§ 'It shall be a duty of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council to make an annual report to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the management of grey seals in and around coastal waters.'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)I beg to move, That the clause be read the Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take new clause 41—Amendment to Conservation of Seals Act 1970.
§ Mr. DalyellThe new clause relates to the emotional subject of seal culling and the hope that there could be an annual report involving both the Natural Environment 849 Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council. I welcome what is basically an unemotional occasion to discuss this subject because, whether we like it or not, it will be with us again this autumn, as it has been before, although not only north of the border. We see pictures of beautiful, wide-eyed, cuddly seal pups peering from the front pages of many Sunday newspapers and indeed daily newspapers.
Seal culling involves a degree of cruelty which to many people is odious. I shall be forgiven for reminding the House that even in 1976 the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then Prime Minister, made no secret of the fact that she was constantly asking her husband "What are you going to do about the seals?" In 1978 some of us rebelled strongly and effectively against our own Government on this issue. The issue was raised not only with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Scotland but with No. 10 Downing Street, and it took up a great deal of the Prime Minister's time. I therefore make no apology for raising this subject.
Whatever the good will of successive Governments—I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues are as concerned about the cruelty involved in seal culling as I or any other Opposition Member—the culling is done by people who are paid on a headage basis—that is, they are paid according to the number of pups that they put to death. That is deeply unsatisfactory. It should not be done on a commercial basis of that kind, if at all.
The question then arises whether culling should take place. There are those—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) is one—who argue that culling is necessary because of the amount of fish that seals are said to consume. It became clear in 1978—and clearer still when, as a member of the then European Parliament, I asked the late Finn Olav Gundelach, who at that time was Commissioner for fisheries as well as agriculture, to institute a study of the grey seal on a North Sea riparian basis, because more than 60 per cent. of grey seals are in Scottish waters—that there was very little hard scientific evidence that grey seals consumed as much fish, particularly cod, as was supposed. It was argued that they consumed much fish that was not edible, or was not generally eaten by human beings.
Therefore, before we embark on any further culling on this scale, for heaven's sake let us have some hard scientific evidence that it is necessary. That is why this modest provision seeks to bring the NCC into the decision-making. The NCC should have a special role. One of the anomalies of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is that that organisation has not been brought in in the same way as NERC. We therefore request that the NCC should be brought in with NERC.
Had we been in Committee I should have made a far longer speech and my notes would have been voluminous. In view of the understanding that we have, however, I end a noteless truncated speech with this thought. If culling is necessary, let us heed the argument put forward by the late Sir Frank Fraser Darling that it should not be done when the pups are young. If there must be culling, let it be done either at sea or when the bulls or the mother seals come ashore.
7.15 pm
I wish to register one further point, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough may well refer to it. I am aware, from Dr. Morton Boyd and others who have made a lifetime 850 study of this subject that if one interferes with the hierarchy of bull seals coming ashore, be it on North Rona or other islands, it may affect the whole mating process. The best way to control the number of seals may therefore be a constant human presence—a disturbing presence, as it were—throughout the mating season on those islands, which are central to the breeding process. I am not saying that this should be done, but it would be a better alternative than the unsatisfactory, odious and extremely cruel massacre which currently takes place and which arouses the emotions not only of do-gooders and animal lovers throughout the country but of the more hard-headed among us.
I do not suggest that the new clause is any kind of cure-all. No Opposition Member thinks that. We believe that it is a small, sensible step towards tackling a very sensitive problem. We therefore plead with the Government to accept this sensible, if modest, step forward.
§ Sir Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)I find that any information that I require on grey seals comes from the sea mammal research unit, which reports to the Natural Environment Research Council. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows, there is a unit in Cambridge which is part of that and which reports on the seal problem. It is from there that I get my information when dealing with this very tricky subject.
I merely add that I hope that the Government will take note of what the hon. Member for West Lothian said about the right way to control seals. The new breeding colonies in danger of being established round our coasts are the areas which must be watched. There has been an explosion in the seal population round the Scottish coast from 25,000 to an estimated 67,000 last year. Some people believe—and I am certainly one of them—that for every tonne of fish that we eat the seals eat five tonnes. l accept that that figure may be disputed, but that is certainly what our netsmen believe. I believe that the way to control seals is at the mating time, not the breeding time.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI support new clause 4 and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but I believe that in many ways new clause 41 deals with the problem more effectively. New clause 4 merely seeks a further report, whereas new clause 41 goes to the existing legislation and draws attention to one of the loopholes in it.
Unfortunately, when it is decided that a cull should take place, the argument tends to take place in the popular press, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in emotional terns and with pictures showing the brutality of the culling, and the fishermen's fears about lost catches are set against those pictures. At such times, there is often a lack of clear information. It seems reasonable to request that, if a licence is to be granted for culling to take place, the information on which the decision to grant the licence was taken should be published in full so that anybody may challenge that information, so that there can be a proper informed debate about it and so that the debate does not take place in the emotional terms of the pictures of the brutality and the hardship stories of the fishermen.
New clause 41 would involve accurate information being made available, so that those who are informed can, if necessary, put forward counter arguments to the Minister and explain their case on a scientific basis. At the moment we have the feeling that the Minister thinks that 851 the granting of a licence is a good thing. There is no clear statement as to the basis of it. People often feel that it is based not on a clear scientific analysis but on lobbying by one group or another. Over the years we have not had good management, because there has been lobbying by one faction or another rather than scientific information.
I support new clause 4, but I hope that the Minister will say that he will accept new clause 41.
§ Mr. MonroI appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) introduced new clause 4. In many ways I am sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve. I know, too, the strength of feeling that exists among many people—including myself—who love animals, as to the method which has been claimed to be the most efficient when seal stocks have to be reduced.
The last cull was in 1977, when significantly fewer than the number of seals estimated were killed. In 1978 the cull was abandoned because of the strong opposition from Greenpeace and other organisations. Since then no cull has been organised. No decision has been taken this year, so it is four years since there has been a seal cull.
The argument for culling adult seals rests primarily on the estimated impact that they make on the fish stocks for which man is a competitor. The argument is well documented by a report of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, backed by salmon netsmen, and others, who point to physical damage to nets and the loss of fish.
Others feel that the fisheries case—depending, as it does, on the estimation of a number of factors—is not proven, and they are anxious that the grey seal population should not be put at risk. Others, again, are simply opposed to seeing seals killed in any circumstances. I do not want to deal with the merits of legitimate points of view but I should like to explain the consultation arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has introduced.
§ Mr. DalyellThe St. Andrew Animal Fund and its secretary, Clive Hollands, argue that the pressure comes from the salmon fisheries. The Minister referred to the salmon aspect of the matter. Is the pressure coining from the salmon fisheries or is it coming from the white fish interests?
§ Mr. MonroI should not like to give a definite answer or indicate a balance on one side or the other. It is only right to accept that there is opposition by the fishing interests concerning the number of seals round our coasts.
In 1979 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he intended to set up a consultation process involving not only the Government, NCC and NERC officials, but representatives of fishing and conservation interests. The Secretary of State takes into full account the points made in these discussions before making his final decision on whether management action is called for.
In addition, the Natural Environment Research Council is already statutorily obliged, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, to give the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in respect of England and Wales, the Home Secretary scientific advice on matters related to the management of the seal population. Also, under the 1970 Act, my right hon. Friends have to consult NERC before issuing any 852 licence to kill seals in the close season. Moreover, the NCC has a statutory role in advising him with particular reference to any proposed licensed culling within nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest. Both councils are, of course, free to make a direct approach if they feel it appropriate.
The amalgam of statutory and administrative procedures—together with the normal checks and balances of pressure groups seeking to influence the Secretaries of States' decision on the management of the grey seal population—appears to give a comprehensive range of advice. An additional statutory duty on the NCC and the NERC to make an annual report to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Home Secretary would, I feel, be an unnecessary embellishment.
The culling of grey seals raises issues which can be discussed at various levels. At the end of the day, however, the decision is rightly one for the responsible Ministers—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary for England and Wales. I am not sure that to ask the two councils, acting in concert—and bearing in mind their particular statutory duties—to make an annual report to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary is necessary. I assure the House that there is no question of this Government—or, I hope, any other—taking action which would put the future of the grey seal population at risk.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) called for a report to be published giving the reasons for a cull. As I said, the Secretary of State for Scotland consults widely before issuing licences for seal culls. Whenever a licence is issued, he issues a press release explaining the reason for his decision. I understand the concern expressed, but both the NERC and the NCC consult the Secretary of State, as suggested in the hon. Gentleman's new clause. The Secretary of State, in his press release, already sets out his decision and the reasons for it, as proposed in the new clause.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettBut such a press release is basically aimed at the press, is it not, rather than at the pressure groups? If the pressure groups are to put effective information before the Minister, they must have the same information as the Minister on which to argue their case. I should have thought that it would help the Minister to publish all the information on which he bases his decision, so that anyone who disagrees with him can argue on the central point on which there is disagreement rather than have to build up an emotional case because the information is not available. I do not feel that the Minister can fairly say that a press release is an adequate way in which to inform the pressure groups on how the Secretary of State comes to an important decision. I hope, therefore, that he will give consideration to my new clause.
§ Mr. MonroAs I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up the consultation process which brings together the NCC and the NERC and the fishing and conservation interests. They will be looking at the same papers and sitting round the table discussing the problem. They will not be left out in the cold. The consultations that my right hon. Friend has announced are new. They will give all the information that it is reasonable for anyone to have at the meetings. It will be appreciated that some information is confidential to the Government and that the Ministers will have to make and stand by the decision.
853 I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North will bear in mind what I have said about the special consultations that will take place before any decision is taken about a cull. No decision has been taken for 1981 and, as he knows, there was no decision to cull in 1979 or 1980.
The situation has changed and there is a greater appreciation of the concern of many people about the culling of seals. The method of culling has caused more concern than anything else. All that is much more apparent and will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether a cull is necessary.
Everything suggested in the new clauses will come about. An announcement will be made and consultations will take place. The spirit of the new clauses is accepted, but we do not believe that it is necessary to provide a statutory obligation.
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. He was saying that it was not necessary to approve either new clause, because the NCC, the NERC and the Secretary of State would produce the necessary information. If that is so, what objection can there be to writing such a provision into the legislation? If information about seal culling is to be produced anyway, there can surely be no objection to making it a statutory obligation.
The Under-Secretary speaks for other Departments in resisting the reasonable new clauses, and that causes us considerable apprehension. He is right to say that public disquiet is caused by the brutality that occurs at every seal cull in this country or anywhere else. That brutality is so horrific that it will no longer be tolerated by reasonable men and women.
I do not understand why seals have to be clubbed to death. We would not allow any other animal to be killed in that way, whether it was being killed for food or because it was regarded as a pest. The public do not understand why it is necessary and they are totally opposed to it. This is one of those cases when the instinct of the British people is at its best.
I do not disregard the fishermen's case, though no scientific evidence has yet been produced about the need to protect fish. If we have to keep the seal population under control, however, there must be more humane ways of achieving that end.
The new clause goes to the heart of how we have solved many problems that have arisen in other parts of the Bill. There have been arguments between the Government and the Opposition about whether there should be compulsion, and when we have not been able to get the Government to agree to compulsory powers we have suggested that we should have public information and the knowledge on which an informed debate can take place, so that our democracy can assert itself.
The Under-Secretary said towards the end of his speech that there was some information that was confidential to the Government. I was not aware that the culling of seals came under the Official Secrets Act or that the Government had information about the seal population that they could not give the rest of the population. Surely that cannot be so.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettOne tends to believe that secrecy is used when someone has given the Government 854 suspect information which he does not want challenged. That is unfortunate. Open government would enable us to test all the information on which Governments base their decisions. This is a reasonable place to start.
§ Mr. HowellI agree with my hon. Friend. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the information was available by one means or another, but he went on to say that there was some information that was confidential to the Government. We are passing a Bill which may last for 40 years, so we are not discussing only next year's cull We are determining principles and we say that there can be no information on this subject that ought not to be made public so that an informed and knowledgeable discussion can take place.
We should be happy if, even at the last moment, the Minister would agree that either new clause 4 or new clause 41 should be added to the Bill. If he is not able to do that, we would like to vote in favour of both new clauses, but we shall certainly vote for new clause 4 as a token of our dissatisfaction.
§ Mr. MonroThe right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was a little unfair in one respect. There is no difference between us on the seriousness of the issue. I have not pressed the point that both new clauses are legally defective, because it is more important to note that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the method of killing seals and that neither new clause would necessarily have any bearing on that.
New clause 4 calls for the NERC and the NCC to make an annual report to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment. That will not necessarily mean a dramatic change in the method of culling, if culls take place—and that has not happened for the past three seasons.
I said that there might be confidential information arid not that there is or would be such information. I am not aware of any, but it is right to insert the caveat that there may be some things that a Secretary of State would keep to himself when making a decision.
I see no reason why all the evidence should not be freely available within the consultative committee set up by the Secretary of State. Obviously, it will be necessary for both sides to see each other's arguments. There is astonishingly little between us and I do not know why the Opposition wish to press the new clause to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 139.
856| Division No. 264] | [7.40 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allaun, Frank | Cryer, Bob |
| Alton, David | Dalyell, Tam |
| Anderson, Donald | Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Deakins, Eric |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Dixon, Donald |
| Beith, A. J. | Dormand, Jack |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Dubs, Alfred |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Dunn, James A. |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) | Eadie, Alex |
| Buchan, Norman | Eastham, Ken |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) |
| Campbell, Ian | Evans, loan (Aberdare) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Ewing, Harry |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Faulds, Andrew |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Fitch, Alan |
| Coleman, Donald | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Cowans, Harry | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Crowther, J. S. | Foster, Derek |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Prescott, John |
| Golding, John | Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) |
| Graham, Ted | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Grant, John (Islington C) | Sever, John |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
| Hardy, Peter | Skinner, Dennis |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Snape, Peter |
| Home Robertson, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Homewood, William | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Hooley, Frank | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. | Stoddart, David |
| Howells, Geraint | Stott, Roger |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Strang, Gavin |
| John, Brynmor | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Tinn, James |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
| Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) | Welsh, Michael |
| Kerr, Russell | White, Frank R. |
| Lamond, James | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Leighton, Ronald | Whitlock, William |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Litherland, Robert | Winnick, David |
| McCartney, Hugh | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Mr. George Morton. |
| Park, George |
| Alexander, Richard | Greenway, Harry |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Grist, Ian |
| Bendall, Vivian | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hannam, John |
| Best, Keith | Hawksley, Warren |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Heddle, John |
| Blackburn, John | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Holland, Philip (Carlton) |
| Bright, Graham | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Brinton, Tim | Hurd, Hon Douglas |
| Brittan, Leon | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Kimball, Marcus |
| Budgen, Nick | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Butcher, John | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Lamont, Norman |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Lee, John |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Luce, Richard |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Cockeram, Eric | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Colvin, Michael | MacGregor, John |
| Cope, John | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Corrie, John | Madel, David |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Marlow, Tony |
| Crouch, David | Mates, Michael |
| Dean, Paul (North Somerset) | Mather, Carol |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Eggar, Tim | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Farr, John | Mellor, David |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Moate, Roger |
| Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) | Monro, Hector |
| Forman, Nigel | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Murphy, Christopher |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Myles, David |
| Gow, Ian | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gray, Hamish | Newton, Tony |
| Normanton, Tom | Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire) |
| Onslow, Cranley | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Osborn, John | Tebbit, Norman |
| Page, John (Harrow, West) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) | Thompson, Donald |
| Page, Richard (SW Herts) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Parris, Matthew | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Pawsey, James | Trippier, David |
| Pollock, Alexander | Viggers, Peter |
| Prior, Rt Hon James | Waddington, David |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Wall, Patrick |
| Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) | Ward, John |
| Rossi, Hugh | Warren, Kenneth |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Watson, John |
| Scott, Nicholas | Wells, Bowen |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wheeler, John |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wickenden, Keith |
| Shepherd, Richard | Wolfson, Mark |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Speed, Keith | |
| Speller, Tony | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Spence, John | Lord James Douglas-Hamilton |
| Stainton, Keith | and |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Mr. Selwyn Gummer |
§ Question accordingly negatived.