| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 936
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Nellist, Dave
Neubert, Sir Michael
Norris, Steve
O'Hara, Edward
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Primarolo, Dawn
Rhodes James, Robert
Richardson, Jo
Rogers, Allan
Rowlands, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Short, Clare
Sims, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Turner, Dennis
Waller, Gary
Walley, Joan
Ward, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Watts, John
Wheeler, Sir John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Winnick, David
Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Elliot Morley and
Mr. Ron Davies.
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 3
Extension of general exceptions
Mr. Wiggin : I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 1 at beginning insert--
( ) In section 8 of the Badgers Act 1973, after subsection (1B), there is inserted--
"(1C) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a), (b), (c) or (e) of this Act if he is lawfully engaged in the maintenance or improvement of any existing watercourse or drainage works, or the construction of new works required for the drainage of any land, including works for the purpose of defence against sea water or tidal water.".'.
Mr. Colvin : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) accepted amendment No. 16, and that is not good enough.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : When we have worked our way through other amendments, I shall ask the House to agree to that.
12 noon
Mr. Wiggin : In the storms during 1990, a flood bank in my constituency burst under the attack from the sea. More than 1,000 acres of high quality agricultural land were flooded and one domestic property was affected. The clear cause of the breach in the flood bank was a badger sett. Local farmers had drawn the matter to the attention of the National Rivers Authority, and there had been some debate about what should be done to deal with the problem. The delay militated against any action being taken, and the bank burst, with the consequences that I have outlined. A heavily piled repair was required and was costly. I went to inspect the work with local farmers and found that the badgers were at work again, as is often the case.
There should be an exemption under the Badgers Act 1973 so that those engaged in such flood protection work--the various fluvial and tidal flood defences, of which there are a great many in my part of the world--should be allowed priority.
People and property can be placed in danger. I asked the Wessex region of the National Rivers Authority to carry out a review of this matter throughout the region. In a letter dated 10 July 1990, Mr. Nigel Reader, the regional general manager of the Wessex region of the NRA, said :
Column 937
"I have initiated a survey of all sea, tidal and fluvial flood defences in the Wessex Region, to identify the presence of badger setts. To date, some 10 significant setts have been identified throughout the region together with a smaller number of minor or inactive ones. I agree with your view that it is not in the best interests of safety to allow the matter to continue unchecked. It is for that reason that we are systematically pursuing with the Ministry of Agriculture appropriate methods of dealing with the identified problems, applying one or more of the options outlined earlier to you."The difficulty is that such consultations, licences and so on take a great deal of time. Responsible bodies are involved in these matters--and they are responsible--and the main one is the National Rivers Authority. However, drainage authorities have responsibility for some areas, and practices differ from one part of the country to another. They should be exempted from the legislation, and my amendment seeks to do that.
There should not be any worry about the welfare of badgers, because it may well be possible to move them from the sites. However, we need legislation to protect people, who are now so conscious of the many ways in which the badger Acts apply that there is an essential nervousness. That was the objective of the legislation, and it has been achieved. I hope that the Bill's promoter will accept this modest amendment in the interests of safety and the countryside. It would in no way affect the welfare of badgers, which we all accept as the paramount purpose of the Bill.
Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : My hon. Friend is arguing about the time that it takes to pass the legislation. He is not arguing on a point of principle but on a technicality.
Mr. Wiggin : I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. It is question of time. In the past year or two, my part of the world has suffered from storms. When the wind is in the right direction and spring tides coincide, much of my constituency is threatened by the sea. When it is necessary to proceed, it is perfectly reasonable to say that, if badgers are in the way, they should not be considered. That is the aim of my amendment.
Mr. Roy Hughes : I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on this issue. He expressed similar sentiments on Second Reading. I assure him that drainage works or sea defence works, which are especially relevant in his constituency, are covered by clause 2(2), which states that, where damage caused "was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not have been reasonably avoided.",
section 8(1A) of the Badgers Act, 1973 makes the amendment unnecessary. Such works are also covered by the Bill's licensing provisions--I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 4(b). I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman seek leave to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. Wiggin rose--
Mr. Colvin : Do we not come to this in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Column 938
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Question before the House is, That amendment No. 20 be made. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to put the question or does he wish to withdraw the amendment?
Mr. Wiggin : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Extension of general exceptions
Sir Charles Morrison : I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 3, leave out section 2(3)(c)' and insert
section 2(3)(a), (c) or (e)'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 7, in page 2, line 5, leave out that he shall not dig into the tops or sides of the entrances,'. No. 21, in page 2, line 5, leave out shall' and insert does'. No. 22, in page 2, line 6, leave out shall not be' and insert are not'.
No. 23, in page 2, line 8, leave out shall be' and insert are'. No. 8, in page 2, line 9, leave out clean'.
No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert or soil, or'.
No. 10, in page 2, line 13, leave out clean'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 14, leave out loose'.
No. 12, in page 2, leave out line 15 and insert
and removed within twenty four hours'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out consent of the landowner' and insert
authority of the occupier of the land on which the sett is situated.'.
No. 14, in page 2, leave out lines 17 and 18.
No. 15, in page 2, line 18, at end insert--
(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2(3)(a) or (c) or (e) by reason of his hounds marking at a sett, provided they are withdrawn as soon as reasonably practicable.'.
Sir Charles Morrison : The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) introduced clause 3 into the Bill in Committee. Like other members of the Committee, I thanked him for doing that, because it meets a number of points on earth stopping that have been made by fox hunters and farmers who are concerned with fox control. None the less, I warned him that some amendments would be necessary. These amendments are those which, after consideration, I feel that it is important to make to clause 3. Some of the amendments do no more than correct defective drafting, but some are more substantial. I should emphasise how important earth stopping is for fox hunting and fox control. Without earth stopping, it is almost impossible to undertake fox hunting and to control foxes.
The clause states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under clause 2(3)(c)--the offence of
"obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett" --under certain conditions. However, in stopping a sett, a person could be held to have committed two other offences--disturbing the badgers, an offence set out in clause 1(3)(e) and damaging the sett, the offence set out in clause 1(3)(a). Amendment No. 6 simply allows disturbance to the badger or damage to a sett for the purpose of earth stopping and it removes the two anomalies that I have
Column 939
briefly described. The amendment would not allow wholesale or excessive damage to a sett or serious disturbance to a badger, because clause 3 carefully describes how a sett can be blocked. Conditions such as the use of straw or hay or the removal of bundles within a certain time mean that harmful interference with the sett will be avoided.Amendment No. 7 is concerned with digging for foxes inside a sett entrance. The act does not harm badgers, but it is not practicable for legislation to insist that every badger sett that is stopped must be stopped with imported material. Earth stoppers are frequently faced with large setts, which may be partly or temporarily disused, and many have 10 or even 20 or more entrances. In those circumstances, the sensible way to stop the earth is to cut into the sides of the entrance to produce a light covering. That would not harm the badger. If cutting into the sides of the entrances were not permitted--the effect of clause 3--stopping would be difficult. Therefore, I hope that amendment No. 7 will be accepted.
The Bill refers to clean straw, but in practice, defining clean straw would be extremely difficult. The hon. Member for Newport, East may be able to define what constitutes clean straw or say when it become dirty so that use of it is a breach of the law, but I feel that it is difficult to distinguish between clean and dirty straw. Those of us who have farmed know full well that, immediately after harvest, quite a lot of the straw is dirty for a variety of reasons. Therefore, it would be reasonable to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 10, which remove the requirement that the straw be clean.
12.15 pm
Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 deal with the requirement in clause 3 that the soil used in earth stopping is loose--a requirement which is neither sensible nor practical. It would be hard for the courts to determine whether the soil is loose. It may not be possible for an earth stopper to produce loose soil at a sett, particularly on a wet day when the soil tends to compact. Furthermore, if loose soil is dropped into the entrance of a sett, it will fall further down the hole than is desirable. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association recommends soft earth stopping, which is slightly different to loose soil but just as easy for the badger to remove. Therefore, the amendments remove the requirement that the soil should be loose. The provision for loose soil would seem to be unnecessary because clause 3 already contains the important condition that the soil must not be packed hard into the entrances of setts.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 12 deal with the time when stopping may take place. The provisions in clause 3 as to when setts are stopped and blocks are removed are somewhat confused. The first part of the defence permits stopping with soil and other material if it is placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt. This is unnecessary and impractical. Stopping with soil may be done before hunting, for instance to close up a large number of apparently disused holes. The stopping must be undertaken in accordance with the strict conditions set out and only for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds, so it makes no difference whether the stopping takes place
"on the day of the hunt"
or earlier, because, if a badger is present, he will dig himself out. Therefore, amendment No. 9 removes the provision that this form of stopping may take place only
"on the day of the hunt".
Column 940
The second part of the defence permits stopping with various blocks, which must be subsequently removed. The provision specifies removal "on the same day". In general, stopping takes place on the same day as hunting, but there would be complications if stopping took place the day before the hunt, before midnight. The hon. Member for Newport, East will remember that I drew attention to that in Committee. This might occur when an earth stopper has a large number of holes to stop in a single night--a pretty regular event. In this case, the stop would have to be removed as soon as it was put in, because after midnight it would no longer be "the same day". Amendment No. 12 rewords the provision to make it clear that these stops should be removed within 24 hours. The amendment would make no difference to the badger, but it would make clause 3 infinitely more practical and realistic.Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 deal with the authority of hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association and a register. This point was discussed briefly in Committee. The defence provided by clause 3 insists that earth stoppers must have the consent of land owners and the authority of a hunt recognised by the MFHA, which must keep a register of all earth stoppers.
The requirement that earth stoppers should have the consent of landowners is, in principle, a good one. I have no doubt, however, that a better wording is "authority of the occupier", as that recognises the rights of tenant farmers and other land occupiers and removes the need for any formal consent to be signified. We must be realistic. It is not unknown for land to be owned by institutions or by landowners who are not immediately available. It seems, therefore, that the occupier of the land is a more relevant person than the landowner.
The requirement that the Masters of Fox Hounds Association must recognise hunts and keep a registration of earth stoppers is unacceptable. That is because there are many hunts--these have been referred to by implication already--including fell packs in the Lake District and packs in Wales, which are all vital for fox control but which can hardly go under the term "packs of hounds" because there are perhaps only two, three or four hounds. These "packs" are not recognised by the association but they must be able to stop badger setts. Their purpose is to control foxes. It is asking too much of the association, however, to undertake a major survey to cover many organisations for which it does not bear responsibility and over which it has no control. It is to ask too much of the association also that it should accept responsibility where it has no jurisdiction.
A registration of earth stoppers would be impracticable. First, there is the difficulty that is presented by the small groups of hounds that might go under the heading of fox hunts. I do not know how it would be possible to keep lists of earth stoppers within their ranks through the Masters of Fox Hounds Association or any other organisation. I suspect that the farmers concerned sometimes ask their friends to go out and help them.
Mr. Ron Davies : I make a suggestion that the hon. Gentleman might find helpful. In Scotland, the Fox Destruction Society is registered with the Scottish Office. In Wales, many of the gun packs to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are established as fox destruction societies. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there would be some merit in having a registration system with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for England,
Column 941
or with the agriculture department in the Scottish Office for Scotland or with the Welsh Office for Wales? Perhaps it would be possible to introduce the control structure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting through that registration procedure.Sir Charles Morrison : That is an idea which could be pursued. I am not sure whether its implementation would be practical. The hon. Gentleman, knows much more about Wales than I do, but I have a feeling that the procedure would be intensely bureaucratic. I suspect that inadvertently people would find themselves quite often in breach of the law, but it is an idea which would be worth considering in more detail.
Mr. Bowis : I understand that the framing of the provisions to which my hon. Friend is referring was based on current practice and not on conjecture. In Committee, our attention was drawn to the byelaw of the New Forest. It has been shown to work effectively and perhaps we can take that to be the position unless my hon. Friend can present evidence to the contrary. The byelaw states :
"All stopping will be undertaken on the morning of the hunting day only. The Joint Masters shall nominate and appoint authorised stoppers, each of whom shall be fully instructed on stopping requirements, and a list of appointees shall be made available to the Forestry Commission prior to the first Meet of the season." That byelaw has been shown to work in practice. Perhaps it would not do so throughout the country, but it is a useful example.
Sir Charles Morrison : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of the byelaw. It may be difficult--I would not put it more strongly--to extrapolate from the limited area of the New Forest to embrace the nation as a whole. The matter can be considered further and dealt with, perhaps, in another place at a later stage of the Bill's consideration.
It is important to stress that it is entirely impracticable for the Masters of Fox Hounds Association to keep a register. For example, the association has no control of gun packs. It is probably true to say that there are fairly regular bands of earth stoppers that act on behalf of the many hunts throughout the length and breadth of England, Wales and part of Scotland. On the other hand, I have no doubt that many of the earth stoppers from time to time ask their friends or mates to help them out if they have a lot of work to do on one particular evening. If the provision is allowed to remain in the Bill, it will inadvertently cause people to find themselves in breach of the law. I should prefer the Bill to be amended in the way that I have suggested.
Amendment No. 15 is concerned with marking. The matter was referred to in Committee. Marking occurs when foxes run to ground either in a fox earth or, more relevant in the context of the debate, in a badger sett. When that happens, the hounds will stand on top of the badger sett, scuffle around and bay. They cannot go down the hole because they are too big. They will stand on top, however, until the huntsmen appear. Sometimes they are unable to arrive at the scene for about two minutes after the hounds have arrived, due to difficulties getting across country, for example. The hounds will not do any harm to the sett, but, as I have said, they will stand on top of it until the huntsmen arrive and call them off.
| Next Section
| Home Page |