§ '—(1) The Ministers shall from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of interests concerned—
- (a) prepare and issue codes containing such recommendations, advice and information they consider proper for the purpose of providing practical guidance on the release of substances for the purpose of securing safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests on land used for agriculture or sporting purposes; and
- (b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.
§ (2) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (1) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.
§ (3) Subject to subsection (2), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such prices as the Ministers may determine.
§ (4) In this section "the Ministers" in the application of this section to England, means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, means the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MorleyI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The intention behind the new clause is to introduce a code of conduct on the use of pesticides on various forms of estates, both sporting estates and farms. We need a code of conduct in the Bill because, without doubt, there has been widespread abuse of pesticides, rodenticides and insecticides by a minority of people who kill protected species of birds of prey.
The group involved fall into two categories. The first comprises farmers who deliberately set out to kill pest species, such as corvids, various types of carrion crows and foxes, by illegal means. They do so by putting down eggs that have been injected with poison or by putting poison on various forms of carrion that they know crows and foxes will eat. The trouble is that the poison is eaten not just by crows and foxes but by protected birds. These incidents have occurred in Wales and led to the death of red kites.
The second category involves a much more sinister misuse, which I should like the code of conduct to cover in particular. It takes place particularly in Scotland. Eighty per cent. of this abuse occurs on sporting estates, and the poisons are used for the control of pests as well, but in this case the other target is deliberate. The poison is used in a calculating way and it is aimed at protected birds of prey, such as merlin, sparrowhawks, hen harriers, golden eagles and buzzards, with those involved knowing full well that the consequences of their action will be the death of these protected species.
As a sign of the dramatic impact of this abuse, I should like to point out that some species, such as the buzzard, do not exist in England and Scotland in habitats where in normal circumstances one would expect to find them. The red kite is restricted to about 50 pairs, mainly in central Wales. At one time, they occurred throughout this country. Hon. Members who have been on holiday in central France will have found that the red kite is widespread throughout France, as is the black kite. There is no reason why red kites should not be as widespread in this country if they did not suffer from persecution.
White-tailed eagles were exterminated in this country but have recently been reintroduced in a programme carried out in conjunction with the NCC and RSPB. Some of those birds have been found poisoned. The same is true of the hen harrier, which does not exist in large areas of suitable moorland habitat throughout England and 1115 Scotland. Britain contains significant numbers of the EEC's population of species such as the hen harrier, but the numbers are decreasing.
The main chemicals used are alpha chloros and strychnine. The abuse of these chemicals is illegal under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and section 12 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Despite that, over the past nine years the incidence of illegal killings of birds of prey has been as follows: 30 golden eagles, 186 buzzards, 22 red kites, 5 hen harriers and 2 white-tailed eagles. In 1989 alone, 11 red kites out of a population of 50 pairs were found poisoned in Wales. Without doubt, the deaths were caused by hill farmers who were trying to control foxes and crows, but they did not use poison in a way that could be controlled. Its use was, of course, illegal.
In 1989, the NCC and RSPB released 11 red kites in Scotland and England as part of an experiment to find out whether the populations could be re-established. Within six months of release, two of the birds were found dead, both poisoned. The kites were fitted with radio transmitters so that their bodies could be traced. Autopsies showed beyond doubt that they had been deliberately poisoned.
In the game-rearing areas, particularly in Scotland, 80 per cent. of all poisoning incidents were on land used for sporting purposes. In the past three years alone, nearly 80 birds have been found poisoned on Scottish estates, including eight golden eagles, 28 buzzards, three peregrine falcons and two of the reintroduced red kites. Few successful prosecutions are made. It is often impossible to identify the offender. According to the latest figures, only 1.4 per cent. of all reported incidents go to court.
There are legitimate ways of controlling pests and predators—for example, by the use of crow traps and by controlling the breeding populations. I hope that the Government will accept the code and that it will be made widely available to landowners, and to associations and unions representing landowners, to encourage them to cease the destructive and illegal practice and to adopt acceptable and legal methods.
§ Mr. HunterI intervene to clear the point. I am chairman of the falconry committee of the British Field Sports Society. I seek clarification of the thesis that the hon. Gentleman has just propounded. I ask him to comment on the proposition that it is indeed the practice of field sports with regard to falconry to preserve and increase the number of those species of wild birds which are essential to the environment.
§ Mr. MorleyI am sure that those involved in falconry share my concern about protecting the species. I do not think there is any suggestion that people concerned with falconry have been involved in the abuse. Those involved are motivated by greed. People who manage grouse moors in particular want to maximise their revenue from bringing in people to shoot on the moors; so they want to increase the number of grouse. Pressure is put on gamekeepers to exterminate birds of prey which may reduce the number of grouse. That is completely unacceptable.
I can give a specific example on which I would be grateful for the Minister's comments. I understand that on the Buccleuch estate, which is administered by the Earl of 1116 Dalkeith although it is owned by the Duke of Buccleuch, a gamekeeper was sacked. He has given information about what was regarded as a standard practice on that estate of supplying keepers with pesticides and rodenticides, particularly alpha chloros, for use on bait, either laid down to kill birds of prey or used on carrion which was found as the keepers walked round the estate. The gamekeeper, Mr. Rodney Smith, claims that, in one year, over 300 birds of prey, mainly sparrowhawks and owls, were killed on the estate. He claims that a blind eye was turned to the abuse and that pressure is put on gamekeepers to break the law. Although that is strongly denied by the Earl of Dalkeith, I believe that some landowners condone the practice in private, although they condemn it in public. That undermines the credibility of landowners who manage their land responsibly and lawfully and who do their best to encourage nature conservation. However, many landowners, particularly in Scotland, have a deliberate policy of destroying illegally birds of prey.
The Earl of Dalkeith was put on the ruling council of the Nature Conservancy Council by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. That was a disgrace when the illegal slaughter of birds of prey has been taking place on an estate for which he has been responsible. He should resign, and the Minister should support me in that call.
§ Mr. HunterI do not quarrel substantially with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I wish him to put firmly on record what I believe he knows to be the case, that the British Field Sports Society has issued clear guidelines to all involved in shooting that they should not follow the practice which he condemns, and which I too condemn. I wish him to acknowledge that respectable authorities agree with him and accept the thesis which he propounds.
§ Mr. MorleyIn all fairness, I acknowledge that the British Field Sports Society has made that statement publicly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the actions of people who turn a blind eye to deliberate poisoning—or, even worse, encourage it—undermine the credibility of the whole field sports movement and the concept of sporting estates. As long as people do that, the whole sport will be discredited.
§ Mr. HunterI agree with the hon. Member.
§ 8.45
§ Mr. MorleyI am grateful for that support.
I support a code of conduct. I appeal to reputable landowners and to those who care about the environment and about conservation to stamp out illegal practices once and for all. There have been plenty of pious comments, but the slaughter still goes on. There are still vast parts of Scotland which do not contain certain species of birds of prey. If the code of conduct is not adequate, I will press for a change in the law to make landowners, as well as the people who put down the bait, responsible for poisoning incidents which take place on their land. Those who employ others to break the law must take their share of the blame. The code of conduct is a modest step in trying to curb odious and unacceptable practices. I hope that the Government will recognise the abuse and support me in my campaign.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) speaks on the subject with considerable knowledge and experience. I agree that there 1117 is a problem. I am sure that he recognises that it is entirely legitimate for farmers and landowners to seek to control pests and vermin, but it must be done in a way that does not lead to the poisoning, whether accidental or deliberate, of species that are not vermin.
I cannot comment knowledgeably or at first hand on the allegations that the hon. Gentleman repeated about the Buccleuch estate or Lord Dalkeith. I understand that the article to which he referred was unbalanced, and exaggerated the position in suggesting that hundreds of rare and protected birds were being shot or poisoned on the estate. The facts do not support that allegation. In any case Lord Dalkeith has, I understand, issued written instructions to his employees that that should not happen and that birds of prey on his land are to be respected.
It is more important to widen the debate to deal with general matters of policy. I remind the House that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is already an offence to set poison, or poisoned or stupefying substances, with the intention of causing bodily injury to any wild bird. Similarly, under section 11 of the Act, it is an offence to set poison in a way that is calculated to cause injury to any wild animal specified in schedule 6, which includes badgers, bats, wild cats, hedgehogs, pine martens, otters, polecats, shrews and red squirrels. So there is already widespread protection enforced by law under threat of penalty.
§ Mr. HunterI should like my hon. Friend to acknowledge the responsible attitude of the British Field Sports Society, that conservation and the promotion of bird game are identical. I should like him to note that, without that attitude being adopted by landowners and farmers, conservation would be infinitely the poorer.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryYes, I acknowledge that. Those who engage in field sports have the clearest possible self-interest in maintaining a wide diversity of species, including quarry species. It is interesting that people who are not normally well disposed towards field sports now acknowledge that stag hunting on Exmoor has probably led to the survival of red deer there, almost uniquely in England. Mr. Richard Course, who has been a Labour candidate and who was prominent in the League Against Cruel Sports, recently announced his conversion, acknowledging publicly that he has come round to the view that stag hunting on Exmoor has done much to preserve and protect red deer in that part of the country. That was a remarkable and brave statement—almost an admission—from someone who has spent many years pursuing the opposite point of view, and demonstrates that when the facts are investigated, they are often at variance with prejudice and misunderstanding.
§ Mr. MorleyI should not let that statement pass unchallenged. Red deer may well have been introduced to and preserved on Exmoor for the purpose of stag hunting, but that population can now be maintained and controlled without the need for stag hunting, which many people, including myself, find barbaric and odious.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI am not attempting to give my views, but simply want to pass on to the House the interesting observation of someone who has studied the matter and, up to now, held a contrary view. Mr. Course was firmly opposed to field sports in all forms, but it is now his opinion that, whereas the red deer have been hunted 1118 and shot almost to extinction in most other parts of England, they are thriving on Exmoor. He attributes that at least in part to the fact that those who hunt the red stag have a clear self-interest in ensuring the success arid survival of the species. I put that to the House without further comment.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI intervene only briefly because the League Against Cruel Sports is based in my constituency, and to observe that Mr. Course is no longer a member or employee of the league. The view that the Minister attributed to Mr. Course is not the view of the league, which continues to object to that practice and sport on the grounds that have just been set out by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Mr. Course is in the small minority of those who have held an anti-bloodsports view and who have changed that view. There are explanations for that, but it would not be proper to go into them in the House.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI am not in the least surprised to learn that Mr. Course is no longer a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, but his opinions and observations are no less valid for that.
The phrasing of new clause 27 closely follows part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, either by derivation or accident. That in itself demonstrates that the new clause is unnecessary because its provisions are already covered in separate legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe knows this, but I remind other hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food The origins of that committee date back to 1954, although has changed its name several times. The committee is now supported by four expert technical panels, one of which is the environmental panel. From time to time that panel publishes studies into the suspected poisoning of animals by pesticides.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI have listened to the Minister with great interest because he is repeating what was more or less said to the House when we considered the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the problem is that in the nine years since then, the levels of poisoning appear to have increased rather than decreased. It therefore appears that the present legislation is not working. Surely it is time that we changed the legislation to make it work and to stop those levels of poisoning.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe new clause calls for codes of practice, but they are already provided for in the present legislation. Moreover, the environmental panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has published useful facts and statistics on that matter. The panel supports at least some of the hon. Gentleman's observations. It is true that pesticides are misused—sometimes deliberately. That is highly regrettable and penalties are in place to attempt to deal with that. The Government are not complacent. We do not deny that such incidents occur.
Nevertheless, I invite the House to reject the new clause simply on the ground that it duplicates powers that are already available under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which, as I said, provides for codes of practice on the release of substances for controlling pests. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the 1119 Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to this debate and doubtless the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will take up the matter with him.
§ Mr. MorleyI am grateful to the Minister for his positive response and for his acknowledgement of the problem. I am aware of the code on pesticides that has just been published. It is a good code, but it is designed to deal with the spraying of pesticides more than with anything else. The new clause not only emphasises the relevant Acts, to which the Minister drew attention, but calls for positive codes of practice to assist those farmers who have a genuine pest control problem to deal with that problem in ways that are both acceptable and legal. That is a slightly different interpretation.
§ Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)rose—
§ Sir George Youngindicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIs the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seeking to ask leave to withdraw his new clause?
§ Mr. MorleyYes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.