House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 May 1991

Column 919

know the location of the badger setts. Nevertheless, there will be accidents--one was reported only the other day- -and there must be some defence when such accidents occur.

I am interested in amendment No. 16, because the National Farmers Union has made a particular plea about it. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, as I have said to him previously, that I have fought two general elections in his constituency, where unquestionably the sheep substantially outnumber the voters. The livelihood of many of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents depends on a successful lambing season. Whatever the arguments about the figures, the fact is that farmers go to considerable trouble to maintain a fox population that does not endanger newly-born lambs. The activities of the David Davies hunt and the addresses recalled by the hon. and learned Gentleman revived memories of happy canvassing in the early 1960s. He was right to say that the David Davies hunt is a working hunt. I met many of those involved in it, although I never had any other direct contact with them.

The NFU has written a sensible letter. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from it at some length, because it makes my point for me. The parliamentary adviser to the NFU, Mr. Holbeche, wrote :

"However, as awareness of the issues raised by the Bill has grown in the countryside, it has become clear that farmers in sheep farming areas in particular are worried that as it stands the Bill could jeopardise legitimate fox control. For example, in parts of Wales and south-west England, sheep farmers report significant losses during the lambing season from predatory foxes. Accurate figures are hard to come by though it would appear that at the present time the threat from foxes is exceeded by that posed by uncontrolled dogs. Although what surveys have been done to date suggest that foxes account for a relatively small percentage of lamb losses, there is much concern that the threat is increasing on the edge of urban areas, and in parts of Wales where the Forestry Commission has cut back its pest control operations for budgetary reasons. Preventive action to control foxes would be seriously hampered by the Bill's total prohibition on the digging of foxes where they run to earth in a badger sett, including abandoned entrances to active setts which would be protected by the Bill. For these reasons we would support an amendment to the Bill to leave out lines 47 and 48 on page 2. This change to clause 4 would remove the proposed prohibition on the granting of licences permitting dogs to be entered into badger setts. The principle of licensing to allow for anything done in relation to protected wildlife that would otherwise be unlawful is well established, notably in section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981."

The letter then goes on to promote the general case.

I have a large badger sett next to the first field on the farm where I have lived for many years. There is no physical way of getting a fox out of a badger sett other than by using a terrier or other dogs. We must accept that most hill farmers think that this is a serious matter and that they must take steps to keep down the fox population, and the only way to do that is to use dogs to get the foxes out of the badger setts.

I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that amendment No. 16 would be more likely to protect badgers than not. I am concerned about the reasons why the clause is even in the Bill, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport, East will say something about that. I congratulate both him and the hon. Members who took a critical view of the Bill on Second Reading on the way in which they have sought to

Column 920

reach a sensible compromise. At one time, the issues appeared virtually irreconcilable. I am glad that common sense has prevailed, as I hope it will on this amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies : I am in some difficulty, because I want to speak against amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), but I am not sure whether he intends to press the amendments. The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), whose name also appears on the amendments, has listened carefully to the debate. If either hon. Member could say whether he was prepared to withdraw the amendments, that would help our deliberations.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to ask your advice. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is in fact referring to amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Davies : No, I am referring to Nos. 3 and 4.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : There are three distinct cases to be put within this group of amendments. I had intended at a later stage to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how to split the group for voting purposes. I intend to request a vote on amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I have not yet made a decision on amendment No. 3.

Mr. Gale : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you are to consider splitting the group of amendments for voting purposes, I hope that you will also consider separating amendments Nos. 3 and 18. Amendment No. 18 refers to bodily harm, and it makes a great deal of difference to amendment No. 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Obviously, much will depend on what happens to amendment No. 1 when it is put to the House. In the appropriate circumstances, I would sympathetically consider the possibility of a separate Division on amendment No. 5. If amendment No. 1 fell, it would be difficult to vote on amendment No. 4. It might be sensible if I reflect on the points that have been raised before I put the Question. That might be the most helpful course.

Mr. Davies : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upminster for giving us some idea about his intentions. I want to speak briefly against amendment No. 4. We have had a wide debate about the problems of Welsh upland sheep farmers. I note with interest the comments by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about Liberal Democrat policy. I am delighted to know that in that regard, it fully complies with Labour party policy. I was also struck by the intense concern that the fox-hunting lobby now shows for the interests of Welsh sheep farmers. I have no doubt that tabling the amendments is a clear attempt by the fox-hunting lobby in the House to weaken the Bill so that foxhunters can continue to enjoy their sport, as they see it, without further interference. That is the purpose of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak against amendment No. 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will also oppose that amendment.

We have heard the argument about the damage done to sheep farming interests and especially to lambs as a result of predation by foxes. From my own experience, I have no doubt that a problem is caused in upland farms by the predation of foxes on sheep. However, we must get the matter in perspective. The Ministry of Agriculture,

Column 921

Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers Union have made it clear--and all the evidence is available--that, as a national problem, such predation is of minimal significance. However, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that predation could be a problem locally. I know that some farmers suffer considerable losses and are understandably anxious to find out about all the methods that can be used to control foxes, in the hope that it will minimise losses of lambs.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that, on my farm in mid-Wales in the mid-1980s, I lost 34 lambs one spring, certainly because of foxes. I had a badger sett on my farm, about which I told no one. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the problem. Foxes kill many lambs in spring and that can cause substantial financial disbenefit to the farmers concerned. We must be careful on this issue.

Mr. Davies : I do not know when the hon. Gentleman came in. He has made precisely the point that I was making. I do not underestimate the problem, and I acknowledge that it can be a severe problem locally. I have spent more cold March and April nights than I care to recall on the mountains in my constituency at lambing time shooting foxes. I understand the problem, and I understand its severe impact on some farmers.

The question that we must ask is why some Conservative Members seek grievously to weaken a Bill to protect badger setts on the basis of a small and localised problem. It is an inappropriate response to the problems of fox predation on lambs in upland Wales to seek to weaken a Bill that should extend protection to badger setts throughout the United Kingdom.

Foxes can be controlled if they are a problem, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, possibly by the use of hounds driving to guns. I am not satisfied that, if there are localised problems and if foxes occasionally take refuge in badger setts, it is an appropriate response for the House to weaken a measure that seeks to protect badger setts and to allow interference with badger setts. After listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that there is a deliberate attempt by fox-hunting interests to weaken the Bill. Some hon. Members will use any argument. They call in aid the economic interests of sheep farmers, because they will not argue truthfully that they enjoy what they regard as a sport and that they want to continue to enjoy it without interference. They are willing to weaken legislation to protect badger setts to allow them to continue enjoying their sport. It is cynical for them to attempt to torpedo such a Bill. That approach illustrates the arrogant and selfish attitude that is represented by the Tory fox-hunting interests in the House this morning.

10.45 am

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : The last remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) were--

Mr. Wiggin : They were disgraceful.

Mr. Paice : As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, they were

Column 922

disgraceful. The end of the speech was typical of the bombastic way in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly often assaults Conservative Members. He makes many aspersions against our characters, our habits and our motives, which are wholly without justification.

I have not hunted foxes for 25 years. At that time, I was a member of a pony club, but I hunted only once or twice. I am not a regular foxhunter, I do not go to hunts and I give no particular support to fox hunting, although I support the right of the individual to have the freedom to do what he wants. It is despicable to suggest that those of us who are genuinely concerned about aspects of the Bill have some ulterior motive connected with fox hunting. That is nonsense.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly and his hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) are both Opposition spokesmen on agricultural matters. I suspect that many farmers will look carefully at what they have said about the problem of attacks on lambs.

Mr. Morley : As an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have listened carefully to what the National Farmers Union and my local farmers have said about the problem of predation. We have made it clear that there can be localised problems and that they can often be dealt with efficiently and effectively by contractors. [ Hon. Members :-- "Contractors?"] Yes, by contractors. Can the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) give me one example of an independent report that demonstrates that there is a major problem of predation by foxes? Many reports do not show that. Many farmers tell me that often more disturbance is caused by hounds chasing foxes across fields than by the foxes themselves.

Mr. Paice : I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "contractors". There are contractors in a range of agricultural activities. I have never heard of contractors who would get foxes out of their hiding places.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice : Of course. We are here to be enlightened.

Mr. Home Robertson : The hon. Gentleman has given way to a farmer who farms in an area in which we have had problems with foxes. In my part of the world, there is an excellent rabbit clearance society that employs a trapper who is by far the most efficient person to control foxes and who uses a gun. He knows where the foxes will be at any time of day, and he can kill them quickly and humanely without needing to dig them out. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has made a serious point.

Mr. Paice : The obvious retort is that one way of controlling rabbits is to allow foxes to do it. The other problem is that trapping is one of the cruellest ways in which to control foxes. It often means a drawn -out--

Mr. Morley : They shoot the foxes.

Mr. Paice : The foxes have to be trapped before they are shot unless they are drawn to a bait. I know what I am talking about. The most important aspect is the question of predation, to which Labour Members have referred. One can, of course, say that only 0.5 or 1 per cent. of lambs are lost through predation and that one can, therefore, disregard

Column 923

the problem. It is true that there are greater losses from other causes, such as nutritional problems and stillbirths. There are other reasons why lambs do not survive. All farmers are anxious to reduce lamb mortality. It is the key criterion for profitability in sheep farming. Through a range of measures, such as training courses, farmers are able to set about reducing lamb mortality. They do it by learning about and providing better nutrition and in many other ways. Labour Members have said that that is all very well, but that there is one form of predation that they should not be able to do anything about. That is unjust and unfair on those producers.

Just as some Labour Members have cast aspersions on the motives of some Conservative Members, there are others outside the House who see the Bill as a means of getting at foxhunters. That is not what the Bill should be about. I share the view of many hon. Members that badger baiting is an abhorrent sport which must be stamped out. I shall support the Bill to the end in its efforts to do that, but we should not confuse a debate about the merits and demerits of fox hunting with the Bill. If hon. Members wish to debate that, I know that many hon. Members from both sides of the House would like to participate, but the Bill should not be used as a vehicle to take a side swipe at fox hunting.

Many people hold the belief--I fear that this came through in the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)--that nature is benign, and consists only of lambs gambolling and birds singing. The reality is different. Those of us who have lived and grown up in the countryside know that nature is extremely cruel and vicious--often more cruel and vicious than man, who has lowered himself to some pretty despicable acts.

We have to control foxes. They take lambs. Although doubts have been cast about some of the evidence and it has been suggested that some of it is anecdotal, I have witnessed that happening and I am sure that other hon. Members have done so. It is all very well to say that foxes take only sick or weak lambs. That is true if one defines a weak lamb as one that is only a few minutes old. Many lambs are taken almost immediately after they are born. If the ewe is tired after a difficult lambing and is unable to get back to her feet, that is an ideal opportunity for a fox to rush in and take a lamb. To dismiss the problem by saying that it involves only sick and weakly lambs fails to recognise reality.

None of the amendments, if accepted, would diminish the Bill's ability to deal with what it sets out to do, which is to end the despicable way in which a tiny minority seek to extract badgers from their setts to carry out their vile sport of badger baiting. It is an important Bill which should not be jeopardised or lost because some people wish to use it for ulterior motives, whatever they may be. So that we can do something about badger baiting, I hope that the House will recognise the merits of the amendments and accept them so that the Bill can become law.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : This has been an extremely good debate on the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) have tabled. It has been spoiled only by the obvious prejudice shown by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Until then I thought that the debate had been balanced and fair, but I am afraid that it was not once the hon. Member for Caerphilly gave his views.

Column 924

Among other things, it has been alleged that foxes do not do any significant damage to lambs. I am a farmer and I must advise the House that two lambs have been taken from my farm by foxes this spring.

Mr. Ron Davies : I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to my speech. I did not suggest for one moment that there was not a problem. I said that there was a limited problem nationally, but I acknowledged that the problem can be severe locally.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified his remarks, but I do not acknowledge that a problem that is limited can be severe locally, and this problem is severe locally. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) produced statistics showing that only 0.5 per cent. of lambs were taken. That is no consolation to farmers in areas with a large sheep population of, say, several thousand sheep and where five sheep out of every thousand might be taken.

Mr. O'Hara : I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has said. I do not underestimate the scale of the problem either locally or nationally. I merely suggested that there should be a more scientific assessment of the problem nationally and that appropriate and not unnecessary measures should be available to deal with severe local problems.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I am glad that the problems faced by sheep farmers, both locally and nationally, in the depredation of their sheep flocks by foxes are recognised by Labour Members. That is an advance on the previous position as I understood it.

Mr. Colvin : I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the figures produced on damage to sheep by fox hunting--[ Hon. Members-- : "Yes."]--by foxes illustrate that fox hunting with terriers is effective. If the Bill ended that perfectly legitimate activity, sheep losses would be very much higher.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My hon. Friend is right. Despite his slip of the tongue, I do not think that even the Labour Members with the most extreme views would suggest that fox hunting damages sheep. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside covered most of the issues comprehensively and well and I shall not repeat his arguments. The amendments can be divided into four groups--amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ; Nos. 4 and 5 ; No. 16 ; and No. 18--each of which has a different merit and argument. I shall return to that when it comes to a vote.

I shall not cover amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 because my hon. Friends have done that extremely well. I shall examine more closely amendments Nos. 4 and 5 in the light of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who unfortunately is not in his place, because his views showed a deep prejudice about why the amendments had been tabled and an unfortunate misunderstanding of their consequences. I hope that all hon. Members who have open minds will accept that the amendments are not designed to weaken the protection of badgers. I and all my hon. Friends who have been involved with this Bill this year and with a similar Bill last year have sought to reach, and to a large extent succeeded in reaching, a compromise that will allow a continuation of countryside activities, especially hunting, with the

Column 925

substantial protection of the badger that is offered by the Bill in addition to the great protection afforded by the Badgers Act 1973. Clause 1 adds the following five offences to that Act :

"(3) If any person shall interfere with a badger sett by doing any of the following things, that is to say,

(a) damaging a badger sett or any part thereof ;

(b) destroying a badger sett ;

(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett ; or

(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty of an offence.".

Provided that proper defences are given against the charge of having perpetrated such actions, I agree that they should be criminal offences. The question is whether adequate defences are afforded by the Act. I contend that adequate defences for innocent acts are not provided. Therefore, I have tabled amendments to deal with my concerns and those of many others, especially the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), whose speech I greatly welcomed. He underlined the danger to the Welsh hill farmer that the Bill would pose if sensible amendments were not agreed.

11 am

Amendment No. 4 would insert the following subsection : "An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt established under sections 1(1A) or 2(2) by evidence that he was engaged in any other activity save where he can show that he was authorised to be engaged in that activity by the occupier of the land on which the alleged offence occurred."

That provides a substantial and significant safeguard. No one could argue legitimately--or even illegitimately--that that provision would weaken the existing legislation. It provides yet another layer of proof that anyone out with terriers or other dogs would have to establish to avoid prosecution. I suspect that the only reason why Opposition Members are unable to agree with that contention was summarised neatly by the hon. Member for Caerphilly when he expressed his attitude to those who hunt. He is clearly prejudiced against landowners, farmers and those who live in the countryside and carry on their sports on it. He does not want those people to be involved in the way in which these matters are progressed. He is roaring with laughter and rolling from side to side, but that is the inevitable conclusion of anyone who reads his speeches.

Mr. Gale : I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that I am not anti- landowner. I represent many farmers. I do not share some of the sentiments of Opposition Members, but there is genuine opposition to some of the amendments simply because they would weaken the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I am glad that my hon. Friend has come back into the Chamber. I hoped that he would. I hope that, when he hears my arguments, he will accept that the amendments would not weaken the Bill and make it harder to catch and prosecute badger baiters, against whom we all feel strongly. The amendments are necessary to safeguard the legitimate and proper interests of others who are not badger baiting, but who could be wrongfully

Column 926

prosecuted under the legislation while carrying out more harmless pursuits unless proper safeguards are put in the Bill.

My hon. Friend did not deal with amendment No. 4, which would provide an additional safeguard. Badger baiters would be caught, even if they advanced any of the existing defences, unless they could establish that the owner or occupier of the land had given them permission to use that land. Unless my hon. Friend thinks that the owners or occupiers of land are accessories to badger baiting--which is virtually never the case--he should not feel that the amendment does anything other than include another safeguard against the badger baiting that we all wish to prevent.

The second part of amendment No. 4 provides :

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(e) (disturbing a badger) by reason of entering a terrier into a badger sett provided that his action would otherwise have been lawful." That is intended specifically to help the Welsh farmer, and those who hunt foxes with terriers, who face difficulties when foxes enter an earth or a sett where badgers have been. Those who live in the country know that it is not always easy to know whether a fox or a badger is present. I fear that people in perfectly legitimate pursuit of a fox will be caught by the Bill unless the amendment is included.

Mr. Morley : I have followed the hon. Gentleman's arguments carefully. He wants the Bill to be changed to allow terriers to be put down badger setts to get foxes out of them in order to destroy the foxes. Why is it that in Northern Ireland no such protection of badger setts exists, nor are they allowed to be stopped, yet fox hunters pursue their sport adequately? In Northern Ireland, sheep flocks have increased substantially without any detrimental effect on the sheep farmers. Therefore, why do we need the amendment?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I do not believe that fox control is needed in Northern Ireland to the same extent as it is in the areas to which I am referring. The primary purpose of most of the hunts in Northern Ireland is sport. The Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and it would make it almost impossible to hunt in the Welsh hills unless the amendments were accepted.

Amendment No. 5 does not amend the Bill substantially. It deals with clause 2, which provides the defence against the offences in clause 1. Clause 2 states :

(1) In section 8(1A) of the Badgers Act 1973--

(a) after the words under section 1(1)' there shall be inserted or 2(3)' ; and

(b) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted--

(2) At the end of section 8 of the Badgers Act 1973 there shall be added--

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section (3) (a), (c) or (e) of this Act if he shows that his action was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been reasonably avoided.'."

The consequence of that defence is that those who are pursuing the activities defined in clause 1 will not be defended against actions in paragraphs (b) and (d) in that clause. The defences provided in the Bill cover those who damage and obstruct access to a badger sett and those who disturb a badger, but they do not cover those who destroy a badger sett and those who cause a dog to enter a badger sett. There is no reason to make that distinction. Although it would be unfortunate if someone, in the course of a

Column 927

lawful action, destroyed a badger sett and his action could not reasonably have been avoided, I cannot see why he should be brought within the scope of the Bill for that reason when, if he damaged the badger sett, he would not be. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will deal with that when he replies.

Where should the line be drawn? Should a distinction be made between severely damaging and destroying a badger sett by driving a tractor over it by mistake? It is a dangerous line to try to draw. In either case it is not suggested that the badger is harmed by the activity. The amendment covers the destruction of the badger sett. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North that no one wishes to weaken the Bill. The amendment will not affect a badger baiter, who is most unlikely to want to destroy the badger sett, or to need to do so during his baiting. Catching the badger to bait is more likely to damage the sett, yet it is for damaging it that he has a possible defence under the Bill and may be able to wriggle out of it. If he destroys it, he has no such defence. That distinction is not needed to strengthen the protection of the badger.

The same applies to the action of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was rightly concerned about the consequences for those who hunt with terriers in Wales. The amendment would assist them and is essential if they are to continue their activities.

Amendment No. 18 changes the wording from "harm" to "bodily harm". The reason is that "harm" is an extremely wide-ranging word. There are those who, given the slightest excuse, would take people to court in order to pursue a vendetta against them. The definition of "harm" is so wide that it is almost impossible to know what it means. That would certainly apply to the badger who was the victim of any such action. A badger baiter does bodily harm to a badger ; there can be no question about that. In what way would the amendment weaken the Bill if its purpose is to protect the badger and has not spread into the wider issue of fox hunting? A number of Opposition Members have made it clear that they would welcome that, even if that is not their specific intention. The proposed amendment would not weaken the Bill's supposed purpose. I am reliably informed by the legal advice that I have taken that bodily harm includes stress-related harm. If a badger shows signs of physical distress arising from the stress caused to it, that would be included in the definition of bodily harm. I cannot see that the Bill's objective would be weakened if "bodily harm" were substituted for "harm".

Mr. Hardy : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the stress-related aspect of the matter. One of my anxieties is that the diggers in the east midlands and South Yorkshire are frequently at their busiest when cubs have just been born and the sow is lactating. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment include harm caused to badger cubs because the sow had been removed or disturbed? The defence may be that the digger did not know that there were cubs below the ground. Would that exclusion provide the digger with an excuse under the terms of the Bill as amended? Apart from that, I am grateful for his reassurance.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : And I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his great expertise in these

Column 928

matters, as I have said in previous debates. I should not like to give him a categorical assurance that that would be the case, but it is certainly my understanding that it would. Bodily harm suffered by a cub would be bodily harm suffered by a badger, as a direct consequence of the act of the badger baiter. It is most unlikely that he would get away with the kind of activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Gale : I referred to that point when I spoke briefly earlier in the debate. The reason I raised it and the reason I highlighted the comment made by the League Against Cruel Sports, which in the sense of clause 1 is incorrect but which in the sense of clause 5 is correct, is that my hon. Friend must answer the same question as I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) : would he regard harm done to a badger that had been blocked out of its home while absent hunting at night as bodily harm? There is a considerable difference. Many of us feel strongly that the proposed amendment would create an opportunity for the unscrupulous to block up a badger sett while the badger was out hunting, thus depriving it of its sett. It is a moot point whether that would be bodily harm or harm.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I suppose that it is a moot point whether it would be harm at all if the badger managed to find another unoccupied sett close by and went into that instead. If the badger suffered any demonstrable bodily harm as a result of being shut out of the sett, that would indeed be bodily harm. If, however, it could be said that the badger was mightily upset and inconvenienced but not damaged by the action, it would not be bodily harm. We have to keep a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend understands the countryside well. Therefore, he knows that badgers are capable of occupying any hole in the ground. Near most of the main setts there are ancillary setts. That is one reason why there have been so many problems over the question of what is and what is not an occupied sett.

The answer to my hon. Friend is that, if it really harmed the badger, the badger baiter would be caught under bodily harm. If, however, my hon. Friend is talking about inconvenience and upset to the badger, the badger baiter would not be caught. I do not believe that the criminal law should be used against those who inconvenience and upset badgers. I am afraid that there would be no end to it, in terms of the inconvenience and the upsetting of budgerigars when kept in cages, as well as all the other inconveniences caused to animals by man. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to keep a sense of proportion. If the badger is seriously and genuinely harmed, that should be a criminal offence. The Bill, as I propose it should be amended, would cover that eventuality.

I believe that the clauses fall happily into groups. I hope to have the opportunity to vote on the amendments to clauses 4 and 5 and also on amendments Nos. 16 and 18 separately, if necessary. I hope that sufficient hon. Members who have listened to the debate are now persuaded that at least some of the amendments are acceptable, although they may not be prepared to accept all of them.

Column 929

11.15 am

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by the scoring of party points across the Floor of the House or between hon. Members on the same side of the Chamber. Moreover, I do not believe that the interests of badgers are best served by turning this debate into a debate on the future of hunting. We should be profoundly uninterested in the debate about the future of hunting today, since today's debate is about the protection, preservation and the continuation of the badger's life style. If, as is estimated, 9,000 badgers are losing their lives illegally each year, those are 9,000 reasons why we should aim at getting this measure on to the statute book as fast as is humanly possible.

Mr. Ron Davies : The hon. Gentleman may like to think that that is the case and that it is possible to proceed on the basis of consensus. However, he must recognise that amendments have been tabled by people who are directly and publicly associated with fox hunting. Those amendments would grievously weaken the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to allow fox hunting to continue. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that conflict of interest.

Mr. Bowis : I entirely accept that amendments have been tabled that are designed to protect the interests of fox hunting, and that a balance must be struck between the interests of fox hunting and the interests of sheep and all those who live in the countryside. We are seeking to bring together all those broad interests when considering the protection of the badger, as the Bill seeks to do.

We went to great lengths in Committee to meet the genuine and reasonable arguments by the hunting community. Clause 3 was added in response to those demands. That is a tribute to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), the promoter of the Bill, who was willing to seek a compromise and a balance between all the interests in the countryside to which I have referred. I have listened carefully to the arguments on amendment No. 16. I am also prepared to listen to the arguments on the amendment relating to marking. We must be careful, however, not to amend the Bill in such a way that it becomes impossible to enforce in the courts.

I intend to refer to four of the amendments, about three of which I have strong doubts ; on the fourth, I am open to persuasion. I have the strongest doubts about amendment No. 2, which seeks to delete the offence of causing a dog to enter a badger sett. If that is deleted, it is deleted not only for the well-intentioned huntsman or farmer but for any immoral or evil person. The amendment is far too wide, and it would be wrong to accept it.

I hope that my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand amendment No. 4, it provides the acting-under-orders defence. I am not a lawyer, but I find the language used a little puzzling :

"An accused shall not be permitted to rebut a presumption of guilt".

I always understood that, under British law, the presumption was innocent until proven guilty and that guilt cannot be presumed until the courts have so decided.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My hon. Friend is wrong about the law in this instance. Under British law, there is a presumption of innocence except where statute provides that there should be a presumption of guilt, and the

Column 930

Badgers Act 1973 is such an Act. Therefore, there is a presumption of guilt unless innocence is established. That is why the amendment is so phrased.

Amendment No. 4 has nothing to do with acting under orders. Somebody who uses someone else's land for badger baiting and legitimate terrier hunting, and interferes with a badger sett, would have no defence unless the landowner or occupier had given permission. It would make it impossible for somebody to say that he was acting lawfully for the hunt when he was not, unless the landowner or occupier was prepared to back his story, which he would not be.

Next Section

Home Page