§ Mr. HardyI beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 60, leave out line 18.
I confess that, unlike most of the amendments that I have tabled and those which I supported in Committee, I do not recommend the protection of moorhens on the ground of conservation. I wish to make that clear because of our recent debate on the snipe. I accept that the moorhen is common and. apart from the Highlands of Scotland, widely distributed.
The moorhen should not appear in schedule 2. Many of the birds listed there provide sporting opportunity for shooters. No doubt all of them will have been shot at some time or another by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Presumably, all of them will have been eaten. 882 Perhaps he will tell us whether the moorhen tastes nice. I cannot recall ever having consumed one. Of course, the hon. Gentleman eats goldeneye frequently. But I am sure that he would agree that the moorhen does not provide a sporting challenge.
I have not mentioned the coot because, not being as objective as I should, I find the moorhen a more attractive bird. I do not believe that any Conservative Member would wish to shoot a moorhen. My constituents who shoot regularly have never shot a moorhen. Perhaps the sporting people of Rother Valley are more sensitive than some Conservative Members. As the bird does not provide a sporting challenge, it is inappropriate to list it in schedule 2.
I recognise that the moorhen is common, and I suppose that it can usefully be taken for food or used for sport. But I do not believe that it is sufficiently common to provide an adequate contribution to our national diet. It does not offer such a nuisance and injury to the agricultural interest that it should be drastically controlled. Therefore, its inclusion in part I of schedule 2 is scarcely justifiable. It will be interesting to hear not only the Minister's comments, but those of the hon. Member for Harborough.
§ Mr. FarrI listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said. However, I do not consider this to be a good amendment, because the moorhen does much damage to other bird life.
Although the numbers of moorhen or waterhen have been static—in fact, they increased slightly in 1980—they are selfish and aggressive birds as well as difficult for other birds to live with.
Anyone who has a small pond at the bottom of his garden knows that the moorhen will drive all the other water birds away. On large stretches of water, in hard weather, if any feed is to be had, it is the moorhen that will get it and the duck that will go without.
There is no evidence before the advisory committee of any shortage of moorhen in the country. I understand that there are about 500,000 pairs in Great Britain, and there is no indication of a notable decline in number. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this trivial amendment.
§ Mr. KingI cannot commend the amendment to the House, not because I do not have sympathy with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), but because there is some doubt as to where the moorhen should be placed in the Bill.
This is a conservation Bill, but there is no conservation argument in respect of the moorhen. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) found 200,000 more pairs than my Department found, but the difference between 500,000 and 300,000 pairs may be a degree of hyperbole from my hon. Friend and his advisers.
The point made by my hon. Friend is valid. Moorhens do a lot of damage. An argument that could have been advanced was whether the moorhen should be placed in part I of schedule 2 or in part II, which lists those birds that can be shot by authorised persons at all times. We have taken the view that the moorhen does not cause the scale of damage to justify its being considered as a pest.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley that there may be something to distinguish the moorhen from the obvious sporting birds listed in part I. Having said that, I do not feel that there should be any 883 change. This is a conservation Bill, and on conservation grounds there is no case for the removal of the moorhen from the schedule.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI am surprised that the Minister has said that there are no conservation grounds for protecting this bird. I accept his argument in the context of the whole of Great Britain. However, he should consider this matter in terms of particular localities and areas.
In many areas, particularly areas of water on the urban fringes, there is a general shortage of birds, and the moorhen gives a lot of pleasure to youngsters who watch it bobbing about with its young. They feel rightly distressed when they see it being shot at by slightly older people with airguns. There are good grounds for conserving it in such areas. Our wildlife should not be concentrated in a few countryside areas, but should be spread as widely and usefully as possible.
I see no justification for shooting this bird. I do not believe that anyone could remotely call it sport. However, it seems that, if it cannot be justified in sporting terms, it is justified because it might eat the same food as birds which people prefer to have for sport. I am therefore disappointed with the Government's attitude.
§ Mr. DalyellThe poor old moorhen is not really a quarry species.
§ Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)indicated dissent—
§ Mr. DalyellThe hon. Gentleman may think that it is, but it is not. If it does damage, why cannot that be dealt with within the licensing provision in clause 16? In the meantime, I shall treasure the thought of vast sections of the Department of the Environment looking for moorhens to ascertain whether the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is 200,000 out in his calculations. Some of us might think that looking for moorhens might be a better employment for some in the Department than raiding local authorities.
I hope that the Minister will be good enough to respond to the debate. I inserted the second part of my speech to give the Minister time to think of an answer to the first part, which concerned clause 16 and the licensing provision.
§ Mr. KingI thought that the hon. Gentleman was merely making a debating point. I did not want to be discourteous by not responding. We are talking about damage and the habits of the moorhen. We are not discussing localised concentrations of moorhens. My observations tell me that moorhens tend to drive other waterfowl away. That was the purpose of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). That is not an argument that will be met by licensed or unlicensed moorhens.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.