| Wild Mammals (Hunting With Dogs) Bill
|
|
Mr. James Gray: (North Wiltshire): My hon. Friend comes to a particularly interesting point with regard to rabbits and hares. Does he agree that when dogs are set on to a piece of ground and set off after a mammal with four legs, it may be some considerable time before one discovers whether that mammal has big ears and is therefore a hare, or a white tail and is therefore a rabbit? Under the new clause, if it subsequently turns out that the dogs have accidentally chased a hare, even though one thought they were chasing a rabbit, one would be guilty of a criminal offence. Is that not a curious anomaly? What if one sets out to chase rabbits, but the dogs chase them on to land where that is not considered legal? If, for example, one went into a neighbour's garden, one would be guilty of a criminal offence. Is not the clause completely out of order? Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that it is out of order as we have been allowed to debate it. The Chairman: I am happy to confirm that the clause is not out of order. Mr. Gray: I used the phrase inadvertently. Mr. Garnier: I know exactly what my hon. Friend meant. He tellingly pointed out one or two of my concerns about the new clause, with which lawyers, magistrates, judges--and juries if it goes to the Crown court--will have to grapple. That is assuming that the Bill becomes an Act. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Worcester replies to my concerns, he will have the answers to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) at his fingertips. He has undoubtedly sweated many a midnight hour to ensure that the drafting of the new clause is as perfect as that of the original Bill. The proposal may have received the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) and of legal draftsmen from the Home Office. I hope that the hon. Member for Worcester will be able to deal with the points rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. The hon. Member for Worcester and his hon. Friends must say why, in the context of vermin control, they consider it cruel, evil and wrong to hunt foxes with hounds, but not cruel, evil and wrong to hunt rats with terriers. However contorted their explanations, which I look forward to hearing, the real reason, which harks back to the demonstration outside St. Stephen's entrance to the Palace of Westminster in November, is that toy companies make fluffy toy foxes that the hon. Gentleman can hold aloft-- Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): What about Roland Rat? The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman would be hard pushed to emerge from St. Stephen's entrance holding aloft a little cuddly rat, which would not have the anticipated televisual appeal of a cuddly fox. While we are on the subject of cuddliness, I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.
10.45 amMiss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Surely my hon., learned and usual Friend is aware that rats are indeed very cuddly. They are becoming increasingly popular as pets for children. He must have heard of Peter Rabbit; if he visits any toy shop just before Christmas he will find a phethora of cuddly rabbits. His analogy is unfounded; rabbits are cuddly, rats are cuddly, anything can be cuddly. Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and extremely cuddly Friend is always exactly on the point when discussing children's toys. I listen to her advice with the greatest interest. Although she believes the opposite, the point that she made was in my favour. If, as she correctly suggests, there are cuddly toy foxes, rabbits, rats and so on, why are not she and the hon. Member for Worcester prepared to protect cuddly rabbits and rats as they apparently seek to protect cuddly red foxes? New clause 10 suffers from being derived from clause 5 of the original Bill. We must remind the Committee, and the public, that the mere existence of new clause 10 reminds us of the much-lamented but moribund Bill that we debated on Second Reading and at the first few sittings of the Committee. As the hon. Member for Worcester said, the new clause is the descendant of and replacement for parts of old clause 5. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the former clause 5(2)(a), but much good it did him. The new clause is a crude attempt to restrict the hunting of rabbits and rodents to the landowner in person, and possibly to reduce the range of people who might hunt--in case any of them enjoy working with their dogs--and the activities associated with pest control, as if that made any difference to rats and rabbits. Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. Discussions between you and members of the Committee should be common to the whole Committee. It is unusual for members of the Committee to have private discussions with the Chairman. The Chairman: On the contrary, it is common throughout the proceedings of this and other Committees chaired by me and by other members of the Chairmen's Panel for members of the Committee to seek advice from the Chairman or the Clerk. Because of a point of order, I have not yet been asked for advice. Mr. Garnier: I do not want to lose another cuddly friend, but I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that during our proceedings, while he was trying to listen to interesting points made by the hon. Member for Worcester and others, I have been to the Chairman for advice which he courteously provided. After receiving the advice, I had to sit down again quickly. I hope that my hon. Friend will now allow me to continue. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The hon. Gentleman is being otiose. Mr. Garnier: I am not sure what should happen to that intervention. New clause 10, which is derived from clause 5, is a crude attempt to restrict hunting rabbits and rodents to the landowner, and to reduce the range of people who might hunt, in case they enjoy it. We are considering the rump of the clause, which contains anomalies. It requires a request from the owner or occupier of land to make exempted hunting legal. The new clause states:
(a) on land which he owns or occupies, or (b) partly on land which he owns or occupies and partly on neighbouring land, or (c) at the request of the owner or occupier of the land where the hunting takes place.''
The hon. Member for Worcester may not appreciate that ownership and occupation of land in this country is not as simple as the new clause implies. Ownership and occupation and the rights, duties and permissions that are attached to a piece of land, are often shared by several individuals and corporate bodies. We discussed that briefly in a previous sitting. When a member of the public faces trial as a result of committing an offence under the Bill, the court will have to consider not what happened to the rabbits, but whether the person who made the request was entitled to do so and whether he was the owner or occupier of land. The proponents of the Bill have not grasped that. Under the Bill, hunting a rabbit or rodent on common land, in woodlands or a park will remain an offence. The new clause does not tackle that. We have been told endlessly that the Bill deals with animal welfare and so-called cruelty. But it is more cruel for a redundant west or south Yorkshire coalminer, who owns a lurcher, to take the dog to a common and set it after a rabbit for the pot, or to take it to a farm that has asked for rabbits to be hunted? The hon. Member for Worcester must explain the Bill's limited powers for dealing with predator animals used to hunt rabbits and rodents. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the popular activity of ferreting? Many Labour supporters who live in the country--or who live in urban areas but visit the countryside--keep ferrets for rabbiting. Perhaps the Bill's supporters have forgotten such activities. They have concentrated only on the concept of hunting on horseback by people wearing red coats. Mr. Foster: Or ferrets or dogs. Mr. Garnier: I did not know that many people hunted ferrets or dogs on horseback. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me. If one's primary concern is animal welfare, and if one believes that it is wrong to hunt animals with dogs, surely it is also wrong to hunt them with ferrets or polecats. With regard to animal welfare, there is no dissimilarity between hunting with dogs and hunting with polecats. If the Bill is meant to spare animals from hunting, what possible justification could there be for arbitrarily restricting the type of hunting that is banned? Perhaps the hon. Member for Worcester simply wanted a neater title for his Bill--Light is finally being thrown on my remarks; I am most grateful--since I earlier discussed the anomaly that is created by the Bill's long title. The new clause returns us to a dilemma that has haunted all anti-hunting Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire touched not so very long ago on the difficulty that people and dogs have distinguishing rabbits from hares at a distance. It is not usually possible, on entering land in order to hunt rabbits, to know whether the land also contains hares. With the exception of the extreme north-west of Scotland--I do not believe that there are any Scottish Members in the Committee--the hare occupies the same territory as the rabbit. If prosecutions result from the Bill's enactment, it will not be possible to say that an area was exclusively rabbit or hare country, or a mixture of the two. It would not often be possible to tell at a distance, when one releases a dog to hunt a partially visible animal, whether one would earn the gratitude of a farmer or six months in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire briefly explained how to distinguish a rabbit from a hare. According to Professor Stephen Harris' ``Handbook of British Mammals''--the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) may be familiar with that volume--the hare is distinguished from the rabbit by its large size, its long limbs, its brownish rather than greyish colouration, and its much longer, black-tipped ears.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 25 February 1998 |
