PROTECTION OF CAPTIVE BIRDS (Hansard, 13 July 1981)

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 10, line 26, at end insert 'or (c) While that bird is either in the process of being conveyed or exhibited at an exhibition or show.'. I do not wish to drag out the proceedings on this amendment. Suffice it to say that I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the debate that has taken place in the past few weeks on the representations that have been made to us not only by bird fanciers but by those who are disturbed by the conditions in which such birds are kept. The Government may well come forward with an acceptable compromise later.

§ Mr. King
The principle behind the amendment is acceptable to the Government. There was concern about the protection given to birds and about the size of the cage in which they might be put for the purpose of exhibitions and shows. The Government have made it clear that they had no intention, and that there was no proposal, to take any early action on this matter. However, it has given rise to considerable concern. Unfortunately, the amendment lacks one important qualification. I have submitted a manuscript amendment and I understand that the Opposition are aware of it. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should seek to move the manuscript 880 amendment if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was willing to withdraw his amendment. I hope that the House will be prepared to approve the manuscript amendment.

§ Mr. Dalyell
There has been an enormous volume of correspondence about this matter. I am not complaining, because I know that accidents can happen. I do not wish to blame particular civil servants, because they may not be at fault. However, the Minister will understand that the proverbial fear of something awful was instilled in many people by the reports that appeared in Cage and Aviary Birds. They put the fear of death into innocent people about £2,000 penalties, imprisonment and heaven knows what. How on earth did that trade magazine get hold of the dire penalties that created such a stir among many of our constituents? Why did not the Department of the Environment give its views to Cage and Aviary Birds, as is normally the case? Perhaps there is some explanation.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
I support what my hon. Friend has just said. It is sad that so much alarm was caused, but the Government have made a welcome concession. I am sure that great sighs of relief will be heaved by many ordinary exhibitors. Exhibiting birds is a hobby of many people.

§ Mr. King
Unfortunately, I missed the edition of Cage and Aviary Birds in question.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said. This is not the only legislation over which considerable alarm has been generated outside the Government by people speculating on certain aspects going way beyond the Government's intentions or anything that has been said. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant it, but there was a slight implication in what he said that the Government had generated the fear and alarm. His question should properly be directed to those who sought to start an unfounded rumour. It concerned a technical possibility that was never the Government's intention.
Our concession will not be greeted with wild approval by any canary, budgerigar or any other bird, because it means that for a limited period they will be more confined than they might otherwise have been. But the Government think the concession reasonable, in view of the interest of aviculturists and the disturbance that would have been caused.
We considered the matter and found that we had two options. One was to restate our clear assurance, given frequently in correspondence, that there was no proposal to do what was feared. However, because of the concern, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I decided at a late stage that it was better to put the assurance on the record, in the form of a manuscript amendment. I hope that it will command the support of the whole House.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The Minister must be the only Member of Parliament who did not see the relevant edition of Cage and Aviary Birds.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
In the absence of the change in the law that was previously outlined, has there been any consultation with the National Council for Agriculture about introducing a code of conduct whereby it can monitor the arrangements under which birds are ferried to exhibitions and held in exhibition cages for up to 72 hours? The Government having made the concession, the House would like to think that the spirit in which the original representations were made was understood, and that at least the organisation concerned will ensure that the enxieties are fully met.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I wish to express appreciation to the Minister for taking the unusual step of producing the manuscript amendment to meet what was clearly genuine concern felt by many people who legitimately exhibit birds in shows and who have to convey them around the country.
Whatever we think about how the relevant trade paper portrayed the matter, parliamentarians should be grateful that close attention to what we do is paid by people with a great interest and whose hobby it is. Most of them have a great regard and affection for the bird life that they rear and cultivate. Those who have been to shows find that the bird section is of great public interest. It gives great pleasure to many people.
9.45 pm
It is right that the owners and breeders should be protected with regard to the size of cage necessary for transportation and showing. Those who have seen some of the cages since the controversy began will know that the owners pride themselves on their adequacy. The last thing that they wish to do is to cause any suffering to the birds. I am glad that the Government have acted on this matter, and that the House is united. This will be of great satisfaction to those who drew the matter to our attention, without which we may not have got it right. I hope that the birds' societies will long flourish and continue their harmless pursuits and pleasures.

§ Mr. King
The Government are in close consultation with the agriculturists. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the NCA. We are anxious that its view should be understood. It will become clear in later amendments that we are concerned with the need for it to present its case effectively. The hon. Gentleman's point was fair, and we shall consider it.