HL Deb 01 July 1969 vol 303 cc450-78

2.47 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL IN THE CHAIR.]

Clause 1 [Prohibited methods of killing seals]:

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out ("and 9") and insert (", 9 and (Duty of Minister in relation to fisheries)")

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will see that the Marshalled List of Amendments is headed by three drafting Amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Burton. followed by what is really the important thing; that is, a proposed new clause after Clause 9. I would respectfully suggest that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if the whole debate on the principle contained in the new clause were taken now when I move this first drafting Amendment. It is more usual to have a proposed new clause followed by consequential Amendments. These Amendments of mine may be described more as anticipatory Amendments, their proper name being, I believe, paving Amendments. If that suggestion is agreeable to your Lordships, I am sure that time will be saved.

There is no difference whatever of principle among those who are supporting this Bill; it is merely a question of how the principles contained in the Bill should best be applied. It is most unfortunate that the conservation of seals should necessarily include the culling of seals. As was made plain during the debate on Second Reading, this culling, at least in the case of the grey seal, is most efficaciously and humanely carried out by the clubbing of the infant seals on the rocks and skerries where they are born. Personally, the only thing that I can conceive as being more repellent than the clubbing of baby seals would be the clubbing of baby humans. But, unfortunately, it is something that has to be undertaken in some form or another if the grey seal population is not to go beyond all tolerable bounds.

Actually nature ensures that a high proportion of infant seals do not survive for very long. It appears that their parents desert them and force them to seek their own living before they are really fit to do so. But, even with that natural culling provision, there remains from year to year a steady surplus which gradually, and not so gradually later on, builds up until the grey seal becomes a menace to fishermen, affecting not merely the fishing of salmon with an angle, but also the fishing of salmon by nets, and the fishing of a good deal of white fish as well. It is not by any means solely a question of sport; it is a question of the livelihood of fishermen. The whole purpose of these Amendments and the new clause is to ensure that there should be, at the proper intervals, adequate culling of seals.

It has been asked, why should not this be done in the ordinary way, as under the Agricultural Acts, by informing the owner of the ground on which the seals breed that he must reduce their numbers? There is a very good answer to that question, and it is that one could not be sure that if the owner was recalcitrant he would not delay doing the necessary culling until such time—only about one month at the most in extent—as the baby seals had left the rocks. As we know, there have been, particularly in the case of the Farne Islands, such objections to the culling that such a procedure might very well arise. I have discussed the point with one of the Natural Environment Research Council people, and he tells me that the Council do not wish to have the last word in how many seals should be culled. They would prefer to give their advice—extremely expert and entirely disinterested advice—to the Minister concerned, be it the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and leave him to get on with the job.

Another point against expecting the landowner to do the culling is that he would not usually have at his disposal either the means of doing so or the skilled assassins who are necessary if the work is to be carried out in an expeditious and humane manner. I hope that there will not be any repetition of the suggestion that the National Trust, which has not in the past been as co-operative as it might have been over this matter—admirable body though it otherwise is—should in any way be placed in a different position from that of any other landowner, because if it were, it would mean that this culling could not take place expeditiously. Therefore the seal population would in a very few years—and, remember, a seal lives for twenty or thirty years, and can breed each year—be likely to be raised to such an extent that grave damage could be done to the fishing interests, and fishermen would be inclined to take the law into their own hands. It would mean bringing the law into contempt, which is always a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. With that brief beginning, I beg to move the first Amendment.

LORD BURTON

I know that some of your Lordships are worried about increasing the powers of the Minister to enter upon a person's ground. I would draw attention to the fact that the Minister or the Secretary of State at the moment has very similar powers in controlling other animals and pests. In particular, I would refer to rabbits and deer. What is now proposed would be a very small extension of those powers. I maintain that if this Bill is to go through, something on these lines—I would not say that the wording is correct, or that the way in which the Amendment is set out is entirely correct—is essential. If we are to have protection, we must have control. If we do not have control, then I am afraid it will be the end of the Bill; the whole thing would fall down.

My noble friend Lord Mansfield said that many young seals died through desertion by their mothers. Those would die of starvation. Seals build up very quickly an enormous amount of fat on which they can survive for some time.

I maintain that a quick blow with a club is a more humane method of controlling seals than allowing them to die of starvation. One thing worries me about this Amendment: one or two additional items would be necessary if we are to approve of something of this sort. There must be some limitation of the time for which an order can apply. The Minister should not be allowed to put an order down and go on for year in and year out. It must be for a period—one month, two months, or whatever it may be. Equally, anyone entering on any ground must carry with him an authority. Both those points ought to be written into the Bill.

There is one difficulty; namely, that under the present Agriculture Acts anyone entering land can do so over a certain period. That works all right with most land pests; but with seals the period during which culling can take place is very limited. It would possibly be only a month at the most—I refer entirely to grey seals. Consequently, the machinery applying to the Agriculture Acts, whereby notice is served on the owner to try to carry out remedial works and if he does not do so then the Minister comes in, would be difficult to apply in this case, because if the most humane methods of control are to be used it would mean waiting for a whole year before anything could be done. Then the owner, or whoever was going to do it for him, might take only half measures. Consequently, nearly two whole years could be lost before the Minister could enter. The machinery in the Agriculture Acts is probably not suitable so far as seals are concerned.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

I should like to endorse from this Bench what my two noble friends have said, and also emphasise that it is in the interests of seals that they be culled while they are young and babies, as has been said, as this is more humane and kinder to them. I would also endorse the point which my Party has always protected, and that is the rights of private individuals and private land and the ownership of property. We have always held that ownership of anything is subject to duties. If there is a pest on your land then we, as a Party, have always endorsed the view that the Minister or Secretary of State concerned must obviously have the power to deal with it. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies, to help the Farne Island National Trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked when we debated this subject last month, so that when the Secretary of State gives these orders to cull he will give as much evidence as possible as to why he is doing it. When the Secretary of State gives explanations, then all harm and ill-will is removed. With that, I beg to endorse what my noble friends have said.

LORD CHORLEY

I wonder whether we might hear what the sponsor of the Bill has to say. I want to make a speech about this matter. It is significant that this clause was not in the Bill as put forward at Second Reading. It is a very important additional clause. Obviously it is important we should know what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, thinks.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I can answer that question immediately. At the Second Reading, when this point was raised, I said I recognised that the omission of a clause like this was a fault in the Bill, and if a clause on these lines—although I must confess I do not like the actual wording of the clause as Lord Mansfield has moved it—were moved I should feel bound to accept it. If the noble Earl would be prepared to withdraw this clause so that we may come to some agreement on a clause with a similar objective but couched in different phrases, I shall be happy to accept such a clause.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

May I say a word in support of what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has just said? Speaking as Chairman of the Nature Conservancy and as a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, I may say that we should welcome and be perfectly happy with a clause of this nature. At the same time, I think nobody should be under any illusions: if the powers in this clause are used in the Farne Islands, where most of the trouble is, there will be criticism and a certain amount of trouble. Therefore it is extremely important, first of all, that the wording should be absolutely clear, and I think it would be a good idea if the noble Lords could consult together on a slight alteration of the wording. Secondly, if the Government of the day decide that they are going to exercise their right of access, they should always consult with both the N.E.R.C. and the National Trust before they do so. Prior consultation, and clarity of the Act, are essential conditions. Given those two conditions, the idea behind this clause is quite right.

3.0 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

I am very sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has taken up this position, because I had the impression from the form of his Bill, even after what he said on Second Reading, that he wanted to have it carried on the basis of good will rather than on the basis of legislative compulsion, which is in effect what he is now opting for. I hope your Lordships will reject this Amendment. The speech of the noble Earl who moved it was based mainly on the alleged destruction to salmon fisheries. It is a very interesting point and I should like to say just a word about it at the beginning. It is, if I may say so, typical of the complete vagueness of the case which is made in favour of this Bill. Practically no facts are ever produced. It is just said that the salmon fisheries, and nets in particular, are damaged by seals. No quantification of this is ever given.

It is interesting, as your Lordships have heard, that the culling of these pup seals on the Farne Islands for the experimental period came to an end some years ago because the National Trust were not satisfied with the evidence which had been put before them. So over the last two or three years there has not in fact been any culling, and undoubtedly the seal population of the Farne Islands has increased. There is some argument as to how much it has increased. I will say a word about that in a minute. But it is extraordinarily interesting, and I suggest a very significant fact in the context of this debate, that these last years have been the most successful years in the history of the salmon fisheries off the coast of Scotland.

A NOBLE LORD

Nonsense!

LORD CHORLEY

The official figures produced by the Ministry make it quite clear that 1967 (I think it was) was I record year. And the year before that, 1966, was only a little short of a record year. According to this argument, with the seal population on the Farne Islands increasing, the damage to the salmon fisheries ought to be stepped up and, instead of having record years, there ought to have been very obvious damage to the salmon fisheries. That just did not happen. This is typical of the lack of real scientific evidence. These people come before your Lordships and ask you to accept these vague accusations against the seals, because that is really what it comes to.

I thought I would deal with that argument first because it was the main point brought out by the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. He very candidly confessed on Second Reading that the salmon fisheries were an interest of his. Nobody blames him for it, but we expect to have rather better evidence produced than these uncorroborated statements. This evidence is one of the things which at the National Trust we have always been looking for and which we have never had. This has been typical of the way this case has been put up to us.

I said a good deal on Second Reading and explained to the best of my ability the position which the National Trust have taken up, and I do not want to go over all the ground again in detail. Shortly, the National Trust, as your Lordships by now know, own the Farne Islands, which are much the largest residences, so to speak, of the seal population, particularly of course of the grey seal population, of England. There are very many more grey seals at the Farne Islands than around the whole of the rest of the coast of England put together.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would suggest that he tries to obtain some scientific facts before he makes statements like that. In point of fact the noble Lord, Lord Howick, is responsible for an island off the North coast of Scotland——

LORD CHORLEY

I said England, not Scotland.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I apologise.

LORD CHORLEY

I quite appreciate that there are a lot of these grey seals off the North coast of Scotland. The National Trust of England are not concerned with the National Trust of Scotland, except that we are in very close amity with them. In this discussion to-day I am concerned with the seals on the Farne Islands, because, as I say, there are very many more seals on the Farne Islands than there are around the whole of the rest of the coast of England. If the noble Earl likes to contradict that, I am afraid that I cannot agree with him.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

It is some time since you have allowed us to count them.

LORD CHORLEY

The last estimate put before us at a meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture a year or two ago was 5,000. Since this trouble arose on the Farne Islands we have had an observer whose job is to watch these seals and to make various counts. It is quite obvious that the seal population has to some extent gone up, but I do not think anybody suggests that it is much more than 6,000, if as much as 6,000. The whole population of seals on the Farne Islands is only some 6,000—the population of a large village in England. And, I repeat, there are not this number of grey seals around the rest of the coast of England. That is what we are concerned with. I ask your Lordships to bear this in mind when you hear all this talk about terrible over-population and what this really quite small number of seals is supposed to be doing by way of depredation on the salmon and cod population around the coast of England.

The National Trust, if I may remind your Lordships, have the duty, placed upon them by the Act of Parliament which set them up and under which they operate, of protecting the fauna on their lands; and they intend to carry out the statutory duties put upon them by Parliament itself until Parliament decides otherwise and removes those duties from them. It is only right that they should do so. If this Amendment is carried, and the new clause is added to the Bill, it will in fact remove this duty of the National Trust in respect of the seal population of the Farne Islands, because it will transfer it to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Really this afternoon what your Lordships have to decide is whether this transfer should be made. I am going to suggest that it would be wrong in respect of the National Trust properties of the Farne Islands that this should be done. By all means do it around the coast of Scotland, and do it around the rest of the coast of England—although there is not very much point in doing it in respect of grey seals around the rest of the coast of England because so few of these seals are there.

First of all, of course, I agree with what has been said about the unsatisfactory nature of this new clause, and if it were passed to-day it would obviously be necessary to amend it a good deal at the next stage. The whole scheme of this Bill is concerned with the issuing of licences during the close period. There is nothing in this new clause about the close period or anything else of that kind. It has been spatchcocked into the Bill, which it really does not fit. That is just one of the points that stands out a mile. Incidentally, the clause places on the Minister himself the duty of carrying out this cull, which I suggest is most unusual. I am not saying that it is unconstitutional, but it is certainly very unusual in an Act of Parliament to put a direct duty of this kind upon a Minister of the Crown.

On an earlier occasion I said something about the history of this matter; and again I do not want to repeat that this afternoon. I made it clear from the start that the concern of the National Trust has been to get effective evidence on which they could act. The Minister came to us with some evidence in the first instance, and we acted on the basis of that evidence and agreed to the cull. Two things happened as a result. There was a tremendous outcry among all the people who go to look at these seals. Thousands of people go from all over the North of England—and many from the South of England, too—year by year, to watch these seals and enjoy the sight of them at play on the Farne Islands and feel that they should not be killed off. There is no doubt a deal of sentimentality about this matter, but one has to be responsive to the views of one's members; and, after all, the National Trust, with over 160,000 members, a very large organisation, is one of the largest voluntary organisations in the country.

But while a good deal of this opposition to the cull was no doubt based on sentiment, that was not by any means the only reason for stopping the cull. Many of the people who came to us and objected were naturalists of considerable standing, and, looking at the position as a whole, we went back to the Minister and said, "We are not going to agree to the cull until you produce some better evidence." I am not saying that the Minister did not take that seriously. I think he asked the Natural Environment Research Council to look at the matter and they obviously gave a good deal of thought to it. In fact there was a meeting, I think in March of last year, and I want to ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few minutes while I indicate what happened.

The meeting was held in order that the results of such inquiry and research as had been made by NERC might be assessed, and a number of conclusions were reached. I should like to indicate, as shortly as possible, what these are. Although they did not actually ask the National Trust to be represented at this meeting there was a member of the National Trust there, and the conclusions were in fact submitted to us. I think it would have been rather better if we had been directly asked to be there, because there is no other organisation or landowner in the country so closely concerned with this subject as the National Trust.

In the first place, the meeting found that the rate of growth of the grey seal population, measured simply by numbers of pups born in the Farne Islands, averages 8 per cent. per annum, and that if that rate were maintained the population would double in a period of nine years. They went on to say that very much further research is needed—and we were glad to hear that statement, because that has always been our point: that further research is needed to establish how the population changes and what their feeding habits are. But the Council went on to say that it would be unsound and dangerous to delay proper management measures on that account. That seems to me to be a wholly illogical conclusion to draw from the premise. If you feel that a great deal of further research is important, then surely it is dangerous to start taking action before the research is done. If we were to take action and then do the research afterwards, it might well demonstrate that what we had been doing was quite wrong. It seemed to be a strange conclusion for a scientific committee to come to.

Secondly, the increase in the number of pups born (from 658 in 1952 to 1.770 in 1967) has a serious effect on their chances of survival. Pup mortality is increasing at 13 per cent. annually, and the crowding of breeding seals has disturbed the ecological balance of the four Islands which are used by the seals for breeding. This again is most interesting because, as I mentioned a moment ago, since this trouble started we have had on the Farne Islands a watcher who is there whole time. His job is just to make counts, and he is quite satisfied that the mortality rate over the past two years has been 17 per cent., and that the figure of 13 per cent. is wrong. I am not arguing one way or the other what the effect is of the 17 per cent., as opposed to the 13 per cent., though it obviously affects the estimate as to the doubling of the population. It might be said that it shows that the situation is even more serious than was thought, because even with this higher mortality the Islands are still overcrowded. What I am saying is that this shows how dangerous it is to proceed on the basis of this inadequate research which has been carried out during the last two or three years by the Natural Environment Research Council.

There is a considerable difference between 13 per cent. and 17 per cent., and if our figure is right—and after all it is the figure of a man who is there all the time and whose job it is to do this count—it shows how very serious and unsatisfactory is the count on which the Natural Environment Research Council relied. It emphasises the point which the National Trust have been taking, that the material placed before them, on which they have been asked to give their authorisation for this cull, is quite inadequate. It really brings out the fact that the National Trust are being asked, and now we here as Parliamentarians in the legislative assembly are being asked, to take important action on the basis of similarly unsatisfactory material. Before we come to a decision on this Amendment I make that criticism of it: that NERC has not got adequate material. We have been warned time after time that experts should be on tap and not on top. At the end of the day, we have to say whether we are satisfied, and I am asking your Lordships to say that this material which has been placed before you is not material on which you could decide that this Amendment should be accepted.

I now return to the findings. The third one was: About one in three of young seals move from the Islands to feed in Scottish coastal waters where nets of salmon and cod are frequent; there is no indication of a marked movement of adults away from the Islands. The implication of this statement is that these young seals go off and destroy the salmon fisheries, but it is interesting to note that it is only a small fraction of the young seals who move away from the Islands, and therefore such damage as is attributable to the seal population is attributable only to a fairly small fraction of the young seals. This is the sort of scientific evidence on which we are being asked to pass this Amendment.

Then I come to the fourth finding: The estimated consumption of, or damage to fish of all kinds by seals around the British Isles is not quantified …"— one cannot say how much it is. The Council went on, rather inconsequentially, to say: The seal is the definitive host of a parasite of which the immature stages are found in cod; this parasite (cod lung worm) is harmless to humans. I am not at all clear what the implication of this statement is supposed to be. Is it that if one keeps down the seal population the cod fisheries will be safer; or possibly the other way round: that it is the cod which are affecting the seals? But surely we are not going to destroy a large number of seals because they get infected from the cod fish in the sea where they get their food.

The next finding was: Management of stocks in the interest of scientific research, fisheries and visitors is an essential part of enlightened conservation practice for animal sanctuaries. That, of course, we accept. The only question is the amount of management; and that raises the question as to whether the seal population is in fact much too large. The next statement was: Scientific facts about seals and the effect on the fisheries of uncontrolled growth, with no natural or human enemies, must be put before the public. We appreciated that statement very much, because it is obvious that there is a tremendous public interest in this problem. But I do not know that any steps have been taken at all to carry through that conclusion, which, after all, was put up to the Minister of Agriculture well over twelve months ago. We have not seen any signs of this educative programme.

The Minister did not ask us to discuss this document with him until, I think, the beginning of October last. My Chairman, Lord Antrim, had informed the Minister at a much earlier stage that as a result of the way in which the matter had been raised at the annual meeting of the National Trust in 1965, he had given an undertaking that we would not change our position without giving an annual meeting an opportunity to discuss the matter. And the Minister must have known, or if he did not he could easily have found out, that the annual meeting of the National Trust was going to take place in November. Obviously, when you have to call the annual meeting of an organisation like the National Trust with 160,000 members, if the meeting is going to be in November, you must know a good deal earlier than October what you have to put before it. And yet the Minister did not come to us; so we could not put it before our annual meeting.

The cost of circulating a special notice of this kind to the annual meeting, even if you could get it done, would be tremendously high. I do not know whether the Minister expected us to do this, but it would not take long for any reasonable person to realise that it put us in an impossible position. We did not put the matter before the meeting. If the large number who had not come to the meeting but had of course received this promise had later learned that it had been sprung on the annual meeting without notice, obviously they would have had a very real grievance.

The Executive Committee, however, at its December meeting, considered the matter which had been put up by the Minister, and instructed the Chairman to inform the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the Trust, first, could not agree that the killing should be resumed, and secondly, sought an assurance that the Conservation of Seals Bill—which was, of course, the earlier version of this Bill—if introduced in the form it took in the last Session, would not be enacted so as to permit killing without, in the case of the Fames at any rate, the consent of the Trust. This was sent to the Minister—whether the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had it passed to him I do not know—but we heard nothing more about it, and no attempt was made to discuss the matter with us at the National Trust. The Bill was brought in again and has been passing through its stages, as your Lordships know.

I suggest to your Lordships that this is a completely unsatisfactory way of handling a situation like this and that the case for what is proposed has not yet been made out. If it is made out to the satisfaction of Parliament and Parliament accepts it and puts the law into that state, of course the National Trust will accept the decision; but we suggest that there is not the material before Parliament at the moment on which this decision should be reached. And seeing that it is undoubtedly the fact that so far as the grey seal population of England is concerned the English National Trust is almost entirely responsible for them, I suggest that the simplest thing to do is to cut National Trust seals out of the Bill altogether and let us argue it out with the Minister.

We have in the past given the Minister the power to cull on the basis that the case was made out for it. When it appeared that it was not made out, any one of your Lordships who had been present on that occasion, as I was, would have agreed that such permission ought not to be renewed until satisfactory evidence had been produced before us. I have suggested to your Lordships this afternoon various ways in which this evidence is unsatisfactory. If satisfactory evidence can be put before us, we will immediately go back to our annual meeting and say, "We are now satisfied that effective evidence has been produced and we ask you to approve of our resuming negotiations with the Minister of Agriculture and coming to an arrangement with him under which proper culling can be carried through". That should be done instead of our having the provision in the proposed new clause in this Bill, which leaves the whole matter to the Minister and gives him powers to override the National Trust of England in this way. That, I suggest, is altogether wrong. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

3.25 p.m.

LORD POPPLEWELL

I have a great deal of sympathy with the dispute that my noble friend Lord Chorley and the National Trust have with the Government in not being taken into consideration. I am not a research man and I have not the particulars available. But I do know of the depredations taking place among the salmon on the Northumberland coast in the Boulmer area and the Seahouses area by these grey seals. From a practical point of view, there is an overwhelming case, whether it be scientifically based or otherwise, for this culling to be taking place. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that the mortality rate is in dispute, whether it is 17 or 13 per cent., but I think the figures also show that there was a birth rate of something like 650-odd from a certain date to over 1,700 now in a very few years. He went on to say that these seals leave the Farne Islands and go off to Scotland and elsewhere. From practical experience I can tell him that a tremendous number of these seals still remain round the Farne Islands and on the Northumberland coast and do a tremendous amount of damage to the detriment of the Boulmer and Seahouses fishermen who have practical experience of being among them and seeing them.

Therefore, while I appreciate the very human approach of my noble friend Lord Chorley in this matter, we all know that there is difficulty as regards these culling processes. From a humanitarian point of view no one likes doing this, but what is the best method? So far as science has been able to help, this is the most effective and the most humane method of keeping these seals down to reasonable proportions. As I say, I appreciate my noble friend Lord Chorley's approach. I understand and appreciate his vendetta with the Government over the National Trust not being taken into consideration, but making all allowance for that I do not think that that should in any way mitigate against this clause being inserted in the Bill.

3.28 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

I had hoped that we could discuss this important matter without having a Second Reading debate and that it would not be necessary for me to make a long speech. But a number of points have been raised and there have been quite a number of inaccurate statements, and I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I deal with them. My noble friend Lord Chorley said that he understood that this Bill and the discussions on it were to be conducted on the basis of good will and not on the basis of legislative compulsion. But all Acts of Parliament involve somewhere or other legislative compulsion.

LORD CHORLEY

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I said that it would be very much better if the discussions could be conducted on the basis of good will and not on the basis of Acts of Parliament.

LORD STONHAM

When my noble friend reads Hansard, he will see that he said that it should not be on the basis of legislative compulsion. I wrote it down. The rather wicked thought occurred to me that all Acts of Parliament involve legislative compulsion.

I noticed that the mover of the Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that he was almost as reluctant to kill a baby seal as a baby human, and this struck me very much as my own feelings in the matter. I am painfully conscious of the fact that any Minister who deals with any Bill affecting animals is a loser from the start; whatever he says and whichever way he goes he is bound to be the subject of virulent and indeed threatening correspondence; but it still behoves us to speak the truth as we see it.

I want first of all, therefore, to deal with some of the things my noble friend Lord Chorley said. He made a great point (although I thought this was rather a red herring, if I can mention red herrings in relation to salmon) that 1967 was a good year. Of course it was. But he neglected to say that 1968 was a bad year for salmon, and that 1969 looks like being even worse. You cannot just settle these matters on catches which, as everyone knows, fluctuate from year to year, for a variety of reasons, and it is not possible to quantify the effect of any one factor.

My noble friend said that we have not had any evidence. Well, I myself gave estimates on Second Reading, and last year when we had this Bill I gave estimates as well. I will give them again. The damage to the salmon fish industry is estimated at between £50,000 and £100,000 per annum. It has been estimated that seals eat 100,000 tons of fish per annum, and the infestation of cod by worms can obviously affect the saleability of the fish and therefore the income of fishermen. All these facts have been published in scientific papers available to the National Trust. My noble friend said that if we can give conclusive evidence, then of course the National Trust will withdraw its objection. We are trying to do that. But if evidence about consumption by seals means putting a sort of "catchometer" on every seal and recording every fish that it has caught, I would point out that you cannot collect evidence like that. You must have estimates.

In my speech in the Second Reading debate I drew attention to the need for some provision in the Bill for powers of access, to enable seals to be counted and observed for research purposes, and destroyed in the interests of management and fisheries protection. The whole purpose of this Bill is the control and the protection of seals from human and other enemies, and indeed protection in the sense of over-proliferation of the seals themselves. This is the object of the noble Earl's Bill; and of course at some stage, somewhere, it must involve culling.

That is why I said that we thought that it would be necessary to have access to land, and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, support this view when he said that he thought the Bill was in the interests of seals and that his Party had always thought that the ownership of anything was subject to certain duties, and obviously he would regard it as a duty to provide the Secretary of State with powers of access. So at least the Government and the Opposition Front Bench are in agreement on this main point.

My noble friend Lord Chorley spoke about the meeting which was held in March, 1968, a meeting presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Howick. My noble friend said that the National Trust were not invited to that meeting. That is not true. He admitted that members of the National Trust were present. But what happened was this. It is true that it was an informal meeting of scientists who were called together on the initiative of the noble Lord and of the N.E.R.C. to review the facts. The proposal to have such a meeting was made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the N.E.R.C., and it was made to the Chairman of the National Trust. So much for being asked or not being asked. The National Trust accepted, and scientific members of the National Trust were present at that meeting; but it is fair for me to say that they were present as individual scientists who were members of the National Trust, rather than as Trust representatives. But what did this high-powered and high-principled meeting do? They were not a collection of bloodthirsty cut-throats, determined to annihilate the species, or to do something of that kind. They met there to ascertain the facts and to advise the Government on the basis of those facts.

After considering all the available scientific evidence at that meeting they issued a Report. The Report was not contested by the members of the National Trust who were present and who participated, and that Report made it clear that substantial damage is done to fisheries, both salmon and marine, by damage to gear, loss of fish as a result of damaged gear, fish eaten within nets, fish mutilated within nets, fish diverted from the netting area by the presence of seals, depredations on fish elsewhere directly depleting stocks and the spawning complement, and the spread of parasitic worms.

That was what was agreed, and it has not been disputed. It is not possible to quantify precisely the effects on fisheries, but the Report concluded with these words: It is recognised that where sanctuaries for wild animals are established management of stocks is an essential part of any enlightened conservation practice. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that a large, mobile and rapidly multiplying animal such as the grey seal, with few, if any, enemies can exist on the Fames in vacuo and without having a major impact upon the environment for some considerable distance; although there is some doubt about many scientific questions relating to grey seals. It would be unsound and dangerous to insist on undue precision before deciding on management measures. My noble friend now says, "Let the Government produce better evidence", and that the Trust says, "There is far more need for more research." We are agreed about that; but the Trust has not been very helpful in this respect. Is my noble friend aware that they recently denied access to Dr. Peter Young of the N.E.R.C. Fisheries Helminthology Unit for the purpose of getting seal stomach samples to assess the parasitation level? If you want more research, at least you must help us to conduct the research.

Virtually all that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, are asking in their new clause is to have power placed in the hands of the Minister to have access for the purpose of counting and other purposes—for investigation, for research and, if it comes to it, for culling. The Government think that this is reasonable and right, and agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield in so far as his purpose is concerned. But may I put it to him that although we like the music we do not entirely agree with the words, for one or two reasons. First, the noble Earl's proposal appears to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to make orders to provide for seal culls, whereas this would not otherwise be necessary under the main provisions of the Bill. Secondly, the clause duplicates a provision which is already made in Clause 9, to licence the killing of seals in the close season and in areas of full protection, and to specify methods to be used. Thirdly, it implies that the killing of seals outside the close season for the purposes of fisheries protection will be subject to restriction which the Bill does not otherwise impose.

I want to end on this note. Of course we, like everyone else in the country, respect enormously the National Trust, and we admire the great work that it does for the entire population. It is the height of absurdity, it is abject nonsense, to suggest that we would not at all times consult them and pay the greatest possible respect to their advice and their wishes. But I hope from what I have said they will realise that on this issue it is for them to move a bit towards us; and when we are talking about good will, let us have good will all round, as this is quite essential. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked for an assurance that the Secretary of State would at all times when these powers were to be used give as much evidence of need as possible. Of course we will; but again we want the National Trust to cooperate with us in very often providing at least a part of this evidence. That seems reasonable enough. I would ask the noble Earl whether he and his noble friend would withdraw their Amendments on the understanding that I will do my best to assist him to produce for Report stage a provision more capable of general acceptance and agreement but which would nevertheless embody what I think at least the great majority on all sides of the Committee wish to achieve.

3.41 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

Just before my noble friend replies, I wonder if I might repeat a suggestion that has been made already from the Cross Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale. I speak as one who served on the Executive Committee of the National Trust for very many years but not in the last year or two. What I should like to make clear to the Committee is that the National Trust through all the years I have known it has been very eager to do what is required in the public interest, though sometimes there has been an honest difference of opinion, as here, as to the conclusion to which the scientific evidence led. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has reminded the Committee of certain statutory duties of the National Trust. What I should like to suggest, since admittedly the new clause on the Paper to-day will not quite do, is that in framing what will be brought before the House at the next stage the Government should have the utmost consultation not only with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the sponsor of this Bill, but also with the National Trust. If any quarrel still remains, I cannot say whether there will then be a fight or not, but at least we shall have made every effort to secure co-operation where co-operation is so eminently desirable.

LORD STONHAM

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would willingly grant that assurance, but our difficulty at the moment is that the National Trust have not yet conceded the principle of access. While we should be delighted to enter into discussions with them on matters of detail, at least it presupposes that they will concede the principle of access or the power of the Secretary of State to have access in certain circumstances.

LORD CONESFORD

Obviously I cannot answer that. I should have thought that the consultation could be without prejudice to what should be said to the House at a later stage. If they are not prepared to concede the principle, as the noble Lord says, it may be because they are very conscious of their duties under the Acts under which they operate. I hope it will not be assumed by anybody in this Committee that, if the National Trust stand out on a point of principle, that principle is not bona fide based on their conception of their duty.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

May I just say one point on this question, because this afternoon we have concentrated almost entirely on the National Trust? Although the Trust have the major seal population in England, it is quite a small proportion of the grey seal population of the British Isles. In point of fact, the damage which the seals of the National Trust do is very largely in Scotland, and you cannot divorce England from Scotland in this way. I think also you cannot divorce the National Trust from other owners, because grey seal colonies exist on a great many islands and places up and down our coasts, all of which are private property. I should not think there is a single island on which seals pup which does not belong to somebody. I made provision in the Bill—and the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, and I crossed swords a little on it at Second Reading—that N.E.R.C. itself should not have control over the nature reserves for which it was responsible but that the responsibilty so far as fisheries were concerned should remain with the Minister. It is important to remember that it is not only the National Trust which is involved here, it is N.E.R.C. and all our nature reserves, and a very large number of private landowners on whose land the Minister will have the right to enter if a clause of this sort is passed—and I think quite rightly, I must confess.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

May I add a word to that? So far as the nature reserves are concerned I think the Nature Conservancy and N.E.R.C. would both accept the proposition that the final say must he with the Government. In the end, the question is always the same: how to reconcile conservation of seals, on the one side, and the fishing interests, on the other? All we do say is that before the Government exercise their powers they should consult fully not only with the scientists in the Ministry but also with the other scientists in N.E.R.C.

LORD BURTON

It seems to be very difficult to reconcile the attitude of the National Trust in England to seals and the attitude of the National Trust of Scotland when they call on the official body and ask it to control deer on their behalf. It seems to be entirely inconsistent when we find these two animals being treated in entirely different ways by the National Trusts.

LORD CHORLEY

The National Trust of Scotland are an entirely different body. They have different problems, and deal with them in their own way, through their own committee. It would therefore be quite wrong for us to interfere with them, and equally wrong for them to interfere with us. However, I did not rise to say that. I want to make two points, one in reply to my noble friend the Minister who has, in effect, asked the National Trust to concede the point of principle and then to discuss details. He overlooked the fact, which is very well known to the Ministry of Agriculture, that my Chairman gave a solemn pledge to the annual general meeting of the National Trust in 1965 that the members would be consulted again before any definite decision on this point was taken. So until the next annual general meeting in November it would obviously be morally wrong for the National Trust to make any such concession on the question of principle.

The other point I want to make arises out of the suggestion by the Minister that the National Trust have been completely unco-operative in regard to research and all that sort of thing. But here he is speaking for a Department of which he is not a member, and he does not know the situation as well as I do. The National Trust have been doing their best over these last years to make available all the material which they have. I have not heard about this zoologist who seems to have been refused permission to land on the Farne Islands. There is probably some quite simple explanation—there generally is in this type of case—but I will make it my personal business to find out about this matter, and I can assure the Minister, and Lord Cranbrook and Lord Mansfield, and everybody else in the Committee, that we are most anxious to do our best to further research into these problems and will certainly place all our resources in this matter at the disposal of NERC—I do not like the expression "NERC", but it is easier to remember. I hope that that is clear that we certainly have not been adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude about research. It is something that we have wanted all the time, and I have never risen on this Bill without making that clear.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It will not, I think, come as a surprise to your Lordships to learn that at the conclusion of the few remarks which I shall now have to make I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in view of the very satisfactory assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has given; that is, that he, in consultation with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will devise something which will be satisfactory to all concerned. I shall leave them to get on with that in due course, and I certainly do not wish to be drawn into the negotiations. I am quite happy to leave it to them. As regards the allegedly unsatisfactory nature of the Amendments, I may say that, although normally I personally draft all the Questions which I put down in your Lordships' House, I did not feel that on this occasion my capabilities were in any way up to the task, and the Amendments were drafted by persons of the greatest possible Parliamentary skill. So much for that. But it is very satisfactory that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is prepared to accept the principle.

I should now like for a few moments to deal with the rambling and irrelevant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Let me assure him that I have the utmost respect for the National Trust, and I am a life member of its corresponding body in Scotland. But if one were to accept the thesis which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is putting forward, then two points must emerge: first, that the National Trust is seeking to put itself above the law; and, secondly, that the National Trust is utterly indifferent to the interests of the fishermen of the Farne Islands. There is no question about that. The noble Lord gave figures about salmon which have already been refuted by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. But one cannot take one or two isolated instances; and even the cases which he took were by no means accurate. To judge from what Lord Chorley said, one would think that what was being demanded was the complete and utter massacre of all grey seals everywhere. All that is being asked for in these Amendments is that the Government should have power to order the destruction of an adequate number.

LORD CHORLEY

I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw that remark. I used the word "culling", and anybody who knows anything about this knows that a cull is to take a certain number of seals. To equate "cull" with "massacre" is certainly unfair to me, and I should have thought the noble Earl would have withdrawn that remark.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I do not think it is necessary to reply to that last observation. What I am saying is that all that is being asked for is that the power to cull seals should be taken, after consultation with the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy, both bodies of the utmost responsibility. If they, after making the close investigations which I have no doubt they would make into the matter, were to decide that no culling was necessary, then of course that would be accepted by the fishing interests. But to suggest that any attempt is to be made to override wildly the rights of everyone, including landowners, is pathetic.

The Deer Commission have power to order owners to kill whatever number of deer on their land the Commission think fit, and if it is not done the official deer-stalkers of the Commission can go in and do the work and charge the cost to the landowner. There is no earthly reason why that should not be done also in the case of the grey seal, save for the one important proviso that I have already mentioned: that at the time one found that the National Trust—or indeed anyone else—was not carrying out its duty it would be too late for any culling to take place that year. All we are asking is to have the power, after proper and thorough investigation by im- partial scientific bodies, and I do not think that that is an unreasonable demand. As I have said, I am quite happy to leave the matter to discussions between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I accordingly beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Apprehension of offenders and powers of search and seizure]:

3.55 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 12, at the beginning insert ("without warrant").

The noble Earl said: Clause 4 provides that a constable may arrest a person whom he suspects to be committing an offence, and it is implicit that he may do so without a warrant. But I understand that it must be made clear that he can arrest without a warrant, and that is the purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 19, after ("sell") insert ("or otherwise dispose of").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that a constable may sell any seal that is seized, but one wonders what would be the result if a constable were unable to sell a seal, particularly in very hot weather. This Amendment provides that he can "otherwise dispose of", it, in order to cater for an occurrence of that nature. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

Would the noble Earl agree that his next Amendment, No. 6, is on exactly the same point? Since Nos. 5 and 6 go together, we need not have a further discussion.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Yes, Amendment No. 6 is consequential.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, leave out ("the") the second time where is occurs and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

Jurisdiction of courts

". Where any offence against this Act is committed at some place on the sea coast or at sea outside the area of any commission of the peace, the place of the commission of the offence shall, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of any court, be deemed to be any place where the offender is found or to which he is first brought after the commission of the offence."

The noble Earl said: I understand that the jurisdiction of petty sessional divisions does not extend out to sea, on to sandbanks and the like, and were it not so late one could speculate endlessly on the fun one might have on a sandbank with no petty sessional division available to try one, if caught. It is quite obvious that people who shoot seals on sandbanks should be prosecuted under this Bill, and this new clause is intended to provide that they may be. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Attempt to commit offence]:

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 36, leave out ("prohibited firearm or prohibited ammunition") and insert ("firearm or ammunition the use of which is prohibited by subsection (1)(b) of section 1 of this Act").

The noble Earl said: The word "prohibited" is not defined in this Bill, but "prohibited firearm" and "prohibited ammunition" are, in fact, defined in the Firearms Act 1968, and it seems better to prevent any misunderstanding by inserting this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Power to grant licences]:

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 3, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 44 and insert— ("(3) The Secretary of State—

  1. (a) shall consult the Natural Environment Research Council before granting a licence under this Act; and
  2. (b) except in relation to the prevention of damage to fisheries,").

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to meet the case which was raised by my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale on Second Reading and to which I referred when we were discussing access. It provides that in every case the Secretary of State will consult with the Natural Environment Research Council, and will not, save in relation to the prevention of damage to fisheries, do anything on a nature reserve without the consent of the Council. I referred to it in the discussion on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this meets the case which he raised. I beg to move.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

I must be rather dense. I do not entirely follow this.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

In effect, the Bill says that the Secretary of State need not consult the Natural Environment Research Council in the case of damage to fisheries. It now provides that in every case he shall consult with the Council, and leaves him free to order action on a nature reserve only after consultation with the Council, but without their consent. I think that the Council would agree, particularly in view of the discussions we had earlier on the question of access, that they could not expect to be treated differently from any other individual so far as their property was concerned. If your Lordships do not accept the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will undoubtedly move at the next stage of the Bill, I think it is possible that the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches will wish to move an Amendment deleting this clause, which I should find it difficult to resist.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

This, I understand, is what the Natural Environment Research Council would like—exactly in this form.

LORD HOWICK of GLENDALE

I am sorry to be dense on this matter. My point is solely this. I think that before the Minister orders a cull, either in a nature reserve or outside it, he should consult with the N.E.R.C. Will that now be necessary?

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

That is what the Amendment says.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

Quite regardless of what it says on access?

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Yes.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

I am grateful to the noble Earl.

LORD STONHAM

I think I had better be absolutely clear about this and say conclusively that the effect of this Amendment is to make it mandatory, compulsory, on the Secretary of State to consult the Natural Environment Research Council before issuing a licence for any purpose provided for in the Bill—including, of course, the prevention of damage to fisheries.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Duty of the Council]:

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 5, after ("provide") insert ("the Secretary of State with").

The noble Earl said: Clause 10 provides that the Council should provide scientific advice. It was not intended that it should be under an obligation to provide scientific advice to all and sundry so far as seals are concerned, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

I think I should just say that this Amendment does not mean that the Council will not be able to offer advice to any other interested party, but removes any statutory obligation they might otherwise have had to give such advice to all comers.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 29, leave out ("Protection") and insert ("Conservation").

The noble Earl said: I must apologise to your Lordships for having to put this Amendment down. During the course of the consultations that took place before I produced it, at one period this Bill changed its name. I angrily changed the Title back but omitted to change this clause, for which I must apologise to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

May I make one final point which I must apologise for not having made at the right time? It is on Clause 2. The N.E.R.C. would be very grateful if the Government will consider again the period for the close season for common seals. At the moment it is two months, June and July. Members of the Council think it should really be June and July plus August. If the Government would give consideration to that point we should be very grateful. I should have raised it earlier, and I apologise.

LORD STONHAM

Of course, this is Lord Cranbrook's Bill and it is a matter for him. But certainly I will look at the point, as it has now been raised, with the noble Earl, although I am bound to say that the dates written in the Bill are as a result of consultation and as a result of advice that we received. But if the noble Lord and his Council think that it should be looked at again, of course we shall do that between now and Report stage.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I can fairly say that I am surprised that I was given the information that I was given and now find that I was given the wrong information.

LORD HOWICK OF GLENDALE

It was a case of second thoughts.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.