Hunting (Re-committed) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Garnier: I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said and shall not vote for amendment No. 69. I wish to mention a few practical points that the Minister might care to consider, even if he does not have time to respond to them. Amendment No. 69(3) states:

''The second condition is that the person doing the stalking or flushing out—

(a) has with him written evidence—

(i) that the land on which the stalking or flushing out takes place belongs to him''.

Column Number: 078

I appreciate that the owner of a large agricultural estate such as those that one finds in East Anglia can address a letter to himself saying that he owns the land. He may wish to carry the deeds or some form of copy of the land register. Essentially, he will have to carry something of legal provenance to demonstrate that he owns the land. Simply to write a self-serving statement, ''I own this land'', will not necessarily persuade the police officer, unless he knows the landowner anyway, in which case he will not need to see the written evidence.

However, when it comes to

''the land on which the stalking or flushing out takes place''

in Wales, for example, it may be necessary to deal with several small farms or holdings. To extend the argument to its logical—or illogical—end, people engaged in the activity will have to go around with a filing cabinet or wheelbarrow containing all the written permissions from the various landowners. [Interruption.]

The Minister says that that is a very silly point, but it is not. Not only the value of the evidence will have to be considered carefully but also the amount of evidence and documentation. I am not sure that the Minister or those who helped him draft the subsection have given that sufficient thought. The idea that a policeman will wander around the countryside looking for people who are carrying out unlawful terrier work and will ask them for pieces of paper that they will carry around on their person is unreal. It is just another example of the Government's lack of understanding of what is involved in such an activity.

I wish the Government would occasionally think a little longer and harder before coming up with half-baked proposals. This is one of the worst that I have seen in a long time.

Mr. Luff: These are complex issues, and my hon. and learned Friend has just made an important point. I am tempted to withdraw amendment No. 73 and not press amendment No. 72. I invite my colleagues to support Government amendments No. 68 and 69 reluctantly, because I think that they are defective. The code of conduct is strangely less onerous than the existing code of conduct from the National Working Terrier Federation. The Minister would be well advised to look carefully at what the National Working Terrier Federation does, because he might find that it has a tougher and more effective code in relation to animal welfare. There are issues about locating dogs that are dealt with in the federation code, but not in the Government's. Bizarrely, the code deals with issues relating to shotguns, the use of which is not normal practice when bolting a fox.

It being half-past Four o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 68, in

schedule 1, page 22, line 38, at end insert

'otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 1A below.'.

No. 69, in

Column Number: 079

schedule 1, page 23, line 7, at end insert—

'Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting

1A (1) The use of a dog below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out is in accordance with this paragraph if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c.69)) which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot.

(3) The second condition is that the person doing the stalking or flushing out—

(a) has with him written evidence—

(i) that the land on which the stalking or flushing out takes place belongs to him, or

(ii) that he has been given permission to use that land for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, and

(b) makes the evidence immediately available for inspection by a constable who asks to see it.

(4) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than one dog below ground at any one time.

(5) In so far as stalking or flushing out is undertaken with the use of a dog below ground in accordance with this paragraph, paragraph 1 shall have effect as if for the condition in paragraph 1(7) there were substituted the condition that—

(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground,

(b) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being flushed out from below ground the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person,

(c) in particular, the dog is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (b),

(d) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of preventing injury to the dog, and

(e) the manner in which the dog is used complies with any code of practice which is issued or approved for the purpose of this paragraph by the Secretary of State.'.—[Alun Michael.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 8

Compensation

'(1) The Secretary of State shall pay compensation to those who lose their employment owing to a ban on hunting.

(2) The compensation will be equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost on account of this Act.'.—[Lembit Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 53 stand part.

Lembit Öpik: We are talking about compensation. It is obvious that the Bill will do considerable damage to the economic circumstances of a number of individuals directly involved in hunting with dogs. The Middle Way Group has never regarded the question of economics as the core issue. There are important questions about animal welfare, which have been raised today, but there is no doubt that at the individual and regional level there will be considerable consequences for the local economy, as well as those

Column Number: 080

who have participated in the industry of fox control using dogs. That is why we are proposing new clause 8.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who is not on the Committee, felt so strongly about the matter that he was instrumental in suggesting that we consider it. I compliment him with pleasure for suggesting that we make the proposition.

It is clear there is plenty of precedent for the proposal. When the practice of fur farming was banned, compensation was paid to those employed within the industry. The principle of compensation after removing someone's livelihood has been established, and established in the same theatre of operations; animal-related changes to the law. Our amendment proposes compensation equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost after the implementation of the legislation. In our view, that is the least that can be done.

Speaking of the area that I know best—Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales as a whole—and speaking on behalf of the farmers of Brecon and Radnor, it is clear that the Bill currently outlaws the hunting of foxes with dogs altogether. That is unacceptable in the eyes of many people in Powys. Rather than seek compensation, they would seek the opportunity to carry on with their pursuit. Since that is not within the scope of the amendments, we feel that it is reasonable to respect the inconvenience, let alone the trauma and the distress that the Bill will cause those who have spent a lifetime in the industry of hunting with dogs.

It is unnecessary to support the views of the Middle Way Group, the Countryside Alliance or any of those farmers in order to be sympathetic to the claim for compensation. It is a matter of fairness. As I said, in fur farming there is already a cast iron precedent that must be taken as a touchstone for what we do in the Bill. It would be mean-spirited in the extreme if, after peoples' trade was taken away, they were not compensated for an action that they did not request and which was forced on them.

Mr. Swire: In the hon. Gentleman's excellent new clause he states:

''The Secretary of State shall pay compensation to those who lose their employment owing to a ban on hunting.''

Will he also consider people other categories who will lose a substantial amount of their income—although perhaps not their employment as such—and others who will incur huge additional expenditure, not least hard-pressed farmers who currently use hunts to remove 78 per cent. of their fallen stock? It is not just about losing livelihoods; it is about losing business.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If one considered comprehensively who would lose out financially, one would see that it is not just about the individuals who currently depend on hunts to deal with their fallen stock. The irony is that the Government have recommended that farmers use local hunts to deal with fallen stock, yet they are

Column Number: 081

going against their own advice by taking away that line of management.

There is another group, too, which includes farmers who depend on hunting with dogs to control the fox population. Despite the naive claims of some Committee members, anyone who has considered the issue seriously—I know that the Minister and Lord Burns have—will know that there is a degree of predation and much unequivocal documentary evidence to show that foxes kill lambs. Farmers involved in that business will also lose some stock, unless they find an alternative way that is equally efficient. We already know that farmers in my area, for example, regard hunting with dogs as the most efficient way of dealing with that problem.

We restricted new clause 8 because we wanted to table an unequivocal new clause to which no reasonable person could object. Perhaps it would, in another place, be possible to manage the other elements of compensation. However, who would question the fact that individuals who lose their livelihoods as a result of the actions of Committee members should be entitled to respectful financial compensation?

 

---

Prepared 3 July 2003