INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES ETC (Hansard, 13 July 1981)

§ Mr. Hardy

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 14, line 24, after 'not', insert 'or has not been'.

When a bird ceases to be found in Britain for some time and then returns it receives a good deal of public attention, gives many people a great amount of pleasure and often excites widespread interest. I think of the osprey, which helped to create employment in some parts of Scotland. That should appeal to some Conservative Members.

If a mammal disappears, the prospect of its return, unless by a deliberate act of man, is virtually non-existent.

939 Several species have disappeared. The brown bear, the wild boar and the wolf spring to mind. I do not seek to suggest that those species should return, even though they would be covered by the dangerous wild animals legislation. Their return to the wild would not therefore be legitimate.

However, one species that is harmless was once found in Britain. It had disappeared by the Tudor period. It is the same species as that found in Scandinavia, and there are small colonies in France and in the Federal Republic of Germany. I accept that the population in those countries is still very small. It is to be hoped that conservationist activities there will guarantee its survival and perhaps even allow such an increase in population as to make it possible for a number to be considered for location in suitable localities in the British Isles. If that happened, we should have to examine whether their location, or relocation, in Britain was reasonable and beneficial.

At this stage, the evidence does not rule out that possibility. For example, it would be interesting and perhaps worth while, even at the risk of a few waterside trees, to examine what would happen if a small colony of beavers were to be established in a remote part of the United Kingdom. They might build a dam and establish a small beaver lake, which could help to regulate the water supply. Recently in the United States beavers have been taken into isolated areas to counter erosion. So there is evidence that relocation in Britain could be of advantage.

I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and one or two other Conservative Members have from time to time been critical of forestry, saying that if we planted the North of Scotland more extensively the effect on the climate might be such as to affect the quality of the rivers, or at any rate the sporting opportunities that they provide. I am in favour of planned and well-managed forestry. It is in the national interest that forestry should persist, and we could have an experiment with a beaver colony so that the damage caused to rivers by the forests could be compensated by the regulation of the water supply which the existence of a beaver lake could provide. It would be useful if that could be considered.

I do not speak with such authority that I could claim the theory to be right. However, the experiment should be considered. It might be useful if the Highlands and Islands Develpment Board, which has substantial powers in terms of matters that are important to the North of Scotland, were to consider the possibility—perhaps with the advantages that I have mentioned in mind—of establishing a small beaver colony in the North of Scotland. Such a colony might confer jobs. Not many jobs will be involved, but then there are not many people in those areas.

Although I hesitate to specify the locality, somewhere in the Caithness and Sutherland area might well be appropriate. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough is interested in the sporting opportunities offered by a river, it might be appropriate for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to insist that the species was located on his estate.

Whatever the position, I hope that the Minister will not rule out this possibility. The amendment will not allow an irresponsible person to release a wild boar, wolf, or brown bear, because they are covered by existing legislation. An experiment involving the return of the beaver could be carried out only if my amendment were accepted. Since 940 we welcome the return of birds, we should give a controlled experiment on the return of the beaver a fair wind while a reasonable evaluation takes place.

I commend the amendment to the House.

§ Mr. Monro

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has had an interesting thought. Indeed, he does not introduce amendments without having given them careful consideration. However, on reflection he may think the amendment misguided. Just because a creature once lived in Great Britain it does not mean that the conditions are suitable for it to survive today. We must consider why the species died out. Perhaps it was eliminated as a pest. If so, our farmers will not be happy to see it brought back. It probably died out because the necessary habitat no longer existed. Either way, it would be wrong to allow its injudicious reintroduction. Indeed, the amendment seeks to reintroduce species that are no longer current in Great Britain.

We must also consider how far back we should go. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of bringing back wolves, bears, hippopotami, and so on. The important point is that the Bill does not place an absolute ban on release into the wild, but simply requires—under clause 16(4)(c) and (9)(d) and (e) —that a licence should first be obtained. No licence will be issued without a thorough evaluation of all the likely consequences both to the creature and to the environment in which it is to be introduced. That evaluation will be made through close consultation with the NCC and through the Department of the Environment, which will issue the licence. That could be done if the hon. Gentleman wished to reintroduce the beaver. However, a licence would be required, which would be conferred only after the most careful consultation. The licensing system exists, and there is no question of a permanent ban. Therefore, after consultation, all sides might agree that that was the right thing to do