Related
Recommended
Stuart Housden

Stuart Housden and Des Thompson remember a special contribution to nature conservation made by the late Tam Dalyell.

The many warm tributes to Tam Dalyell, who died on 26th January 2017, having been a Labour MP for 43 years, have not mentioned his important and strategic contributions to nature conservation policy and legislation.

During the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1980-81, Tam was indefatigable in tabling and arguing numerous amendments to ensure it emerged as an Act with real powers to protect species, habitats and the best sites for wildlife in Britain.  Arguably the single most effective piece of post-War nature conservation legislation in the UK, since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (The Nature Conservancy created and given responsibilities for site protection, advice and research for Great Britain; conferring on it and local authorities powers for the establishment and maintenance of nature reserves; and making provision for National Parks).

In the book Nature’s Conscience: the life and legacy of Derek Ratcliffe (2015), Stuart outlines the lead in to the Bill, and the appalling state of statutory protection for wildlife.  After an immense amount of political manoeuvring and hard work by the RSPB, WWF, other NGOs and some staff in the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was introduced (unusually) in the House of Lords on 25th November 1980.  What followed was an exceptional amount of debate and angst:  1,120 amendments were tabled (a record for the Lords), reduced to 560 for the Lords’ Committee Stage, which occupied 13 sitting days.  The Bill reached the House of Commons for its Second Reading, on 27th April 1981, with the then Secretary of State, Michael (now Baron) Heseltine MP, rising to his feet at 3.45 pm, remarking:

 “…The proceedings in the other place have been the subject of much comment. The length of time, the number of amendments and the depth of feelings have added to the controversy. Indeed, there has been some criticism along the lines that such controversy or such a commitment of time should in some way have been avoided. I want to start today by making my position absolutely clear. The proceedings on this Bill so far have been of immense credit to the parliamentary process.  This is a Bill about matters where feelings rightly run very deep. It is about conservation of natural resources. It is a Bill about issues concerning the countryside where public concern is growing, where attitudes are changing and where the pressures are intensifying…”  

The first interjection to the opening speech came from Tam, questioning a Lords’ proposed amendment to the ‘Sandford Principle’ (a concept which gives priority to the conservation of natural beauty in the National Parks of England and Wales, and now enshrined in Scottish legislation).  Minutes later he interjected again, this time asking if “… county naturalist societies should get some paid help, in the same form as the Territorial Army used to get help through the payment of adjutants…”  And so it went on.

Stuart was then the Parliamentary Officer for the RSPB and worked closely with MPs and peers in Westminster providing pages of rapidly typed briefings and draft amendments, and witnessing first-hand the horse trading between members of the Lords and Commons to ensure key amendments got through.  The Bill brought environmental NGOs together for the first time in a legislative environment.  Typically, a few MPs and Peers would meet with NGO specialist staff at 4.30pm, break for dinner at 7.00pm, and then resume until midnight, all the time drafting amendments and counter arguments.

This was perfect preparation for the Commons’ Committee Stage, during which Tam excelled, deploying his mastery of parliamentary process and knowledge of wildlife.  He secured numerous changes to the Bill, and extracted Ministerial commitments on how legislation once enacted would be implemented.  Such was Tam’s enthusiasm that during the 100+ hours of debate during the Committee Stage, he would talk at length on amendments, many of them supplied by Stuart, Tim Sands, Fiona Reynolds (then with the Council for the Protection of Rural England, now Dame Fiona, and Master of Emmanuel College) and colleagues.  But, buoyed by his impact, he would then talk to his speaking notes, and continue on to his briefing notes.  These notes contained the analysis of likely Government responses – and such was his enthusiasm, he sometimes delivered these before the Minister had replied!

He once arranged for Michael Foot, then leader of the opposition, to attend and watch the Committee stage, a move that caused quite a stir on the day and enabled Tam to deal with the Government with added strength. He used up almost one entire Committee session talking about goldeneyes and why they deserved protection.  This was a ruse to put time pressure on the Government in order to win protection for SSSIs. During a session break, he put his head together with Tom King (then Minister, later to be Secretary of State for the Environment, now  Baron King of Bridgwater)  and told him, “…no SSSI protection,  no Bill.”  Tam was aided by Peter Hardy, Labour MP (the late Lord Hardy of Wath) who had an encyclopaedic grasp of parliamentary process (and on occasion mimicked bird songs during parliamentary debates). In scrutinising the Government’s case and testing the arguments, Tam was in effect pushing for the enduring protection of nature, and pushing the limits of the underlying scientific evidence. 

Tam also influenced the content of the National Heritage Act 1980, giving rise to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and subsequent legislation, so that the Heritage Lottery Fund could provide support for land under management for conservation and scientific purposes.  In his autobiography The Importance of Being Awkward (2011) Tam recounts the lively exchanges, remarking that on one occasion:

“I took up the last hour and a half of a session talking, not filibustering, and in order speaking about the Havergate Marshes in Norfolk.  The government – not wishing to use the ‘guillotine’ procedure – finally caved in and designated five Marine Nature Reserves… This was an example of parliamentary procedures, later to be described as ‘arcane’, to achieve worthwhile objectives in the ‘real world’…”  

During the ‘split’ of the NCC in the early 1990s, Tam pressed Government Ministers hard to ensure the creation of an effective and well-resourced Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).  When the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill went through its parliamentary stages he was again pugnacious on the floor of the chamber and in committee.   

Whilst never holding a Cabinet position, Tam was Father of the House of Commons from 2001 to 2005, succeeding former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath.  He enjoyed being Labour’s science spokesperson (under Michel Foot’s leadership), produced the book A Science Policy for Britain (1983), and for 36 years wrote compellingly about science matters in his ‘Westminster Diary’ column in New Scientist.  He even had a group of flatworms named after him, the Dalyeliida.

Tam was fiercely loyal to friends, and following Stuart’s move to Scotland took pains to check that all was well, and he and his family suffered no anti-English unpleasantness (which they did not). Tam vehemently fought devolution, fearing it would divide the nation.   

We owe a great debt to Tam, who gave texture to environmental protection, and uniquely touched the soul of Parliamentary debate.

We are grateful to Roddy Fairley and Ron Macdonald for providing comments on a draft.