HC Deb 27 April 1981 vol 3 cc606-8

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 and to prohibit certain methods of killing or taking wild animals (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
    1. (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying or contributing towards the expenses of an advisory body (within the meaning of Part I of the Act);
    2. (b) any sums so required for making grants to the Countryside Commission;
    3. (c) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act; and
    4. (d) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are paid out of money so provided;
  2. (2) any payment into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Thompson.]

9.59 pm
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I wish to speak to the money resolution. I am unaware of the view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about the Bill, but I welcome the attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the Bill's emphasis on co-operation and non-compulsion, because I do not believe that compulsion is the best way to preserve our superb landscape and that the parent Bill is a genuine balance between husbandry and conservation.

I believe that it is vital that people who must spend most of their time in cities should be encouraged to enjoy our countryside in their leisure hours. I very much welcome the management agreements on Exmoor, and I hope that they will succeed and spread at relatively little cost to the taxpayer, to which the money resolution relates.

The money resolution refers to a number of items, one of which could encompass wildfowling. I feel very strongly on the subject of wildfowling. So many leisure activities which may be indulged in on a Sunday oblige other unfortunate persons to give up their precious Sundays to make such enjoyment possible. This I very much regret, but it is not so with wildfowling, which is an ideal outdoor pastime for people who work on every other day.

On the coastline of Lancashire alone there are more than 30 square miles of sanctuary, which leaves plenty of room for bird-watchers as well as wildfowlers. Wildfowling associations are highly disciplined bodies of people and they impose their own very strict rules. Indeed, so successful was our local wildfowlers association in preserving the habitat of a wildfowl that the Nature Conservancy Council declared the area an SSSI, which was a tribute to the wildfowlers' self-discipline. I very much hope that this House will reverse the Lords' decision on this matter.

I should very much like to discuss the question of bulls on public footpaths, but I cannot quite manage to bring it within the scope of the money resolution. I can, however, welcome clause 39 of the Bill, which emphasises the importance of maintaining a minimum level of population and developing the rural economy, for which funds will clearly be required. We do not want a countryside preserved as a museum. We want living, vital rural areas. The Bill and the money resolution combined will help them to survive and flourish.

10.2 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I do not believe in continuing a debate under the guise of a money resolution, but there are two points that ought to be made. First, I make it clear that the somewhat truncated argument that some of us were putting forward is not necessarily to decrease the income of hill farmers. The Under-Secretary of State and I both represent hill farmers. Although he is far more dependent on them than I am, let it be clear that these people work extremely hard and are certainly entitled to a decent living.

The question at issue is whether grants should be paid in this form, simply geared to productivity, or whether some element of grant should not be paid for their co-operation on countryside issues. That is a very open question that we should go into at length in Committee.

Secondly, the Minister was asked by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and South Shields (Dr. Clark) and others, exactly what was to be done about the whole Sandford issue. The Minister and I know that it is difficult to give an off-the-cuff answer to leading questions. But the fact is that if the Government are to give the impression that somehow or other they will accommodate the feelings that gave rise to Sandford in the House of Lords, at an early stage, and preferably before the Committee stage, there should be a clear statement from Ministers at the Department of the Environment to say, if they think that Sandford is not satisfactory, is legally inadequate or does not suit them, precisely what is to be put in its place? We are ending our debate with the idea that the Government will overturn Sandford and put nothing in its place. That would be deeply resented.

The Government Chief Whip is a farmer and he must know that there is considerable conflict between Ministers on the issue. The right hon. Gentleman is Patronage Secretary and one of the Government's business managers, and I urge him to look at this unresolved question and to make sure that Ministry of Agriculture Ministers do not get away with blue murder.

Question put and agreed to.