House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Feb 1991

Column 1154

a time when, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newport, East is aware, the farming community is already under enormous pressure. For those reasons, I do not believe that the badger sett is acceptably defined in the Bill. We must look for a tighter definition before the Bill can be acceptable to a great many hon. Members with countryside interests.

There is substantial failing in the adequacy of the defence set out in new section 8(4) of the 1973 Act which states :

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under"--

various sections of the Bill--

"if he shows that his action was unavoidable and was an incidental result of a lawful action."

That continues from what I was saying. The badger sett is so widely defined that people are vulnerable of being accused of interfering with a sett when they move a drain, dig out a fox's earth or cultivate over some other hole in the ground which a badger may have used at some stage but which is not, by any understandable definition, a sett. If such a person has to argue as his defence that his action was both unavoidable and the incidental result of a lawful action, he may have some considerable difficulties in establishing that what he did was unavoidable.

I do not think that the defences set out in the Bill are adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) gave the example of the channel tunnel, which caused some hilarity, possibly because of the size of the project, but what he said was valid. The answer that there is a defence in new section 9(1)(h) of the 1973 Act was incorrect as it does not cover tunnelling for roadway purposes, which will have to be considered at a later stage because a vast amount of construction work is going on throughout the country, which is a smaller version of digging tunnels like the channel tunnel, but will certainly be put in jeopardy because of the way in which the Bill is drafted.

The third and most worrying aspect of the Bill is the wideness of the definition of the new offence of disturbing a badger in a badger sett. Consider the meaning of the word "disturb". It is not acceptable that any badger that is inconvenienced by what is going on around his sett can look to the protection of the criminal law to take someone to court for disturbing him. That protection is much wider than that given not only to any other animal but to most human beings.

We cannot accept the idea that anything that disturbs a badger sett and the badger in it constitutes a criminal offence, particularly when we consider the type of problems with which badger protection groups say that they deal. They mention problems such as people leaving paper bags near the entrance to a badger sett and other minor infringements of proper country practice with which I certainly disagree, but which should not leave people open to criminal charges on the ground that their action disturbed a badger. Arguably, driving a truck near a badger sett might disturb a badger. Anything might disturb a badger. So we must tighten up the definition of what will be a serious new criminal offence and will take up a great deal of court time.

I have no doubt that when this new law is passed, badger protection groups will be anxious to see it properly and fully implemented. So will I, provided that it is in the right terms. But I cannot accept that we should put into the criminal law something as trivial as merely disturbing a

Column 1155

badger. The disturbance must be serious and direct and it must cause harm to the badger before I accept that it should be a matter for a criminal action.

The fourth and final reason why I object to the Bill in its present form is that, despite what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said, my Bill is much better. It gives much clearer guidance on what is an illegal act--digging out a badger for the purpose of baiting it. All the vague definitions in this Bill open up the possibility of innocent people being convicted of a new and serious criminal offence. I am sure that Opposition Members are as anxious as I am to ensure that that risk is minimised. If my Bill were adopted, there would be no fear of wrongful conviction, yet the badger would be heavily protected.

If badger baiters go to a sett on someone's land with a net, dogs or enough spades to dig a badger out of his lower chambers, it is reasonably clear that they are there to dig out an animal. I accept that there have been cases in which badger baiters have got away with saying that they went there to dig for a fox. They have been able to do so only because, as the law stands, there is no one against whom the accused's word can be tested. If the House accepted the wording of my Bill, the farming occupier of the land would be approached by the person who caught the people with spades, terriers and nets. He would be asked whether those people had permission to be on his land for the purpose of digging.

It would be extraordinarily foolish for the occupier to say that he had given that permission and that the men were clearly there to dig for badgers, because that would make him a guilty accessory to the fact. No occupier of the land would admit to giving permission when what those people were doing was clearly illegal. Indeed, what motive would the owner have for giving permission? Farmers are not badger baiters. In most, if not all, cases in which badger baiters have been detected and convicted, they were on other people's land without permission. Therefore, my Bill gives a good new level of safeguard against people getting away with the activities that they have got away with, in so far as they have. It is a valuable new shield against the crime with which we are dealing.

The hon. Member for Wentworth said that an awful lot of badger baiting happens near urban areas. So it does. Therefore, it is important that we do not apply a blanket law across the whole country which, as I said earlier, would be damaging to the countryside, in order to catch people who in most cases inhabit or work in areas around large cities. Again, my Bill focuses more tightly on the people whom we seek to catch and is a better way of properly convicting them than what is proposed today.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North made the point for me when he said that 55 per cent. is an extremely good conviction rate for almost any crime that comes before the courts. I would make the further point that some of those who are acquitted may not have been guilty. I accept, nevertheless, that some of those who are acquitted probably managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the court, due to their cock-and-bull story having been accepted. I listened with interest to the stories related by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about people shooting and freezing foxes, and doing other appalling things. I do not believe, however, that that

Column 1156

happens very often. There is the extraordinary crook in every society who tries out something different, but I do not think that many people have taken dead foxes with them in order to pretend that they were going after foxes when they were clearly digging for badgers. That is inconceivable.

I believe that my Bill would provide better protection for the badger. It also deals with sentencing. Both those provisions in my Bill have been taken up elsewhere, but they are not framed in quite the same way. Therefore, I have not yet been able to satisfy myself that they would achieve what I want to achieve, which is that the penalties provided for in my Bill should apply specifically to badgers. The inclusion of a penalty specifically for badger baiting in a Bill that deals specifically with badger protection would be far better than to tag penalties on to a Criminal Justice Bill that deals with a wide range of other matters. People may not be aware that such a penalty is included in the Criminal Justice Bill. The Minister has already pointed out that the intention of the Criminal Justice Bill will be to try to keep people out of prison and that, therefore, it will not be the most appropriate place in which to include a new prison sentence for an existing offence.

We also have to guard against the minor offences included in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Newport, East suddenly carrying prison sentences. I do not take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North that the court's discretion can be relied upon. Minor offences ought not to attract penalties that are entirely out of line with the severity of the offence concerned.

That sums up my opposition to the Bill in its present form. I have no intention of blocking it or trying to talk it out. Therefore, I intend to sit down shortly.

Mr. Randall : I am glad to hear that.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : The hon. Gentleman still has an hour, so perhaps he will contain his impatience for a few more moments. It is important that the House should recognise that hon. Members who opposed last year's Bill and who oppose this one do so because we believe that they would damage the countryside, the environment and sporting and farming interests. We must agree a form of words that overcomes those problems before we reach the heart of the matter on which we wholly agree--I have not heard one dissenting voice since the matter was first raised in the House--which is that badger baiting is an evil pastime which must be stopped.

1.27 pm

Mr. Edward O'Hara (Knowsley, South) : I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. I have been sitting here since 9.40. After listening to the debate for an hour, I felt that I ought to intervene. The opportunity to make contributions to the debate from this side of the Chamber have been distressingly scarce since then. Therefore, I shall curtail my remarks. I came to the debate not as an expert but as one who feels deeply about the plight of the badger. As the most recent entrant to the House among those hon. Members who are present today, I am perhaps the closest to being an ordinary member of the public whom we represent. In

Column 1157

the main, they are concerned about the conservation of the countryside and wildlife. Most members of the public are decent and humanitarian in spirit.

Much has been said by Conservative Members about badger protection being well provided for. There has also been the ancillary argument about pest control.

The argument that protection is adequately provided for is based on the grounds of healthy badger population statistics and of adequate provision in law to protect them. The argument on population statistics is not proven. Even if statistics can be produced to show a healthy overall badger population, that surely cannot be cited as an argument against the protection of weak pockets of badger population. I understand that the aim of the Bill is to protect those weak pockets of the badger population.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) cited the statistics on the destruction of badger setts, which are demonstrably proven. That destruction is increasing at a rate which, if extrapolated, must cause grave concern. The presumption, prima facie, must be that the law must be strengthened to increase protection in support of those proven statistics as against the unproven statistics on badger population.

As for the argument that there is adequate provision in law, the purpose of the Bill is to close loopholes in the law whereby sadists--that is the only word for them--can inflict grievous suffering on badgers and get away with it.

As for the ancillary argument, I appeal to Conservative Members to distinguish between the inconvenience that might be caused by the Bill and the impossibility of pest control. I ask them, please, to keep a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) adequately drew attention to the flaws in the argument for pest control by hunting and field sports.

I hope that the spirit of conciliation and compromise, which was evident early in the debate and which gave me some optimism for the passage of the Bill, is carried into Committee and that no attempts will be made in Committee to weaken the effectiveness of a Bill which has wide support in the House and in the country.

1.33 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : We have had an interesting debate. It has been rather bumpy at times, and certainly the way in which it developed led to all sorts of uncertainties. I begin by referring to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about Donald Coleman. Donald's name still appears on the Bill. Every hon. Member will agree that he would have loved to be here today because of his affection for the badger. The badger is held in high esteem by the British people. I think that the badger is British. I am sure every hon. Member will have read "The Wind in the Willows", in which Kenneth Grahame portrayed Mr. Badger as lovable and wise. I recall that Mr. Badger was very proud of his dwelling and had a little boot scraper outside the front door. He was portrayed as a sane animal among a lot of unreliable animals in the wild wood. That illustrates our affection for badgers.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East introduced the Bill. He is held in high esteem in the House and his steering of the Bill is

Column 1158

commendable. I am sure that his constituents will carefully note the professional, honourable way in which he has dealt with it. The aim of the Bill is to protect badger setts. The discussions so far make me feel that it is a reasonable, sensible Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, I believe that there will be an opportunity to deal with any worries and to come up with a compromise. A Bill such as this must be based on compromise because there are conflicting interests.

Mr. Colvin : I accept what the hon. Gentleman said--it is thoroughly in character with many of the Opposition's contributions to the debate. Getting the Bill to Committee, Report and Third Reading in the House of Commons is one thing, but the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) must realise that he will have to do a lot of work in the other place as well because there will be similar hurdles there. Those who oppose the Bill there may not be as constructive as hon. Members here. The Bill will have a long passage.

Mr. Randall : There will be difficulties, but with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East at the helm, and given his attitude to the problems that the Bill is bound to encounter, the Bill will be successful in another place. If anyone can do it, my hon. Friend can.

Our affection for the badger is reflected in the amount of legislation over the years. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 provided some help, but it was restricted to certain types of baiting. The Badgers Act 1973 introduced measures against badger digging--that is the important part--and against injuring or wilful killing of badgers and cruel treatment. The aim of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), was to secure convictions--an important point. It shifted the onus of proof on to those who claim that they are fox hunting.

The existing legislation has deficiencies. The Bill will make it easier to convict those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) called sadists. As has been said, only about 50 per cent. of offenders filtered by the Crown prosecution service are charged, let alone convicted. That is because the evidence that is needed for a conviction is too complex. In addition, the fox and the badger may reside in the same hole and, in the past, terrier men and diggers have been able to swear until they were blue in the face that they were after the fox, which is legitimate and within the law. A conviction was not possible unless the offender was caught red-handed or with the badger or a bit of the badger.

Although I do not want to go into the details, because I wish to be as expeditious as possible. Although I am not sure of the exact figures, I believe that between 9,000 and 10,000 badgers are killed in this country each year out of a population of about 200,000. The badger population is quite large and I do not think that there is any danger of the badger becoming extinct, but those figures give an idea of the level of cruelty and violence that is perpetrated against badgers.

Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend may be right to say that badgers are not in any danger of becoming extinct, but they face a serious risk in many parts of England where their population is not robust. In addition to all the other

Column 1159

threats to the badger's survival, digging in those areas means that the badger becomes sparse locally and may even become extinct. That point needs to be borne in mind.

Mr. Randall : My hon. Friend, who is knowledgable about these matters, is quite right. If one looks at the maps of badger distribution, one can see the patchiness of the badger population. At the heart of the Bill is the need to tackle the problems of badger baiting and badger digging and the need to be able to get convictions more readily for those people whose behaviour is so grossly unacceptable to, I hope, all hon. Members. The major problem that is encountered by the authorities when bringing those cruel people to book is the evidential requirement and the complexity of the evidence that is required under the current legislation. The provisions are so stringent that the Badgers Act 1973 is rendered less operable than hon. Members of all parties would like. It is exceedingly difficult for the courts to convict unless the perpetrators are caught red- handed or are in possession of something that can be classed as firm evidence. In many cases, the evidence is under the ground, in a sett, and is impossible to get at.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some danger of our getting into a muddle over whether we are trying to stop badgers dying or to stop the bestial behaviour of the badger baiters? The greatest dangers to badgers are the motor car and, as I said earlier, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The House cannot preserve the badger's life indefinitely with a Bill such as this. We are trying to stop the badger baiters. Like my hon. Friends who have expressed a similar view today, I am concerned that we should ensure that that is what we do without interfering with all the other aspects of country life that are legitimate and beneficial.

Mr. Randall : We are talking about preventing unacceptable levels of cruelty and pain. In my view, we must sometimes have controls on certain animals. There is a licensing arrangement to provide that and it can be carried out in a humane and controlled fashion. At the heart of the Bill is our wish to get at those people whose behaviour is uncivilised and unacceptable.

I am delighted that the Bill would make convictions relatively simple to obtain. The Bill is essentially about damage to setts, which, as we all know, are the habitat of the badger. One can envisage the way in which a conviction might be obtained if a man was near a sett with a car or a van, a couple of terriers and a spade. All he has to do is to dig into the sett. The time that he spends on that could be from 30 minutes to five or six hours. He listens and digs, but in the meantime, someone has an opportunity to identify him and to call the police. That is relatively simple when compared with existing legislation.

There are serious consequences from currently having no sett protection. Appendix A of a survey produced by the National Federation of Badger Groups contains statistics of a review of 179 incidents of serious disturbance. The incidents are categorised and the top category was excessive sett blocking, which occurred in 66 of the 179 incidents. The second was digging out with hand implements for badger and fox in 44 cases. The third was destruction by mechanical equipment in 30 cases, and there were 15 cases of severe blocking by other parties.

Column 1160

There were also instances with chemicals, gases, snares and so on. It is clear that blocking, digging out and damage by mechanical equipment are the greatest causes of disturbance.

Appendix A also shows that the perpetrators--a word that I do not like--of the 179 cases were fox hunts in 67 cases, farmers in 25 cases, terrier men in 18 cases and smaller groups such as gamekeepers and local authorities in the remaining cases. Blocking, which is the major cause of disturbance, is carried out mainly by foxhounds, terrier men and farmers. That is the nature of the problem according to those figures.

Mr. Colvin : I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about fox hunts, but I am not clear about a point in the Bill of which his remarks have reminded me. A hunt is not entitled to put a terrier into a badger's sett. What about hounds marking at a sett? It is not clear from anything that has been said this morning, either by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) or by the hon. Gentleman, whether hounds marking at a sett would be an indictable offence or whether there would be a defence for that. It would be helpful if a defence for that activity could be encompassed in the Bill.

Mr. Randall : My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East should answer that. My inclination would be to say no. It is a matter for the Committee, and I expect that it will be fully debated and clarified and that the Bill will be amended. My feeling is that it would not be an offence.

We have perceived the pressure applied by the fox hunting lobby. It is opposed to a total restriction on tampering or blocking because that would mean that it would be unable to carry out its sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East made a profound and impressive statement about the need for compromise. He said that the Bill was not a back-door way to get at the fox hunters. He clearly separated them from badger baiters. We now accept that there is a need for light stopping-up of setts to accommodate fox hunting groups.

Some of the people with whom I have spoken believe that the voluntary code of practice introduced by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association does not and could not work, and that a stronger measure is necessary. What do the Government feel should be done? It has been suggested that a new Department of the Environment document or order could be introduced to define how the fox hunting establishment should carry out its affairs. Alternatively, a code of practice could be enshrined in the Bill. The present code of practice certainly commands very little support.

Several hon. Members have expressed concern about how people will know whether a hole in the ground is a badger sett or simply a hole. Badger setts can be very large with many entrances and exits, and parts of the setts are used only during certain periods of the year, particularly in the breeding season when cubs and sows are in the setts together. I was brought up in a district with many badger setts. They are easily distinguishable, especially the larger ones, and are generally fairly well known by the local people. It is easy to envisage the risks to innocent people mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). Somebody with no bad intentions could damage a sett with a shovel, thinking that the hole

Column 1161

was not a badger sett. Such matters will have to be dealt with by the courts and we should not want to convict somebody for mistakenly damaging a badger sett.

Mr. Colvin : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall : I cannot give way as I am running out of time and am nearing the end of my speech.

If someone is equivocal about whether a hole in the ground is a sett, I would expect that person to give the benefit of the doubt to the badger and, if a fox had gone down the hole, to leave it in there for fear of damaging the sett.

Accidents happen in the countryside, particularly involving farmers and forestry staff. It is easy to drive a truck or heavy vehicle carrying trees over a sett and damage it. I should not wish such an accident to result in people being sent to court. I should be interested to hear the Minister of State's views. It would be unacceptable because court procedures can be a painful experience. I served on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill and was pleased that we persuaded the Government to increase the penalties and toughen up parts of the Badgers Act 1973. I also share the Minister of State's reservations about introducing more custodial sentences when we are trying to reduce their number. The Minister has tabled amendments on the subject and I hope that she will say a word about them.

The confiscation of dogs and the disqualification of certain people from owning them were discussed earlier. Such moves might act as a severe deterrent for the really difficult people, some of whom regard a fine as a subscription--it does not make them bat an eyelid. Tying them down in this way might be a more effective deterrent. What is the Government's view on that?

The Labour party welcomes the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East on his terrific enterprise in bringing it before us. We believe that it will receive widespread support in the country. As a practical, realistic and sensible Bill, it will certainly make easier convictions for wicked, irresponsible and cruel acts against badgers. The badger, which is cherished and loved by many British and European people, will suffer less abuse. I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading today and makes good progress here and in another place. We shall be voting for it.

1.56 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I join all those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on bringing in the Bill and on initiating the interesting debate that we have had on it. I add my name to those who have mentioned Donald Coleman. Had he been here, I am sure that he would have wanted to join us. We are sad that he cannot be, but perhaps he is with us in spirit.

Apart from my speech and that of the hon. Member for Newport, East, there have been 10 speeches, all of them unanimous in their condemnation of the horrific crime of badger baiting. None of us has any difficulty in agreeing with that condemnation. Mine is in no sense a summing-up speech ; it is an opportunity to set out and comment on the badger's position in law and to set out the Government's stance on the Bill.

I think that it was the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) who told us that the badger is one of our favourite

Column 1162

wild animals. Throughout childhood, parenthood and--in my case--grandmotherhood one knows from talking to small children the pleasure that we all derive from wild animals in this country. We are proud of our wildlife, of which badgers are an important part. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) pointed out the differences in badger numbers in different parts of the country. They are abundant in some parts, less so in others. They are, as he rightly said, sociable animals. They live in large family groups, often in a main sett that has various annexes, subsidiary setts and outlying setts attached to it. There are even some humans who have similar living arrangements.

The central point of the Bill is the protection of these setts. We heard from the hon. Member for Newport, East about the problem of some of them being disturbed and attacked by those who want to obtain badgers merely to inflict cruelty on them. Both I and the Government find that disgraceful. The fate of the badger is to be severely wounded or disabled. The unfortunate animal is then pitted against a terrier. Nobody can be left in any doubt that the House unreservedly abhors such behaviour, which cannot remotely be considered a sport. Sporting people condemn badger baiting as vociferously as anyone, as has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and other hon. Members.

There is much legislation making badger baiting an offence. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 forbids the fighting or baiting of any animal and the maximum penalty for an offence is a fine at level 5, which is £2,000, or six months' imprisonment or both. The Criminal Justice Bill seeks to uprate the standard scale and to increase a level 5 fine to a new maximum of £5,000. That is a substantial increase.

The Badgers Act 1973, which has been mentioned, makes it an offence to kill, injure or take a badger or to attempt to do so, or to ill treat or dig for one except under licence or in circumstances defined in the Act. The maximum penalty is also a level 5 fine, and I reiterate that that is to be increased to £5,000. The Act was strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 which reversed the burden of proof so that, unless he can show otherwise, a defendant is presumed to have committed an offence under the Badgers Act.

In addition, the badger is protected by the general prohibition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the taking or killing of any wild animal by certain specified methods. That offence also attracts the maximum penalty of a level 5 fine. All that legislation means that badgers receive considerable protection in law. As the badger is an unendangered wild animal, the level of protection afforded to them is probably unique.

Following an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley West (Mr. Archer) and coupled in Committee with the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tabled an amendment to enable courts to impose sentences of up to six months' imprisonment for offences under sections 1 and 2 of the Badgers Act. Those offences are of taking, injuring or killing badgers, causing cruelty to them or digging for them.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that the confiscation of vehicles would be a good idea. The

Column 1163

Criminal Justice Act 1988 extended to offences under the Badgers Act the powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973. A court may confiscate any property used in the commission of a criminal offence. If the court took the view that a person convicted of a criminal offence under the Badgers Act had used a vehicle in the commission of that offence, it could order the confiscation of the vehicle. That is a tough power and magistrates are well aware of it. I hope that the hon. Member for Wentworth will be happy with that information.

Mr. Colvin : What about my suggestion about the confiscation of dogs owned by those convicted for digging for badgers and badger baiting and a prohibition on such people owning dogs in future?

Mrs. Rumbold : I am not 100 per cent. certain of the law on that. I shall write to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who raised a similar issue. General legislation and the amendment that we have introduced will put the level of imprisonment for offences under the Badgers Act for cruelty to badgers exactly on a par with sentences that can be imposed under the Protection of Animals Act for other offences of cruelty to animals. I am sure that this increase in penalties under the Badgers Act is supported by the majority of hon. Members. We are debating a Bill which would amend the Badgers Act further to include within its scope not only the badger but the badger's sett. As the hon. Member for Newport, East pointed out, section (2C) of the Badgers Act makes it illegal to dig for badgers. However, as the House has heard in powerful speeches from several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, since badgers and foxes often live in each other's company, those interfering with badger setts know that they can argue that they were doing so to catch foxes, which are not protected in the same way as badgers. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) mentioned this in his interesting speech. This is where the complication comes, for not only do badgers and foxes live close to each other but badgers often have a number of setts that are used intermittently. Equally, those who conduct fox hunting believe that it is necessary to stop up the entrances to badger setts so that they can prevent foxes from using the setts as a means of escape. Further legal protection of badger setts could thus impinge upon the pursuit of fox hunting.

Because of this aspect, the Government take a neutral stance towards the Bill. Our position has always been, and I am sure that it will continue to be, that, while we welcome measures that would prevent badger baiting and cruelty to badgers, we shall remain strictly neutral on measures that

Column 1164

might affect the lawful pursuit of field sports. We feel that hon. Members should be wholly free to follow their own conscience on voting on such matters.

Hon. Members have spoken of the large amounts of correspondence that they have received. It was interesting to hear that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), making one of his first speeches, as he has only recently joined us, had received many letters from his constituents. It seems that there is no question but that the British public are still interested in and wish to pursue this matter, and to ensure that the House takes up the issue and does so seriously. Although the Government have taken a neutral stance, we are anxious to pursue the matter further because of the interest taken in it by our constituents.

One of the achievements of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last year was that a great deal of good progress was made in the Committee considering his Bill, by general accord and by compromise, to produce formulae for the improved protection of badger setts. That is shown by the way that parts of that Bill are similar to the two main thrusts of this Bill. The Bill that is to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also has similar points, although he has clearly and ably set out his view. I am certain that, were the Bill before us to go into Committee, he would wish to be a member of that Standing Committee so that he could argue his points in that forum.

As I have said, the Government are neutral on this, as they are on any Bill that involves field sports. We are also keen that the process that was started last year, of trying to find ways to protect badger setts, should continue. I think that that will help my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, who made such a powerful speech this morning. The agreement that has already developed clearly chimes with the views of the public. As I have said, we have received many letters that confirm that view. I am encouraged by what has been said today and I hope that the common ground--

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I am relatively new to the debate, but, like many other hon. Members, I shall be in my place if there is a Division on the Second Reading. Am I right in saying that many hunts make it plain that the digging of foxes should not be used as an excuse by those who are after badgers to bait them? That is one of the ways by which those who want to protect official field sports can help the promoters of the Bill. In that way we can achieve most of the aims that lie behind the Bill, without any accompanying threats.

Mrs. Rumbold : I am sure that the House will have noted my hon. Friend's important intervention. I hope that the common ground that has been identified on both sides of the House can be built on to produce a Bill that will receive the wholehearted support of the entire House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Column 1165

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.10 pm

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

A thoughtfully planned and balanced approach to forestry can effectively blend environmental and development interests in the highlands and islands, and perhaps more so than any other economic enterprise. At a time when the future of hill sheep farming appears to be increasingly difficult, it is vital that working crofters be given access to forestry on the same terms as any farmer or landowner. The Bill is intended as the first step towards that. The Bill will end the legal anomaly whereby ordinary crofting tenants are prevented from participating directly in forestry in the highlands and islands. Under the present law, trees planted by crofting tenants belong to the land. My Bill will tackle this anomaly by giving crofting tenants in the highlands and islands legal rights of ownership over the trees that they themselves plant on common grazing. At the same time, as clause 3 makes clear, the Bill will entitle them to receive the management and planting grants and incentives that are already available to other participants in forestry.

The Bill reflects several years of preparation and it is a compromise between the different parties with a declared interest in these matters. The Scottish Crofters Union--the only union to have expanded under Thatcherism--has been pressing the case for a change in the law since its founding in the early 1980s. It was a subject which I raised during consideration of the Farmland and Rural Development Bill of 1988, as some of my old friends will remember. The then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), gave a sympathetic hearing, and since then the Scottish Office has lent its support in principle and helped in the drafting of the present Bill. The Bill embodies the outcome of months of discussion between the Scottish Crofters Union and the Scottish Landowners Federation--the two organisations most directly concerned--and with the Crofters Commission, local authorities and others. As the House will recognise from the list of supporters of the Bill, the measure has broad all-party support. It has the full backing of the Scottish Landowners Federation and of environmental groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am grateful to all individuals and organisations for their support. The Bill is a first step, but a major one, and I hope that by this summer, possibly, we shall see a new and important activity opening up for the ever versatile crofter. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Column 1166

Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.14 pm

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am bound to confess that I am slightly surprised, but equally delighted, that there is enough time today to debate what I believe is one of the most helpful and important private Members' Bills to come before the House this Session. I begin by expressing my thanks to those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been kind enough to add their support to the Bill. As one who, over the years, has played a part--perhaps too big a part, sometimes--in assassinating private Members' Bills, it is hardly surprising that I took particular trouble to recruit as one of my Bill's supporters the Opposition deputy Chief Whip, who was also extremely generous in giving it his support.

I am enormously grateful for this opportunity to introduce my Bill, which is aimed at further improving the safety of child passengers. Children are especially vulnerable in car crashes. According to road accident statistics, 1,000 children are killed or suffer serious injuries in cars each year. In addition--this is very

frightening--about 10,000 more children suffer slight injuries. The House has addressed the problem on many occasions. The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988 requires that children under 14 should be restrained in the rear seats of cars. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for getting that legislation through. The 1988 Act describes types of child restraints appropriate for different children, and led to almost a doubling in the number of children restrained in rear seats.

It is estimated that that innovation prevented more than 200 deaths and serious injuries in the first year after it was enacted. That is a major achievement, but there are still far too many deaths and injuries among child passengers each year. They remain a major element in all child casualties on our roads. That is particularly true of children under four years of age, who should always be restrained by the appropriate type of seat belt for their weight. Such restraints have been shown to save about three quarters of deaths, and nearly as many serious injuries, compared with unrestrained children in similar accidents.

Seat belts alone are far from ideal, because they are designed for adults, and are, in many cases, wholly inappropriate for children to use. It is vital that parents, who are responsible for ensuring that their children are properly restrained, are given the best possible guidance and information on the most appropriate child restraint, and on how to install and use it. That last aspect is enormously important. My Bill will help to ensure that that guidance is available at points of sale. It will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to control the sale and hire of restraints, so that only those approved to British or international safety standard can be sold or hired out as being for the protection of children in accidents. That will help in two ways.

First, if the Bill is agreed by the House, it will be easier to check at the time of purchase or hire that the restraint

Next Section

Home Page