe is vital to the future of wildfowling and is something which I want to see continuing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 5th April, 1967, c. 40.] Yet five minutes ago he said, "I want to see this sport ended". I suggest to him that this is no slight contradiction in terms, and that it causes doubt as to what his exact intentions are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Farr

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

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

1.15 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ridley

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

Mr. Farr

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

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

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

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

Sir T. Beamish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ennals indicated assent.

1.30 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish

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

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

Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.