|
The Chairman: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished his speech?
Mr. Garnier: Yes, I have. Would you like me to say it again?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside): As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Committee, I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson. I agree, at least in part, with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). It is important to cover this issue, which was discussed on Thursday, when I was not here. A future Secretary of State should not have a wide-ranging power to exempt certain forms of hunting in schedule 1. If there is to be a change—clearly that could be a fundamental change—it should be dealt with on the Floor of the House and not by some back-door method.
Alun Michael: Happily, I am able to agree with the line of argument. I hope that I can satisfy hon. Members immediately. If they look at the wording of subsection 2, they will see that it states explicitly:
''The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting.''
If hon. Members turn to clause 48(2), they will see that it is very clear and states:
''An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''
The provisions make it explicit that the affirmative resolution procedure has to be used in relation to this clause.
The purpose of the power is to deal with the unforeseen situation in which the detail of an existing exemption is wrong. For example, an exemption may have been drafted in such a way that does not reflect what happens in practice, or experience may show that a way has been found to circumvent the intention of the exemption and the restriction a particular activity. If there is a need for change in the light of experience, Ministers can use the power by speedily laying an order before the House. The alternative would be primary legislation, which can be extremely time-consuming, even if it is obvious, simple and supported on both sides of the House.
Safeguards are built into the procedure, and they are precisely those that were requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The removal of exemptions and the introduction new exemptions are not permitted. The power is limited to variations on existing exemptions. An order to make a variation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which requires the order to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Column Number: 769
In the light of that, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Garnier: I am. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Exempt hunting
Mr. Pickthall: I beg to move amendment No. 335, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'wild mammal' and insert 'deer'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 336, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'it' and insert 'a fox'.
Amendment No. 203, in
schedule 1, page 21, line 5, leave out 'out of cover'.
3 pm
Mr. Pickthall: Like all Committees, we have had some problems with words in the Bill for which usage in legislation does not entirely conform to normal usage. In paragraph 1, there may be a problem with words whose general usage might not apply in the context of hunting. If amendments Nos. 335 and 336 were accepted, the first sentence of schedule 1 would read, ''Stalking deer or flushing a fox out of cover is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.''
The first of the two amendments is intended to clarify the word ''stalking'' and to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm precisely what is meant by that in the schedule. Obviously, the word has a general meaning. One can stalk almost anything, even human beings—that was the subject of the Bill that was piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). However, in the specific context of our debate on hunting, the word relates to deer stalking. If flushing deer were exempt—which is allowed by paragraph 1(1) as it is drafted—deer drives would again be possible, and deer would run from flushing dogs in such a state of disorder that they could not be shot humanely or even safely.
Stalking deer is a more humane and precise business. It is well established and plays a valuable part in maintaining the health of the deer population. Amendment No. 335 would link stalking very firmly with deer, to the exclusion of other mammals.
Similarly, amendment No. 336 would link flushing with foxes, to the exclusion of other mammals. Bearing in mind all the other restrictions in the Bill, it is recognised that it may sometimes be necessary to flush out foxes with dogs so that they can then be shot. That does not apply, for example, to hare, which would be included in the paragraph as it is presently drafted. Hare shooting, for which I personally have great distaste, does not involve dogs as active participants. The hare is driven out by humans and then shot.
Column Number: 770
The purpose of the two amendments is very simple. They would ensure that only deer are stalked and only foxes are flushed, to prevent deer drives and the flushing of hares with dogs. Incidentally, that would be another challenge to illegal hare coursers, whom we all deplore. What does my right hon. Friend intend by the word ''stalking'' and does he think that altering line 5 as I propose would make the schedule clearer?
Mr. Soames: The amendments would restrict schedule 1 so that only the stalking of deer or flushing of foxes would be exempt. The flushing of deer, the stalking of foxes—anyone doing that would have a thin time—and the flushing or stalking of other wild animals such as mink, stoats, hares and grey squirrels are not exempt. The National Gamekeepers Organisation is a reputable and important body in the countryside, and represents professional men and some women who are highly skilled in their jobs and whose work is essential to the good order, demeanour and general interests of the countryside. It has several reservations about the amendment, which I share.
The NGO was pleased to be asked by the Minister to attend the hearings in Portcullis house, and I am grateful to him for meeting them and listening to them. I am less grateful to him for paying not the slightest attention to its important evidence. However, he accepted an amendment inspired by Conservative Members on ground-nesting game, which is small progress for which we are grateful.
The NGO, as the Minister knows, is a professional body of people and is entitled to have its views taken into account. In its judgment, the amendment would seriously curtail the interests of shooting. The Government have stated repeatedly that they have no intention of restricting shooting or the work of gamekeepers in any way, but the schedule would create huge difficulties for gamekeepers and those who shoot. Dogs are an important part of their armoury of around 4,000 gamekeepers. They help them to maintain good order, and enable them to do their job and to carry out the necessary task of controlling foxes, mink, stoats and others. Their activities will be made illegal or, at the very least, made a great deal more difficult to the point of impracticality. It is interesting to note that the NGO also contends that the Bill will make the use of dogs in the beating line on shoot days highly dangerous, because if several of them flush and chase a wild mammal, such as a fox or a hare, an offence could be committed.
I do not know, Mr. Stevenson, whether you have heard from your colleague, Mr. O'Hara, about the extensive discourse on ratting on Tristan da Cunha when we last debated this matter. I shall not go into that today, because it is unlikely that you would allow me to do so. That discourse was about the impossibility of stopping dogs, whose natural instinct is to chase, from doing so in, for example a beating line. Several Opposition Members have made that point. Would keepers in such circumstances be likely to have knowingly committed an offence?
The main problem with schedule 1 is that exempt hunting excludes the use of terriers underground, yet 46 per cent. of gamekeepers use their dogs in that way to control foxes. The practice is invaluable when
Column Number: 771
lamping and snaring are problematic, and is essential for the correct management of Britain's fox population. Again, we come up against the Minister's apparent disdain for and lack of interest in anything to do with conservation and a balanced environment. I should be grateful for his comments.
If terrier work is not allowed to be exempt hunting, half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to register to use their terriers. That will result in about 2,000 applications, every one of which will no doubt be contested by opponents of field sports with no guarantee that the registrar or the tribunal will accept them. Publication of the names of gamekeepers—
The Chairman: Order. I am becoming concerned that the hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendments. Perhaps he would return to them.
Mr. Soames: I will, indeed, Mr. Stevenson. Thank you for flagging that up. I merely wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the NGO's concerns about the amendment.
There is a limit of two dogs if stalking or flushing is to qualify as exempt. That will prevent people from taking out a small pack of dogs to trap and kill foxes, mink and stoats. It will also make the use of dogs in the beating line on shoot days highly dangerous because, if several of them flush and chase a wild mammal, an offence could be committed.
To return to the specifics of the clause, it is frequent practice for a line of guns, beaters and dogs to walk through fields of cover, especially sugar beet, in search of game. It is not unusual, especially in areas where the hare population is high, for dogs to flush and chase a hare, even if their owners or handlers do not wish them to do so. It is a natural instinct of dogs to give chase. Furthermore, we return to the entirely innocuous practice of someone flushing hares with a dog to shoot it for the pot.
The question of grey squirrels also arises. The Minister is a known wildlife expert, so I should be grateful if he would tell me whether he knows the difference between a weasel and a stoat, how dogs are to be prevented from failing to do what they are told and chasing en masse after a weasel or stoat, and whether an offence will have been committed if that happens?
|
