HC Deb 29 October 1981 vol 10 cc1025-34

The Lords disagree to the following amendments made by the Commons: page 57, line 7, at end insert: "Curlew Numenius arquata". page 57, line 20, at end insert— "Redshank Tringa totanus". Lords Reason: Because the curlew and redshank, as the only two remaining shore waders that could otherwise be shot, should be protected.

Mr. Macfarlane: *I beg to move, That this House doth not insist upon the amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.**

*I know that this matter occupied much time in debate, both in Committee and in another place, and I understand that deep views are held on all sides. We come to what can safely be said to be the substantive Lords amendment to part I. It is their disagreement to Commons amendments Nos. 143 and 144, the effect of which would be to give protection at all times to the curlew and the redshank.**

*Hon. Members will recall that their Lordships, when considering the Bill earlier in the year, voted substantially to remove the curlew and redshank from schedule 2 part 1. That is the list of birds which may be shot as legitimate quarry species outside the close season. This House disagreed with the other place in its amendments during proceedings on the Bill in Standing Committee D. The Government's attitude on amending schedules is well known and on record. It is that species should be given additional protection only where their conservation status warrants such a step, where an adequate scientific conservation case for protection is made out. We see this as an important basis for reconciling the conflicting interests in the countryside.**

*It is clear, however, that the other place feels particularly strongly about these two species. I know that Labour Members and many Conservative Members feel that the Government do not advise opposing the amendments which their Lordships voted on in favour of restoring to the list on two occasions. However, we believe that the element of conservation is an important element. I realise the deep convictions that are held on both sides. Accordingly, I urge the House to accept the amendment, recognising that their Lordships have now voted on two occasions. The objective and purpose of the Bill are of enormous importance, and hon. Members on both sides acknowledge its long-term contribution to our heritage and to conservation.**

Mr. Dalyell: *Again we come to the aid of the red shank and the curlew, though I confess that to be discussing them when Leyland is in peril may seem odd to many of my constituents. Nevertheless, West Lothian, alt hough primarily concerned with the situation of Leyland workers, has redshank and curlew on its shoreline.**

*Some 30 species of wading birds visit Britain's shores. All but a few are protected by the Protection of Birds Act 1954, including species which are abundant, such as dunlin, knot and lapwing, all of which are more common than the curlew and the redshank.**

*Waders, particularly in flight, are difficult to identify, and confusion can easily arise between similar species. Reports of protected species being shot in error are received each year. It is, therefore, better to protect all shore waders to prevent such mistakes. The only species that are not protected now are the curlew and the redshank.**

*Thus, our first point concerns error, particularly when the light is not very good. Frankly, I do not believe that many people can differentiate between species in bad light or in bad conditions.**

*Waders flock and roost in mixed species parties. Thus, wader shooting causes disturbance to both protected and quarry species. Disturbance in mid-winter can cause stress and increase mortality. Although curlew and redshank, as such, are not endangered, public feeling against their being shot is very strong. Those of us who took part in the Bill received, long after the Bill was finished, representations to this effect from time to time. Even the Nature Conservancy Council recognised this and supported their removal from the shooting list in the Lords.**

*Many protected birds are more abundant than these species, yet they are protected—for example, the blackbird, the robin, the swallow, and so on—simply because society wants them to be protected. Incidentally, I do not think there can be very much fun in shooting redshank and curlew.**

*Tastes and wildfowling practices have changed. Shore waders are not a major part of the wildfowler's quarry. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has received reports from East Anglia of people using redshank for practice, and not even bothering to retrieve the birds once they had been shot. In the earlier debates in the Lords many wildfowling peers agreed that shore waders were unpleasant to the modern palate and therefore could see no reason why they should be shot. Some of us will say "Amen" to that.**

*The curlew and redshank occur in large numbers on British estuaries. We hold internationally important populations of these birds. To encourage other nations to protect their bird life, we should honour these moral obligations and protect waders.**

Recent correspondence in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine has indicated that hunters themselves are not of one mind about the retention of the redshank and curlew on the hunting schedule. In the issue of 11 June 1981, Robin Brockbank, director of the British Field Sports Society, made the following comments: "There is room for more than one opinion on many issues in the shooting world, whether they be in the firearm fees, the unrestricted shooting of lapwings or brent geese, the use of air weapons, or the tricky question of the ethical approach to wildfowling practices which has been a predominant issue in the debates in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. As an indication of this I received a tiny mailbag on the subject of Mr. Kimball's policy on firearms fees but a not inconsiderable one and hostile at that from BFSS shooting members opposed to our decision to back WAGBI in the offence of Sunday wildfowling in England and Wales and the shooting of curlew and redshank."

In the issue of 2 July 1981, there was a letter from David Tomlinson which presented the facts in full. It was headed "Protect not shoot?" It said: "Sir, Am I the only WAGBI member who would like to see curlew, redshank and bar-tailed godwit removed from the list of sporting quarry? In my experience, and I have been fowling on many marshes in England, Scotland and Wales, few experienced wildfowlers consider shooting these birds. Also I have met few wildfowlers who were sufficiently competent ornithologists to tell bar-tail from a black-tailed godwit or a redshank from a spotted redshank in the half light of dawn or dusk"— [Interruption.] I hear the Government Whip and the Solicitor-General muttering to each other. Apparently they are not conversant with the bar-tailed godwit problem.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I have not been muttering at all. I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman was imitating a bar-tailed godwit.

The Solicitor-General: Oh!

Mr. Dalyell:. I apologise. I do not wish to be rude to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I thought that he was muttering to his hon. Friend at the suggestion that I should not go into all this detail.

Tomlinson goes on in his letter: "I agree that there is no strong argument on conservation grounds for not shooting these species but it could be fairly argued that an open season for blackbirds and song thrushes would have little impact on the population of these birds, both of which made reasonable eating. However, it would be very bad public relations to shoot songbirds. In the same way I feel it is detrimental to the wildfowlers' image to shoot waders, especially as none of the trio in dispute is particularly good to eat. A September curlew well roasted may be acceptable but a January bird of the saltings is fit only for the dustbin. Much better to leave it alone and enjoy instead the most beautiful and haunting of calls across the marsh."

Although the curlew is quite a common breeding and wintering bird in Britain, we have an international responsibility for its protection. Our wintering population of about 44,000 is 15 per cent. of that wintering in the whole of Europe. Furthermore, 11 of our estuaries are sites of international importance for this species, meaning that they hold 1 per cent. or more of the wintering European population. There is an important argument that, with the removal of the whimbrel and now the bar-tailed godwit from the list of those species which may be hunted, the curlew should also be removed on the grounds of "look alike" identification difficulties. The three species have very similar flight patterns.

In Committee, we were indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who has considerable experience of these matters, for making the same point. My hon. Friend has a by-election in his constituency and has asked me to give his apologies to the House for not being here.

5.45 pm

The main reason, however, for the removal of the curlew and indeed all shore waders concerns the serious disturbance that they suffer during the vital feeding and roosting periods. This disturbance affects not only quarry species but others feeding or roosting with them or nearby, including protected birds.

Although redshanks are widespread and common in Britain, they are declining as breeding birds, as they are in several other European countries. Declines are connected with habitat loss of various kinds—principally wetland and coastal reclamation.

Some 150,000 redshanks winter in Europe as a whole, of which almost one-third winter in Britain—up to 51,000 birds—where there are 20 sites of international importance for this species. Thus we have international responsibility for a substantial part of the entire winter populations of the species.

An equally important consideration that applies to all shore waders is that of serious disturbance at vital times of feeding and roosting. This applies indiscriminately to other species occurring with redshanks, whether protected or not, and possibly even more so than in the case of other waders due to the redshank's use of wider range of habitats. The redshank weighs only 4½ oz and is 10½ ins from bill to tail. The bill is 2½ ins long. The estimated numbers shot is 2,000 a year.

I go into this in some detail. Normally it would be unnecessary. But I see the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and Harborough (Mr. Farr) ready to pounce. I say to them with a certain amount of friendship, because they have worked very hard on the Bill "Do not spoil your contribution to all these days and months of work by pressing this matter, because it is not a worthy one for you to contest at this stage." I hope that both hon. Members will protect their reputations by not pressing the matter in view of the facts that I have put forward.

Sir Marcus Kimball: The House will find itself in an even more difficult position if it decides to disagree with the Lords in their disagreement with the Standing Committee.

Her Majesty's intention to prorogue Parliament tomorrow morning at 9.30 has already been announced. I believe that another place is no longer sitting. If we disagreed with this disagreement and sent a message to the other place, there would be no possibility of getting back their Lordships' agreement to our disagreement with their disagreement. If we succeed in pressing this disagreement, we shall lose the Bill.

I have no desire to sacrifice the amount of work which has been put into the Bill by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am sure that no one wishes to do that. However, I regard this disagreement of the Lords with the Commons Standing Committee as a very dangerous precedent.

I do not believe that there are sound conservation reasons why protection should be extended to the two species which are the subject of the amendment. Both are plentiful, and there is no sound conservation reason for protecting them. It is a dangerous precedent to state that, because a bird is charming, pretty or attractive or that it makes a nice noise, it must not be shot. A ptarmigan is a lovely bird. It is also great fun to shoot. A black cock is a lovely bird, but it is a game bird. The argument that, because a bird is attractive, which the curlew and redshank are, it should not be shot is very dangerous, and it represents the first step down a very slippery slope. I would never shoot a redshank or a curlew. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, only about 2,000 redshank a year are shot periodically in September round our shores.

Without any sound conservation reasons, during the dinner hour, a few unelected peers moved by emotion upset a decision of the elected Members of this House. This is a very dangerous precedent, and it is good that it should be said for once from the Government Benches and not by an Opposition Member.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Member joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?

Sir Marcus Kimball: I am firing a warning shot against the other place for taking an emotional decision without sound conservation reasons. The other place has removed the targets from the less-well-off members of the shooting community. By doing that, it has increased the pressure for shooting on the remaining number of game birds. That is a typical action of an unelected Chamber. The other place has not come out of the argument well.

I disagree with the disagreement with the Lords, but I do not want to lose the Bill, so I shall say no more.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): I had not wished to participate in the last stages of the Bill, but I feel that I owe it to my conscience to say a word or two on the amendment. I thank the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for their kind and touching remarks, which were warmly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Our reward, when the Bill is enacted tomorrow, will be improved protection and conservation in the years ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) has highlighted the impossible position in which we are placed, in that whatever we wanted to do, nothing further could happen; the amendment could not be reconsidered in another place. Like my hon. Friend, I am the last person who would want to lose the Bill at this stage. Therefore, there is no question of trying to take the matter a stage further by pushing it to a Division. I shall not have anything to do with that.

It is right that we should put a few matters in perspective if only to prevent such an event happening again for the wrong reasons. I remind the House that when the Bill was published under a year ago there were already many changes to the schedules dealing with bird protection. We had gone through it with a toothcomb with consultation papers and all the conservation bodies. A number of birds had been taken from the quarry schedule and put on the protected schedule. Therefore, all the issues which were debated at length relative to the redshank, curlew and godwit had been dealt with before the schedules were printed and presented to Parliament.

I speak tonight because, speaking as a Minister, I gave an assurance in the House, and outside on a number of occasions, that there would be no impact on field sport where conservation was involved. The only issue relative to field sports that has been touched on during the passage of the Bill dealt with otter hunting. That was because the Nature Conservancy Council gave a firm recommendation that otters should be protected. They were as a result. I was quite hurt by some of the inaccurate statements made by the League Against Cruel Sports, which was running true to form.

When the schedules were discussed in another place, a great deal of careful work had taken place before the amendments were put forward on 10 March. Those amendments were to remove the three waders from the quarry schedule. It is right to remember that Lord Chelwood, who moved those amendments, gave the strong impression that on conservation grounds there was not a good case for protection. The vote, which was accentuated by the issue of the godwit, showed a majority of 51 in a House numbering only 115.

We have touched on the case for conservation. We know that there are roughly 62,000 curlews, 97,000 redshank and about 40,000 godwit wintering here. The breeding pairs are 40,000 to 70,000 curlews and 38,000 to 40,000 redshank—the godwit does not breed in the United Kingdom.

Before the debate in another place the matter had been referred to the advisory committees on the protection of birds in England and Scotland. Neither committee could recommend protection on grounds of conservation. That is important when we are considering whether birds should be added to protection or quarry schedules. There must be reason and there must be a principle running through the decisions which are made.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I have never shot a redshank or a curlew, and I never intend to. Some skilled wildfowlers—wildfowlers by and large are extremely skilled shots, know what they are doing, and know their bird recognition—wish to do so and have done so for generations. As has been said, at certain stages of the season, particularly in early autumn, they are good eating. Therefore, judging from the figures, there is no reason to say that for conservation reasons one should put those two waders—the curlew and the redshank—on the protected list. However, their Lordships had a short debate and put all three birds on the protected list.

In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) moved an amendment to replace the three birds on the quarry list. In reply to an interesting debate, I proposed that, because the godwit breeds outwith our shores and therefore we have no control over the conservation of breeding grounds, we should follow their Lordships' wish, but that, for the reasons which I have given in my speech and in Committee, the redshank and curlew should return to the quarry list. That was accepted by the Committee and there was no vote. That issue was not debated on Report in this House. Surely the rights of the House of Commons should be given as much consideration as the rights of another place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about that.

After the Bill left the House and returned to another place, their Lordships put down amendment to place the two birds in question—let us not forget that the godwit is not part of that deliberation—on the protected list. I regret that the arguments were ones of sentiment and not of conservation. I agree with him that all birds are attractive to look at. It is no use saying that the godwit is more attractive than, for example, the cock pheasant, the partridge, or the blackcock or many other birds which are on the game or quarry list. Therefore, it was right that their Lordships stuck to conservation reasons alone and did not change their tack to reasons of sentiment, as they did in earlier debates. The removal of the godwit was significant because the majority, which in the first instance was 51, was reduced to 19, in a House numbering only 105.

The Wildfowlers Association of Great Britain and Ireland—now the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—and the British Field Sports Society feel that they have been let down, because the view of the House of Commons has not prevailed. As I said, we are in an impossible position. If we ask the other place whether it really wishes to persist with the amendment, the Bill will be placed in jeopardy, and I am the last person to wish that to happen.

6 pm

In considering this important Bill I set out with the principle that we should improve conservation and protection. For field sports that principle was that conservation must be all important. At this final stage, the principle that I set out to achieve has gone by the board. Therefore, the words that I have from time to time uttered on this subject will not be fulfilled in their entirety. Because of the timing and the practicalities involved, I must make clear my view on how this issue has been handled in the other place. The measure was always supported by my noble Friend Lord Avon, but, regrettably, it was lost in the other place.

If further protection measures are introduced—and they will be as evolution in bird protection proceeds—I hope that we shall always bear in mind that principles are as important as other mechanical means of obtaining protection, such as those of the Division Lobbies. I am sad about this one aspect of the Bill, but in other respects I am more than delighted that the tremendous step forward represented by the Bill—and supported by Europe and Britain—will be enacted tomorrow. It will immensely enhance conservation and protection in Great Britain.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), which have been echoed on both sides of the Chamber. We are pleased to have the benefit of my hon. Friend's advice. As we learnt in Committee, his advice is usually full of good, sound, common sense.

I agree with the criticisms levied by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball), and to a lesser extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who, naturally, chose his words carefully. The House is in an invidious position. As Opposition Members have said, there are many important matters before the country, and that makes one wonder how many members of the public would regard it as right to be discussing this measure. In addition to the threatened strike at British Leyland and the IRA bombs, there are many other important matters to discuss.

The last straw is that the House is not only discussing such relatively trivial matters, but cannot reject the provision because the other place is not sitting. That is intolerable. I cannot understand how the other place can engage in such brinkmanship on a Bill of such magnitude and importance. The Bill has been carefully prepared and thought out. For years before its introduction consultations were carried out with all the different bodies and a consensus was reached. I cannot understand how, at this late stage, the other place can be so rash and foolhardy as to prejudice the whole Bill. It is doing so for the sake of 18 or 20 amendments, none of which—with the exception of this amendment—is of any consequence.

For purely sentimental reasons the amendment seeks to pursue something that the House, in a democratic way in Committee, considered and rejected. No hon. Member can disagree with the analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough put forward when he said that we had no alternative but to accept the amendments. The Bill is a credit to the Government and, in particular, to the careful way in which Ministers have listened to various opinions. The Bill is a monument to their achievement. No sensible Conservative Member could do anything but reluctantly accept the Lords amendments.

Mention has been made of the careful consultations carried out. We are playing for big stakes tonight, and whether the bird is a curlew or a redshank does not matter. Indeed, it is all the same whether the bird is a bar-tailed godwit or a dodo. We are playing for big stakes, because many people, particularly in the other place, believe that monumental progress has been made on the protection of sites of special scientific interest and moorlands and on the protection of plants by the new laws that have been introduced on wild and captive birds. The new marine nature reserves are inspiring. The Bill contains important provisions on public rights of way, with all that they entail. It is unthinkable that the Bill should be imperiled simply for the sake of a couple of minor species, such as the curlew and the redshank.

According to its manifesto it is part of the Labour Party's official policy that hunting, coursing and shooting for sport should be banned. The Bill is part of that battle, and the sooner that is recognised, the better.

In Committee and in the other place vigorous discussion took place. Labour Members launched several attacks on all forms of shooting. They sought to ban certain forms of wildfowling, to limit the woodcock shooting season, to reduce the snipe shooting season, to ban night-time shooting and, as I have said, to ban the Sunday shooting of wildfowl. In Committee we carefully considered the evidence relating to the population count of the curlew and the redshank.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to a governmental committee. Until recently he had the benefit of its advice, and, as he said, it advises the Government of the day of danger levels among the various species. The committee was originally a Home Office committee, but it was transferred to the Department of the Environment. It was originally known as the advisory committee on the protection of birds for England and Wales. When the committee was under the Home Office, there was a separate committee for Scotland. The committee is now called the Nature Conservancy Council advisory committee for Great Britain.

The committee considered whether there was a risk to the redshank and curlew. It was confirmed to me today by members of that committee that the conclusion was reached that on conservation grounds there was no need for protection. Those birds are adequately represented in population numbers. Surely that evidence must guide a sensible politician. We were guided by similar evidence in Committee. There was considerable discussion of the matter and figures were given of population numbers. Give or take a little, the analysis of population counts for the curlew and redshank are almost exact. Both birds are prolific breeders, both breed in Britain, and their wintering numbers are numerous.

What will happen if, after having been shot for many years—only a small cull is taken annually by wildfowlers on our foreshores—these birds are not culled? There is a real risk that some of the scarcer waders will have difficulty in maintaining their population levels. If the curlew and redshank are allowed to continue breeding unmolested—they are big, strong and aggressive birds—some of the smaller waders that are not numerous, such as the avocet in Suffolk, could find their existence at risk, because the total area of feeding grounds is limited and the total population of all waders that can be carried on those feeding grounds is limited. If these two birds are protected, the balance on our foreshores, as we know it today, could be endangered.

In Britain today about 2 million people enjoy the recreation of shooting, in one form or another. It is estimated that about 100,000 people gain a living thereby, directly or indirectly, either in arms and ammunition manufacture or in maintaining and keepering woods, fields and plantations. They carefully conserve and protect the remoter—some not so remote—parts of the country and keep them quiet for breeding purposes. In addition, the sport of shooting is a big foreign currency earner. These birds will continue to flourish only if quarry which is in abundance is harvested or shot during the open season.

There is nothing that hon. Members can do today but squeal and wriggle, because we cannot reject the amendments. We cannot imperil the progress of the Bill by insisting on our right to eradicate the amendments. If we follow the reckless attitude of the other place, we shall have much to answer for. When the Bill is enacted, even with these flaws, it will prove to be an edifice and a monument to the caring attitude of the Conservative Government towards our countryside.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and to my hon. Friends for their comments on the amendments. I know that there are deeply held convictions on both sides of the House and it is difficult to sum up effectively because those views and opinions have been deeply held for a long time.

Strange alliances are often struck in this establishment, and one of the more endearing memories that I shall have of this dying Session is that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) seem to have a certain similarity with those of the would-be aspirant for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in his revulsion of the House of Lords, which I do not wholly accept. We must remember that this legislation started in the House of Lords and thus has occupied a great part of this Session. Views and arguments have passed to and fro between the Houses, and we and the country have every reason to be grateful for the great knowledge that hon. Members have brought to bear on the subject. I respect their views.

I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), formerly the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who saw the Bill through most of its stages, alluded to the rights of the House of Commons. When legislation starts in another place, it is always difficult to know which House sees it as its Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Harborough (Mr. Farr) acknowledged that time is not on their side and that we have to bow to the two votes in another place, when well in excess of 100 peers were present on both sides, even though only between six and 12 took part in the debate.

6.15 pm

Mr. Dalyell: I shall treasure many memories of the passage of the Bill, among them being the virulent attack on Members of the other place by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball). If there were ever a proposition to do certain things to the other place, I should be extremely fascinated to see how the hon. Gentleman would vote.

That is a light-hearted note on which to end what has been a very long journey for many of us. I repeat that our interest does not stop here. We shall be monitoring point by point the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury.

Question put and agreed to.

The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:

Forward to