§ Mr. HardyI beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 63, line 31, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Purple Emperor'. 'Apatura iris'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 26, in page 63, line 32, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Swallowtail'. 'Papilio machaon'.
No. 27, in page 64, line 12, at end insert—
'Red Band Fish'. 'Capola Rubescens'.
No. 257. in line 14. at end insert—
'Smelt' 'Osmerus eperlanus'.
§ Mr. HardyIt is rather odd that these four amendments deal with two butterflies and two fish. I shall deal first with the butterflies. The two butterflies that the amendments seek to protect are the purple emperor and the swallowtail. The purple emperor is one of the largest and most magnificent of British butterflies, with a lovely irridescent purple sheen showing in certain lights in the wings of the male, but not in those of the larger, browner female. It is rather rare and confined to the larger oakwoods of the southern half of England. As a Yorkshireman, I feel that I am particularly generous in seeking to ensure that that creature, which enriches some small parts of the southern counties, should be preserved. But we have a national responsibility, and for that reason I have tabled the amendment.
10.15 pm
The purple emperor is a beautiful butterfly. Its numbers are declining rapidly. The House has so far attempted to protect only one butterfly, and that was in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. The large blue was then listed. Unfortunately, since 1975 the large blue may have become extinct. It would probably 889 have become extinct anyway, because of the disappearance of its habitat. One hopes that we shall not see the purple emperor go the same way. This large butterfly is an extremely beautiful creature and I hope that we can assist it to survive.
The same can be said of the swallowtail, which is confined to the Norfolk Broads. We learnt in Committee of the enormous destruction and change of habitat that are taking place there. It is notable that attempts are being made to reintroduce the swallowtail to Wicken fen in Cambridgeshire. It is an interesting butterfly. It flies in a strong flapping manner in May and June—a unique flight pattern. The female, which is larger than the male, deposits the yellow eggs singly on milk parsley, which is a plant found only in fen country. That is the reason for the limited range of the species. But it is a beautiful creature which should be protected. I hope that the Minister will accept that those two creatures can properly be added to this broadly based Bill.
The same may be true of the two species of fish to which I now wish to refer. The smelt is one of the grayling and trout family. It was once extremely common, and until the middle of this century there was substantial commercial fishing for smelt. But, unfortunately, perhaps because of pollution, the smelt has declined in numbers quite dramatically and can now be found with any certainty only in the Cree estuary in Scotland. The great fall in the smelt population certainly justifies its inclusion in the Bill.
I said that the smelt is to be found in the Cree area, but in the middle of the nineteenth century the smelt was taken in great numbers in the Firth of Forth, particularly in the autumn. The smelt was frequently encountered in the area near Stirling bridge, but the last fishery for smelt ceased to be a viable concern 30 years ago. Today the smelt is exceedingly rare, but since it is an attractive small fish, and since it ought to survive, perhaps to recover as our coastal waters become cleaner and more wholesome, the suggestion that it be included in the Bill to give it a chance to survive seems commendable.
I also suggest that the House should approve the protection of the red band fish. There is a spelling mistake. Its Latin name is cepola—not capola—rubescens. This fish is very unusual, in that it is a burrowing fish and is probably restricted to the coastal waters around the island of Lundy.
One of the reasons why I suggest that the fish should be protected is that there is an interesting argument about its habits and characteristics. For example, it is suggested that after its first year of life the female undergoes sexual inversion and becomes male. The latest evidence from academics who have studied the fish disputes that theory, but I am sure that the House will feel that it would be worthwile for the red band fish to survive at least a little longer, so that we can establish beyond doubt whether it automatically undergoes that sex transformation. If it does, it would seem to be entirely in accord with the social arrangements of the human beings occupying part of our islands in the 1980s.
Whether or not the Minister decides that the Bill should be expanded to cover smelt, which is declining rapidly, or the red band, which is already rare, I hope that we shall have an assurance that any failure to respond favourably to the amendments does not mean that the Bill is to be restricted to consideration of birds and mammals.
890 Given the commitment that I believe we have to marine nature reserves, it is important that there is protection for the rare and perhaps endangered species in our waters. Since I trust that Lundy will be listed as a marine nature reserve and will receive substantial protection, it seems appropriate that the red band fish should appeal to a blue Minister.
I also trust that there will be another attempt to protect a rare butterfly. The attempt to save the large blue was unsuccessful, but the intention was admirable and the House was justified in providing the legal opportunity. I hope that the Minister will agree that the purple emperor and the swallowtail should be given a similar chance. Let us hope that efforts to safeguard the environment in Norfolk and the oakwoods of the southern counties will give both species an opportunity to survive.
§ Mr. EnnalsI wish to add only a few sentences to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said. I cannot refer to the red band fish, but I wish to mention the swallowtail butterfly.
The butterfly faces extinction on the Norfolk broads. Indeed, a number of traditional species of wildlife face extinction as a result of the change in the habitat in the Broads, which we shall discuss later. One of the saddest losses would be that of the beautiful swallowtail.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept all four amendments propounded by my hon. Friend, and I certainly hope that the swallowtail, whose traditional natural habitat is Norfolk and its marshlands, will be protected.
§ Mr. DalyellI echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said in hoping that Lundy will be one of the first half dozen marine nature reserves.
My hon. Friend referred to the smelt and the waters of the Forth off my constituency. The sooner smelt and other species can be successfully reintroduced, the happier we shall be. Over the past 50 years the ecology of the Firth of Forth has been altered by developments at Grangemouth, though great efforts are being made to do something about the waters of the Forth.
The Labour-controlled West Lothian district council has been extremely good about sewage. The city of Edinburgh, which was ratepayer-controlled for many years, has been referred to as a city that was always powdering its face—in the shape of the Edinburgh festival—but often forgot to wipe its bottom—the sewage that went into the Forth and was responsible for the tragedy of the smelt and many other species. That was an example of municipal intransigence.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonMy hon. Friend gives credit to the Labour-controlled West Lothian district council. I draw his attention to the fact that the excellent sewage treatment in Lothian region is the work of Lothian regional council but that it is liable to be brought to a rapid halt as a result of the antics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House next week.
§ Mr. DalyellMy instinct tells me that it would be safer to go from Lothian regional council to the problems of the butterfly. I am conscious, along with colleagues, of the fact that one of the matters under-discussed in Committee was the whole butterfly position, well briefed though hon. Members were by Dr. David Lonsdale and his colleagues of the Entomological Society. There is no doubt that the 891 introduction of Italian rye grass on a large scale to agricultural land, in preference to the ancient grasses of Britain, is more profitable in the short or medium-term to farmers, but it is lethal for the butterfly population and its varieties.
§ Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)The hon. Gentleman must not make such unkind remarks about a very fine grass. He should consider the amounty of milk that is produced from rye grass for all our cities and towns. It NA us an important step forward in the production of milk in this country.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I should be grateful if hon. Members would return to discussing butterflies and fish.
§ Mr. DalyellI am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I were to discuss milk going into EEC surpluses. I am saying only that it is a pity that so much rye grass has been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) tells me to get on with my speech. When one considers all the grassland in Small Heath, I think I should leave that subject. There is, however, a serious problem concerning butterflies, exacerbated by the rye grass. Some hon. Members are deeply concerned about the interests of butterflies. I support my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MonroThere have been some interesting constituency interventions that I shall try to avoid. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for raising the issue. The hon. Gentleman has further amendments to schedules concerning plants and items that might be added to them. I am advised by the NCC that the purple emperor butterfly is more common than generally supposed. It is found locally distributed in the southern counties of England. While it is attractive to collectors, collecting itself poses no great threat to its survival. It has the habit of flying at the tops of trees, especially oaks, which makes collecting somewhat difficult. There is no reason to give it special protection, because there is no indication that its population is in decline. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to press the amendment. On the advice of the NCC, there is no conservation problem.
In regard to the swallowtail butterfly, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman was supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the NCC has considered the matter carefully. The butterfly is confined to the marshes of the Norfolk Broads. It is in decline. Its survival is likely to be endangered unless conservation measures are taken. It is also an attractive target for collectors. The advice of the NCC is that it should be protected. I therefore accept the amendment.
Next is the red band fish. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I am advised by the NCC that the red band fish, which occurs in deep waters, is fairly common. There is no conservation reason why it should be afforded the real protection that inclusion in schedule 5 would bring.
The criterion that the Secretary of State will employ when considering further whether an animal is to be added to schedule 5 is whether it is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or is likely to become so endangered unless 892 conservation measures are taken. In this instance, there is not sufficient evidence to put the red band fish in the schedule, so I am afraid that there is no luck there.
10.30 pm
The fourth amendment concerns smelt. I listened with interest and some concern to what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said about the Forth. Many of us have known about that situation for some time, but we are glad that it has improved, thanks to the substantial grants from a Conservative Government. The NCC says that smelt are very common in some estuaries and do not need protection. The special protection that could be given to marine fish—I do not recommend it in this case—would create difficulties for fishermen who could catch one inadvertently. I can tell the hon. Member for Rother Valley that the NCC informs us that smelt is very common and is therefore not worthy of protection in the schedule. I accept amendment No. 26, covering the swallowtail butterfly, but I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his other three amendments.
§ Mr. HardyI suppose that one out of four is not bad for this Government. That may sound a little ungracious, and I do not wish to appear in that light, since the swallowtail butterfly deserves protection. I am sure that people in East Anglia will welcome that, so I am grateful to the Minister.
I wish to ask one question. If the theory that the red band fish changes sex after its first year is correct, clearly its population will enter a marked decline. If so, the fish will become scarce, and perhaps the Nature Conservancy Council might then agree to keep the matter under careful scrutiny to ensure that sex changes do not allow the population to decline to the point at which the species disappears.
The evidence that the Minister quoted regarding smelt does not do justice to the case. The smelt has declined astonishingly in the past 30 or 40 years. If that decline continues, even if it is not endangered in 1981, survival is likely to be threatened before the 1980s are far advanced. I hope that the Minister will agree that the NCC should look again at both these species within the next 12 months or two years to assess whether the decline has continued, and, if it has, whether smelt should be added to the schedule.
However, I shall not press the matter at this stage. I am grateful to the Minister for the concession on the swallowtail butterfly, and I am happy not to move the other three amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: No. 26, in page 63, line 32, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Swallowtail'. 'Papilio machaon'.—[Mr. Hardy.]