| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Garnier: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I grew up in south-west Norfolk where there is no hunting because of the traditional prevalence of rabbit warrens, which made it dangerous to ride at speed, and I represent a constituency in Leicestershire where there has been hunting for a great many years. I therefore understand the points that he is making, and I hope that they find some purchase with the Labour Members. Column Number: 807 I want to deal briefly with one or two other points. First, I point out the inconsistency between sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1, which states:
The Chairman: Order. For information, it is sub-paragraph (5) that the amendment would delete. Mr. Garnier: You are quite right, Mr. Stevenson. Sub-paragraph (5) would not involve the use of dogs below ground. That is inconsistent with the equivalent provision under paragraph 6, which would allow the use of dogs below ground when recapturing a wild mammal. I accept that paragraph 7(4) on the rescue of a wild mammal bans the use of dogs below ground when stalking or flushing out, but it is unclear why it is permissible to use a dog underground when recapturing a wild mammal. That seems to be an inherent contradiction. It is not clear whether the sub-paragraph that the amendment would delete is meant to protect the welfare of the fox or the stalked or flushed mammal, or whether it is done out of concern for the terrier. Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Is it in order for an hon. Member to talk to a member of the public when one of his colleagues is speaking? The Chairman: Order. I think not. I am finding it rather difficult to hear. Quite a bit of conversation is going on; I would ask everyone who wants to engage in conversation to do so outside. Mr. Garnier: I was disturbed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) having a discussion with his neighbours, but I let that pass. I wanted to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Garnier: I am waiting for the hon. Member for Carlisle to pay attention. Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to create a disturbance, but do I really have to pay attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He is very boring. The Chairman: Order. Is it just me, or is it the time of day? Unusually, I detect a slight note of antagonism entering our debate, and I am sure that none of us wants that.
8 pmLembit Öpik: I was only going to add to the antagonism, Mr. Stevenson, so I shall not say anything. Mr. Garnier: In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, the hon. Member for Carlisle—he has been listening assiduously to the arguments deployed by both sides—said that he thought it extraordinary that my hon. Friend should suggest that dogs should be used underground in the upland fells of Cumbria. He said that because the terrain was rocky— Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point? If I am wrong, he can correct me. He said Column Number: 808 that the terrain would make it impossible for the dog to be dug out. I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to say it again.Mr. Martlew: I was commenting on the fact that those involved could not dig them out. I was not saying that they do not use dogs, because I know that they do. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman is used to following hunts on horseback. Mr. Garnier: I do not think that there is a difference between my paraphrasing of what the hon. Gentleman said and what he just repeated. His intervention was interesting, because I do not think that anyone who owns and uses terriers would put them underground in a place where they could not dig them out if they got into trouble. Although the hon. Gentleman made a fascinating point, it was not on point. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire can comfort himself with that. Mr. Pickthall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Garnier: I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Mr. Pickthall: It is West Lancashire, but I am from Cumbria. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows about limestone or gritstone country, but there are many thousands of acres in which an animal can go underground, between stones and into rocky crevices; they could never be dug out. One just cannot get into that area. It is as true of the tops in the Lake District as it is true of the gritstone country in the forest of Bowland and North Lancashire in the Pennines. Mr. Garnier: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know we are not used to sitting late these days. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a terrier man would send his dog into a place where it cannot be dug out. If the hon. Gentleman has examples of that, I am sure we will be told. That is why Labour Members, no doubt, will support the unamended version of subparagraph (5). I have made the point endlessly. I look forward to the Minister's answer. Rob Marris: I should like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to come back to a point that I still do not understand; it may well be my ignorance. I have had a brief from the National Gamekeepers Organisation, as I suspect he has, since he quoted parts of it. It said:
I still do not understand what the 54 per cent. majority does. I am sure we will come back to that later in the debate. Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Member give way? Rob Marris: No, I will not. We want to make some progress. The other point made by the National Gamekeepers Organisation is that were the subparagraph to be left in—in other words, were this amendment to fail—gamekeepers would have to register. That would result in more than 2,000 applications. I know that they are already registered. Lembit Öpik rose—
Column Number: 809 Rob Marris: No, I will finish. We want to make some progress tonight. Terrier men are already registered. In the case of the Masters of Fox Hounds Association and related associations, the terrier men must be on the register kept by the MFHA and must hold a current licence from it. The Welsh Farmers Fox Control Association keeps its own list of terrier men. They are already registered and going through a procedure. If this Bill becomes an Act, it would require them to become registered if they wished to get around the exemption. Clearly they are already prepared to do that, so I do not see what the problem is. Mr. Luff: I just wanted to check a point of fact. Gamekeepers are already members of the terrier organisations and use their own terriers. It is quite an unbureaucratic system. The system of registration proposed by the Bill is a considerably cumbersome one. With at least 2,000 registrations required by gamekeepers, the burden on the registrar—and, in due time the tribunal—would be considerable, keeping in mind that the prescribed animal welfare organisations have a right to challenge every such registration. This opens up Pandora's box. It is a very different form of registration. The bureaucracy argument is one that should weigh very heavily with the Minister in considering the matter. I should like the Minister to tell me why the subparagraph is here at all. It is undoubtedly the case that terriers are the only legal means of dealing with a fox that has gone to ground. It is very important to be able to kill these nocturnal predators by whatever means are available. Consequently, I do not understand why the only legal means of dealing with a nocturnal predator that has gone to ground has been ruled out. Scottish legislation specifically provides an exemption and allows the use of terriers. Later on, we will discuss with the hon. Member for Worcester the whole principle of the welfare implications when we come to new clause 11. I will not labour the point now. My understanding is that the use of terriers enables gamekeepers to target the animals that are particularly active in taking birds because there are debris carcases outside the earth. It is possible, using terriers, to target which particular animal was taken out. There are huge advantages to that. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, it should be seen as a warning shot across the bows of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. It does not yet understand that this is the start of a slippery slope and is turning a blind eye to what is going on. I hope that the Minister will look at it very carefully. This is the only legal means of dealing with animals that have gone to ground. Alun Michael: This has been an interesting little debate, with questions raised on both sides about the way in which the activity is dealt with. I have some sympathy with the points made about gamekeepers and the way in which the measure would apply to their activities. I shall certainly look again at the comments made by Lord Burns. In paragraph 9.20, he said:
Column Number: 810 That has been well illustrated by contributions from hon. Members on both sides. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to the Burns report, but it should be pointed out that Lord Burns was not all that enamoured of the activity. He continued, in paragraph 9.20, a little further on from the part referred to in the debate:
Burns left a number of questions to be answered in the legislation. The amendment, as has already been said, would extend the exemption in paragraph (1) to permit up to two dogs to be used below ground to flush out a wild mammal without the requirement of registration. The hon. Gentleman said that he had never heard anyone involved in hunting express reservations about terrier work, but I have heard people express such reservations, although sometimes rather quietly and on one side from the general discussion.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 4 February 2003 |
