|
Column Number: 1137
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 25 February 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
New clause 11
Use of dogs below ground
'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of any hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.'.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.
2.30 pm
Question again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 12—Lowland hunting of fox—
'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of any hunting of fox in an area of land below an altitude of 500 metres above sea level.'.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I made the shortest speech in my parliamentary career before lunch, which amounted to no more than three or four words. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I knew that that would be popular with the other side of the Committee. I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but perhaps not quite that brief, this afternoon.
We have had an interesting debate on the question of terrier work. We started with a new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which would have banned the use of all dogs underground under all circumstances. During the debate, a number of my hon. Friends and I commented on the deleterious effect that that would have on the sport of shooting because of the use of dogs for the control of pests.
During the debate, the notion has arisen that there may be perfectly sensible, utilitarian and less cruel methods of using terriers underground in a variety of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards the view that the use of terriers to deal with orphaned cubs may have something to recommend it under some circumstances. The Minister seems to have realised, albeit dimly so far, that a ban on using terriers would have a grave effect on what gamekeepers across the nation are required to do. He is giving some thought to precisely what effect it would have, what he can do to help the gamekeepers' lot and how he can avoid the unintentional consequence to gamekeepers of any aspect of the Bill.
I take some comfort from all that. We appear to be seeing a bit of an opening up by the Committee, which is moving away from a total ban for propagandist and biased reasons towards a sensible consideration of what terriers could and should be used for. However, I have two concerns that might be addressed in the
Column Number: 1138
winding-up speech. The first might be described as procedural.
The Minister has said that he is considering complex matters, talking to people and having meetings, and that he will report back to the Committee on what he is going to do. That is impractical, and I accept it as a slip of the tongue. It may be that because of the war, or for other reasons, consideration on Report is delayed. I hope that it is, as it would be strange to spend a day discussing foxhunting on the Floor of the House when we are sending 45,000 troops into battle. I find it difficult to imagine that, if there is no delay and we discuss the Bill on Report two or three weeks after our debates in Committee, the Minister will have concluded those studies and tabled suitable amendments. If that is the task that his Department has set for the civil servants, it would be useful to know it, as that would be some consolation to us and it would allay some of our concerns.
Even then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, due to the febrile state of the parliamentary Labour party, it would be difficult to imagine the Minister tabling an amendment that would allow the use of dogs underground for the pursuit of orphaned cubs and persuading the party to accept it. If he intends to consult, come up with changes to the overall ban in time for consideration on Report and find a way to force them through, he should let us know that. Frankly, I suspect that that is unlikely.
My suspicion, which is slightly confirmed by the fact that the Minister spoke several times about later stages of the Bill, is that his consideration will take longer than the two or three weeks that we might have in hand. If he intends to introduce changes to take account of those difficult matters, that is likely to happen in the other place. If my guess is correct—I believe that it is reasonably accurate—and if the new clause is passed, the Bill will leave this place with a draconian, unworkable and unnecessary total and utter ban on all forms of terrier work, whether undertaken by hunts, gamekeepers or anyone else.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): Is not there an even bigger contradiction, as it would still be all right to send a terrier underground to kill a rat, but not to kill a fox cub? If I understand correctly, the Minister must explain how on earth that can be consistent with the primary concerns on animal welfare.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right, because the exempt hunting provisions in schedule 1 specify that dogs may not be used underground. If he is right, there is certainly a lacuna there, but that is not the central point, which is that the Bill will leave the House with a draconian ban on all uses of terriers underground if the new clause is passed.
I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Worcester has dropped the second new clause, which would have banned hunting outright. The Labour party seems to be moving towards an acceptance of the notion that hunting with dogs can have some utility, and I am glad that it has decided not to change that in Committee. I hope that the same
Column Number: 1139
applies on the Floor of the House, so that the Bill leaves this place allowing foxhunting with dogs. I also hope that my interpretation is right. I welcome the more open-minded approach to hunting that the Labour party seems to be demonstrating.
On terrier work, however, the new clause would mean that the Bill left here including an absolute ban, which would have two consequences. First, the House would have made its opinion plain by saying that all terrier work should be banned. The Labour party spends all its time saying that the will of the House of Commons must prevail and that what it says must happen. That would become especially important should their lordships not agree with us on aspects of the Bill, causing it to go backwards and forwards between us. Ultimately, as the Labour party has often discussed, the Parliament Act might then be used to achieve the enactment of the Bill.
That Act would apply to the Bill as it left here. Therefore, even if the Minister improved this aspect in the House of Lords, but used the Parliament Act subsequently, those improvements would not be allowed and terrier work would be outlawed across the board. I do not think that that is what the Minister or the hon. Member for Worcester intend. They seem to accept that there may be some utility in terrier work, particularly by gamekeepers. If, for that procedural reason, the Bill became law and achieved Royal Assent with an absolute and total ban on terrier work, there would be appalling consequences for the countryside, some of which would be unintentional. That concern could easily be answered by the Minister considering the matter and coming back with an alternative on Report, which would have the effect that the hon. Member for Worcester seeks, but would also remove the deleterious and unintended consequences of an outright ban. That would be the procedural way to correct the problem.
My second, and rather more substantive, difficulty with the Minister's proposal is that he seems to be saying—although he is doing so largely by body language at the moment—that one form of terrier work is wicked and should be banned, but that other forms should be allowed. We should contemplate for one second what he intends. All terrier work is identical in that it involves putting a terrier down a hole and chasing out a mammal of one kind or another—all sorts of different mammals can be chased in that way. As the hon. Member for Worcester pointed out, some practices are unacceptable, such as fights underground, although those are largely fictitious. We might want to stamp those out, but most Committee members now seem to accept that using terriers to chase mammals out from underground is a reasonably sensible activity.
How will we decide which activities should be banned and which should not? I have a suggestion for the hon. Member for Worcester on how we can make that decision: anybody caught putting a terrier underground while wearing a red or green coat should not be allowed to do so, but anyone found putting a terrier underground while wearing scruffy
Column Number: 1140
old clothes and speaking with a regional accent should be allowed to do so as they will be gamekeepers—there are ordinary people like them in the Labour party. It is obviously wicked to wear a red coat, get off a horse and put a terrier down a hole, which is disgraceful behaviour that should be banned.
The Minister is digging himself into a hole—there is no easy way to differentiate between terrier work by an organised hunt, by a gamekeeper or by terrier men. Those three examples are all part of one activity, and, leaving aside how people are dressed, there is no way to differentiate between them. Aspects of the private use of terriers in certain parts of the country should be sorted out. We have proposed a code of conduct, which could be a Government code of conduct for all we care, and we are content for abuses to be sorted out.
It will be interesting to hear how the hon. Member for Worcester intends to differentiate between the proper use of terriers for perfectly sensible activities that most people accept could occur and those uses that he believes to be unacceptable. When he speaks, will he bear it in mind that we are ready to accept any constraints that he chooses to put in place to stop illegal, wicked or cruel activities such as those he quoted from ''Earth Dog, Running Dog''? There are legitimate uses for terriers, which should continue. He seems to believe that they should continue, but how will he allow them to occur?
|
