House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Jul 1991

Column 570

"the person is so doing with the consent of the landowner and is authorised by a Hunt recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association who shall keep a register of all such persons." The amendment broadens that definition to include those who are recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. That is to ensure that, in different parts of the country, other categories of people can be included on the register.

I turn now to a point that we debated last year, both in Committee and in the Chamber, and which we have debated again this year. I refer to the principle that a responsible public body, which is recognised by everybody, should keep the register. That would ensure accountability, and nobody could then say, "I have been given permission to do that," without there being some provision for tracking that person's identity and authority. It is important that all stopping-up activities can be checked and authorised. Finally, this is the second private Member's Bill that we have considered this morning and, like the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Bill, the Badgers Bill is welcome. However, it is an anomaly of the British administrative system that different Ministers are responsible for those two Bills. Naturally, I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) to the Treasury Bench. However, when we discussed the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, the relevant Department was the Department of the Environment. Having moved to a discussion of badgers, which one might think is equally a matter relating to wildlife and the countryside, we find that a Home Office Minister is put in charge. That suggests that there might be scope for a little reform in the definition of ministerial

responsibilities.

My party certainly thinks that that is needed, and I hope that the Government will contemplate that before the next election. Perhaps the Tory manifesto--and equally the Labour manifesto--might suggest linking animal and nature issues in one Department. To be honest, I do not think that the Home Office would mind geting rid of its responsibility for animals, as they have caused it a fair amount of trouble in recent months.

11.15 am

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : I begin by apologising to the House. As a result of leaving the Chamber for a few minutes to attend an important meeting outside, I regret that I did not realise that the debate on the second group of amendments had begun, so I am afraid that I speak having committed a discourtesy to those hon. Members who have already spoken.

My comments about this group of amendments reflect the core of my reservations about the Bill and its predecessors. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on having brought his Bill so far. I know only too well the difficulties of getting a private Member's Bill on to the statute book and I very much welcome his Bill.

Like all my colleagues, over the years I have received a good deal of correspondence from constituents who have been keen to do something to assist the cause of badgers. I have always warmly supported that cause, but with one

Column 571

reservation which I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, as I said, I am delighted that the Bill will soon be on the statute book.

Before turning to the points that cause me particular concern, I must advise the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he is not alone in being mystified by the intricacies of ministerial responsibilities for matters relating to animals, wildlife and the countryside. When I served at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for a time I was the Minister with responsibility for dogs. It was during that period that the Department gave up its responsibility for dogs- -with a good deal of relief. I have a suspicion that in the four years since I have left the Department, my two successors have breathed a great sigh of relief that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer deals with dogs and that that responsibility has been passed to the Home Office which, I am sure, is much better able to deal with it. That is certainly the argument that I used at the time.

My great reservation about the Bill is that not only is it trying to help badgers, which I am sure is what we all want, but at the same time it does not want the control of foxes in certain parts of the country, such as my constituency, to be made more difficult. My constituency contains most of the southern parts of the English Lake district--I think that it is the most beautiful part of the British Isles. People visit it to enjoy its wonderful scenery and amenities. One of the things that they like to see are the sheep grazing on the fells and mountains. Not enough people realise that if it were not for a continual, hard and tough policy of controlling foxes on those fells and mountains, sheep farming would be almost impossible there. The hon. Member for Newport, East knows Wales well and will be aware that the successful farming of sheep on mountainous land depends entirely on controlling foxes which can cause the most dreadful, savage and cruel depradations in the spring. It is almost entirely because of the need to protect sheep on the fells--lambs especially--from foxes that we have fell packs. They carry out the essential job of controlling foxes and making sheep farming possible.

If I were to launch into a dissertation on the current problems of sheep farming on the fells, you might say to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order. That being so, I shall merely say that sheep farming in mountainous areas has never been more difficult in my lifetime, despite the literally hundreds of millions of pounds being poured by the European Community and by the Government into the support of upland farms.

Only two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of attending a meeting that was organised by National Trust tenants in Great Langdale in my constituency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was kind enough to attend, and she made an excellent speech. It was obvious, however, that great difficulties were being experienced in controlling foxes.

The hon. Member for Newport, East knows that I am concerned that controlling badgers under the welcome provisions of the Bill might mean that controlling foxes in upland areas will become a good deal more difficult. That brings me to Lords amendment No. 7. I am delighted that the amendment, if agreed to, will extend the provisions of the Bill as it stands to include the Association of Masters

Column 572

of Harriers and Beagles or the Central Committee of Fell Packs. I am not so concerned about harriers and beagles, although harrier packs in the Lake district--certainly the Lunesdale harriers--do an extremely helpful job in controlling foxes.

There is no following of footpacks by people on horses because the terrain in the area which I represent is much too difficult. There are footpacks throughout the Lake district and it is essential that the position of the Central Committee of Fell Packs is fully recognised in the Bill. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newport, East has agreed to include the provisions of amendment No. 7 in the Bill.

I told the hon. Member for Newport, East a few moments ago that I would give him an example of the problem that is caused by foxes that comes from Wales. I remember being told about 30 years ago of a situation that arose during the second world war when the huntsman of a footpack in west Wales was called up for military service. The pack of hounds had to be dispersed. The rise in the fox population on the mountains in west Wales became so great, and their ravages of lambs so great, that they had a significant impact on the production of food. That was especially important during the war, when a large part of the nation's food was being delivered by convoys, which were being attacked all the time by U-boats.

I understand that it became almost impossible to pursue sheep farming on the mountains of west Wales. It became necessary to release the huntsman from the armed services so that he could resume his role and control the fox population and so allow the farming systems in the area to make their proper contribution to the production of food. That work was regarded as much more important than the work that he would have undertaken if he had remained in the Army. That is a clear example from west Wales of the essential need to control foxes. That can be done only by hunting, and the only way in which they can be hunted is by footpacks. As I said, there is no question of people following on horses.

The control of foxes is essential if we are to maintain the beauty of the uplands. If sheep farming were to be made impossible in upland areas, the first people to complain would be those who go to enjoy the beauty of areas such as the Lake district and the Welsh mountains.

I am extremely pleased that a good deal of care has gone into amending the Bill. I hope that it will not make it more difficult in any way for upland farmers to earn a living at a time of great economic difficulty. Despite massive subsidies, they are finding life extremely difficult. I thank the hon. Member for Newport, East for being big enough to include the amendments in the Bill, which I think is an infinitely better measure as a consequence.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), although we have rather different views of foxes. I take the view that the fox is one of nature's entrepreneurs. It amazes me that Conservative Members, who have such fondness for the entrepreneur, should detest an entrepreneur in its natural form. I shall not deny that the fox occasionally takes a sickly lamb, but the fox's role is more that of the scavenger of the dead lamb and the afterbirth than the taker of healthy lambs. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr.

Column 573

Carlile) was representing the Liberal Democrats at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, he was as enthusiastic as Conservative Members about the need to control foxes. He listed and categorised the massive destruction of lambs and sheep in his constituency. I observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had probably eaten more sheep than the foxes in his constituency.

In the debate in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery spoke, I made the suggestion--one or two Conservative Members seemed to approve of the idea--that it would be desirable to have a scientific appraisal of the effect of foxes upon the sheep and lamb population on these islands. There are sufficient experts in the public employ, whether in the Home Office or in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to carry out such a survey. I know that they would readily do so.

I should be interested to receive the results of such a survey, whichever way they went, for they would add to the body of desirable knowledge. A survey should assess whether the fox is as damaging to sheep farming and the interests of the sheep farmer as many suggest. I suspect that a useful excuse is being employed to justify hunting. I do not want to enter into the argument about fox hunting

Mr. Jopling : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not agree with a word of it. I know that he spends quite a lot of time in the Lake district, and I suggest that he should contact some of the hunts. If he takes up that suggestion, he will find that it is quite a regular happening for farmers from one part of the Lake district to telephone a hunt secretary or huntsman and say, "We are losing an awful lot of lambs. Please bring the hunt over and see if you can reduce the number of foxes."

Mr. Hardy : I am aware of that. I am aware also that studies in some areas do not necessarily confirm the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I said in the earlier debate to which I referred that it would be desirable if a proper study were undertaken. I hope that the Minister will take note of my suggestion. I am not suggesting that what the right hon. Gentleman has described does not happen, but I think that the scale of the problem is debatable. Surely it is a jolly good idea to put the facts on the record. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsay (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a Minister should be made responsible for these matters. With privatisation and the transferring of responsibility to agencies, there is a good case for removing a large number of Ministers. Perhaps the Home Office Minister would care to act upon that suggestion, as any Minister undertaking that responsibility should not be included in that large number of Ministers who should be removed.

11.30 am

Mr. Simon Hughes : There is an argument, which has currency not just among my colleagues, that there should be an animal protection agency or something similar, charged with the statutory responsibility of looking after animals welfare. Perhaps that would save some Ministers some of their work, and some of the Government some of their embarrassment.

Column 574

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) realises that it would not be appropriate to develop that argument while discussing this group of amendments.

Mr. Hardy : I would not wish to waste time on that argument, because I am not overly keen on agencies. I want Ministers to have responsibility. I hope that the Minister accepts that, within that responsibility, enlightenment and a proper factual assessment--which has been the subject of much debate--are desirable.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) is grateful for the tribute paid to him by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). However, my hon. Friend did not exactly enthuse about the amendments ; he accepted them out of political realism, because he knew that otherwise the Bill would not succeed. I agree with my hon. Friend's approach, but it is important that we make it clear that the amendments have not been greeted with great enthusiasm.

Lords amendment No. 7 refers to the keeping of a register. Over the past few years, the Government have spent a great deal of money ensuring that those in employment were not allowed to claim social security benefits. In South Yorkshire not long ago, a small army of snoopers spend a great deal of time observing beaters on a shoot. They were all unemployed people who were being gainfully employed on that day's shoot. I suspect that the masters of foxhounds may not be aware how, in certain rural areas, people seek to supplement their relatively low incomes.

Given the reduction in employment in rural areas, one or two of the folk employed as earth stoppers may be dependent upon social security income. I should hate to think that the hunts would be embarrassed when they discovered that they were accessories to an event that Conservative Members regard as far more serious than extensive tax evasion. Given the real enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the amendments, I thought it worth making that point. We shall see how matters unfold.

As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East had no alternative but to accept the amendments. I hope--I am sure that Conservative Members also hope--that they will not so weaken the Bill that, in another two or three years, we will have to find yet another opportunity to add to the catalogue of efforts to ensure the protection of badgers.

It is a great pity that the 1973 Act, which I took through the House, was imperfect. I ensured as much protection for the badger as I could at that time, but the Act had a loophole that has been exploited by irresponsible, barbarous and evil people. I hope that this Bill will close the loophole and ensure that the protection of badgers is as comprehensive as all hon. Members want it to be.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and we all hope that the Bill will be effective. However, I caution him that we must, as in all matters, realise the limitations of what we can do in this House. We can legislate against murder, and most people will not commit that crime--but there will always be one or two people who will. I hope that we will not panic when one or two people slip through the net provided by this

Column 575

Bill. There must be a balance between what we can effectively achieve and what must be left to the discretion of the public.

Mr. Hardy : I accept the hon. Gentleman's realistic view. Indeed, about 12 years ago I reminded the House that we could not station a police officer by every badger sett, by every endangered plant or by every bird's nest. That is why I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East paid tribute to the voluntary societies, which can help in the processes of education. That is just as important as legislation.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : I came into the Chamber when I realised that the hon. Gentleman--who in other circumstances I call my friend--was speaking. All too often, the media pay attention to something that has gone wrong. The Bill is not as perfect as many of us would have wished, so I hope that the media will focus even on the one or two people who make mistakes that involve the death of these wonderful animals. I hope that the media will not be afraid of exposing them.

Mr. Hardy : I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made an appropriate request. I am grateful for his remarks, just as I have long been grateful for his interest in the matter. I am sure that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the protection of badgers.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

Amendment of s.

9 of Badgers Act-- 1973

Lords amendment : No. 9, in page 2, line 32, after ("1990") insert ("or, as respects Scotland, section 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972").

Mr. Roy Hughes : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment clarifies the Scottish position.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 10, in page 2, line 49, at end insert-- ("(j) for the purpose of the preservation, or archaeological investigation, of a monument scheduled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to interfere with a badger sett within an area specified in the licence by any means so specified.")

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 15.

Mr. Roy Hughes : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment is an important provision that would ensure that archaeological sites are not endangered. I do not think that there is anything controversial about that.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I welcome the amendment, which is an important provision. It is especially important that there is a licensing system for people to stop badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The system should be properly administered and licences should be made available in appropriate circumstances to appropriately qualified people.

Column 576

The amendments, which were tabled jointly in the other place by the noble Lord Mancroft and my noble Friend Lord Houghton, clarify and improve the system under which licences may be issued permitting interference with badger setts for the purpose of controlling foxes. The amendments were a response to great concern expressed in another place that the licensing system should be sufficiently practical and sensible to ensure that fox control in upland areas could continue. Hon. Members will be aware that that concern is most relevant to sheep worrying in the upland areas. My noble Friend Lord Swinton moved an amendment which would have given a general licence to landowners, occupiers, and other authorised people to interfere with a badger sett in the spring for the purpose of controlling foxes. However, he withdrew it so that the compromise amendment No. 10 could be agreed, and I am delighted that it was.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the criteria by which licence applications are assessed and granted will be identical for England, Scotland and Wales?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I cannot, because that point is not one which I have considered, but so far as I am aware the criteria are the same. If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to doubt that, we had better discuss the point fairly rapidly, before the Bill progresses any further.

The Bill makes it an offence to enter a terrier into a badger sett. If foxes or rabbits occupy one part of a large sett and the other part is currently used by a badger, the sett will be protected and the foxes or rabbits may not be taken out with the use of a terrier. Similarly, if a fox that has taken lambs runs to ground in a live badger sett, it cannot be got out except under a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture or the equivalent authority in Scotland. The Bill already makes provision to ensure that under section 9 of the Badger Act 1973, a licence may be granted to allow a person to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry, or any other form of property. However, although livestock is property, wild game and other ground nesting birds are not--so that fox control to protect those birds which in any way interferes with a badger sett would be unlawful and could not be licensed unless the amendments were made.

The Ministry of Agriculture has not been required to issue licences in those circumstances until now because badger setts have not been protected. The licensing system was designed to meet rare situations where farmers wanted to remove a rogue badger, and not to deal with the thousands of farmers and keepers who need to control foxes in or near badger setts. I emphasise the word "near" because it is important that rabbits and foxes near badger setts can be controlled and that people do not put themselves at risk of prosecution because a badger sett is near the place where they are operating. Although the definition of a badger sett is now much improved, considerable concern remains that persons involved in legitimate fox control would constantly run the risk of prosecution--especially if taking foxes out of places that badgers also occupy, or if badgers live nearby. Such persons would need a licence not so much to interfere with the sett directly but to enable them to operate at all.

Foxes and badgers are becoming more prolific, and although the Ministry of Agriculture indicated that it is

Column 577

willing to review the issue of licences, it is clear that the only practicable way to ensure that legitimate fox control can continue is to amend the licensing procedure so that the grounds on which licences are issued are clear.

The amendments will allow the Ministry and its Scottish equivalent, or the Nature Conservancy Council, to issue a licence to permit a person, but not organisations, to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of controlling foxes in order to protect livestock, game and wildlife. Without the amendments, licences would have to be applied for under the existing provisions in section 9. The condition of such a licence--to prevent serious damage to property--means that, in each case, the applicant would have to go to great lengths to show that foxes are causing serious damage to his lambs. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) queried the extent of that damage, but my hon. Friends and I are sure that lamb damage is done by foxes throughout the country.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : How will the Ministry or the Nature Conservancy Council establish the bona fides of licence applications? Will they simply take the word of the landowner, or will they make an on-site inspection themselves?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : It is a matter of concern to us all that those who are issued with licences are fit and proper persons to receive them. I will deal with that point later.

I had three lambs taken from the park around my house this spring, undoubtedly by foxes. We found the head of one lamb, but the carcase had been entirely removed. That is a feature of fox taking--it is not how dogs behave, or any other predator.

Mr. Tony Banks : Or one of the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : A hungry constituent would have to walk a few miles to reach the farm to which I am referring. In any event, I am sure that my constituents are extremely confident that the Government's economic policies will ensure that they do not go hungry.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) accepts that a fox sometimes takes a lamb, but that the extent of that damage is overstated. He made the point that he would welcome an inquiry to establish the true facts.

11.45 am

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I accept that that is what the hon. Member for Wentworth said, and I did not mean to misrepresent him. I merely stated that the hon. Gentleman queried the contention that lamb damage is a significant factor in the need for fox control. It is all very well considering fox damage in relation to a big area and a large number of sheep, but it is usually a particular fox that is doing the damage in one area. It is of no comfort to the wretched farmer whose sheep are the target for that fox if 20 neighbouring farmers experience no such trouble. The killing of 20 or 30 lambs out of a population of 500 or 600, or of 2,000 or 3,000 may not be considered significant--but it is, if the losses are suffered by one farmer.

Mr. Bellingham : Is my hon. Friend aware that foxes kill not only sheep but other animals--particularly birds such

Column 578

as geese? One of my constituents has an ornamental lake which provides a home for several species of extremely valuable geese--some of which are worth more than £200 apiece. This nesting season, nine separate geese on their nests were destroyed by foxes, one by one, with the result that only one goose managed to bring a litter on. Despite my constituent's best endeavours to secure the area against foxes, with the erection of fences and all sorts of other ingenious measures to prevent the foxes from gaining access, they managed to do so every time, causing a great amount of damage and financial loss.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : My hon. Friend is right in saying that poultry in particular are a target for foxes, and it also needs to be emphasised that foxes are one of the animals that kill for fun. When they break into a poultry run, they not only take two or three chickens or geese to satisfy their hunger but kill as many as they can for the sheer joy and pleasure of doing so. The public are mistaken if they believe that foxes are poor little animals that only kill to feed themselves as necessary. Much of the killing done by foxes of lambs, poultry and other animals is for pleasure-- and in much larger numbers than is necessary for survival.

A licence granted under the amendments would not permit the killing, injuring or taking of badgers, but the licensing authority is empowered to lay down any conditions as to how the sett may be interfered with, and must specify the area to which the licence applies. The key difference between the amendments under consideration and that of my noble Friend Lord Swinton is that they leave the issuing of licences to the discretion of the licensing authority, whereas my noble Friend's amendments would have made their issuing compulsory but set down conditions to ensure that badgers were not harmed and would have enabled licensing authority to refuse a licence to unsuitable people. Amendment No. 10 states that no licence issued under the Badgers Act 1973 shall be "unreasonably withheld or revoked".

Speaking for the Government on Report in another place, Lord Astor said that he expected that a condition of the licence would be that the person authorised should take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to a badger. The licence might also specify what may or may not be done to a badger sett --for example, the sett should not be destroyed and any accidental damage to it should be rectified as soon as possible. We all agree that badger setts should be fully protected from damage during these operations.

I accept that licences should specify that minimal damage be caused to setts and that the least possible disturbance be caused to badgers. But we should not make the conditions so restrictive or unrealistic as to make the job of fox control impossible. Inevitably fox control in badger setts will cause some disturbance, which is why a licence is necessary in the first place, but it does not harm badgers when undertaken responsibly. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly said, it is essential that only the right people be issued with these licences and that the terms and conditions in them be fulfilled.

Fox control has not just been invented ; it will happen in future, it is happening now, and it has happened for centuries. It always has been and it will remain an essential part of country life. Foxes and badgers are on the increase in upland areas and throughout large parts of the country.

Column 579

They are not threatened species. There are many thousands of both types of animal in the countryside and I sincerely hope that they will continue to flourish. But it is a fact that both foxes and badgers--I emphasise the latter--thrive best in the best hunting conditions because the balance of nature is maintained by those with an interest in country sport and in the conservation of the countryside, who want to ensure that there is a good supply of wildlife but not in such quantities as to throw out of balance the other species in an area. That applies especially to foxes, but also to kites, eagles and buzzards. It is important that they be preserved but also that they do not grow to such numbers as might threaten other species. The role of the licence is important in the keeping of this balance.

It should be emphasised that licences are not necessarily sought to dig for foxes in what are obviously active badger setts, although that may be necessary. Licences are needed as much to ensure that legitimate people engaged in fox control are not prosecuted if, for instance, they enter terriers into a large area with badgers at one end and foxes or rabbits at the other. It is not only the badger sett but the operations that are necessary around it which render the amendments so necessary.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : My hon. Friend said earlier that licences would be issued to individuals but not to corporate bodies. Will they be issued to individuals on behalf of such bodies so that it will be easier to prosecute just one person?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I confess that I cannot answer that question. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) may be able to enlighten my hon. Friend. I should have thought that it must have to do with ensuring that the person participating in the activity is the licensed person so that it is easier to keep tabs on him and ensure that he operates properly under the terms of the licence. Who should be licensed? This is a fairly thorny problem, and one which hon. Members on both sides of the House will watch closely. It is no more in the interests of the sporting community than of other participants in the debate that people who are not fit and proper should be given licences, because they will give us all a bad name if they abuse their privilege.

There is general agreement that certain persons should not be granted licences--for instance, people convicted of offences against badgers or other wildlife. However, the British Field Sports Society, of which I am chairman, is extremely anxious that reputable people engaged in fox control should be able to obtain licences. Professional gamekeepers, hunt servants and members of fox destruction societies must be able to obtain licences provided that they are fit and proper people to hold them. I know that the Government have accepted that idea. Lord Astor told the other place that we need to be confident that anyone authorised to interfere with a badger sett for the purpose of fox control is suitable and responsible, and that would include gamekeepers, farmers, hunts, fox destruction organisations and any other suitable people. It is far more sensible to license these individuals for a particular area than to license the individual farmer or occupier who

Column 580

may be suffering problems caused by foxes. The administrative problems involved in issuing licences and vetting applicants must be kept within reasonable bounds.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has returned, because I come now to the subject about which he asked me. To insist on every individual occupier being the holder of a licence would lead to far too many licences. A farmer or occupier may not want to do the job himself and the badger sett in or near which the fox has taken refuge may not even be on his own land. It therefore makes every kind of sense that the person charged with the job of removing the fox from the badger sett or from the area of the badger sett should hold the licence.

How long should licences be issued for? As with shotgun licences and other forms of licence, the issuing of these licences must not create a huge administrative burden. I see no reason why a licence should be limited to a short time. The hon. Member for Newport, West will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that the time has been specified, so it will be up to the authorities concerned, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, to decide the length of validity of the licences, and we shall all want to put our own views on the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having left the Chamber for a few moments--a grateful constituent has just brought me a sheep's head--but I was wondering whether he had told the House while I was away how the licences will be operated. Will there be a ministerial visit or a visit by the Nature Conservancy Council, or will a licence just be granted on the say-so of the applicant?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : That, too, is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. The Bill does not specify how this will be managed. Like others, I wonder whether it is right that responsibility for all these activities to do with animals should be so diffusely held. It is sad that no Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture is here today to help my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who will give us the Government's view. I do not know whether she knows what her colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture have in mind. No doubt she will enlighten us in a moment, but we shall have to explore the matter thoroughly. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have strong views to put to the Ministry, as will I. I hope that we may say that we have reached common ground at least in so far as believing that it should be administratively simple to issue licences and to enable fit and proper people to hold them. We should not put too great a burden on the Ministry or on the NCC. The process must be monitored, however, to ensure that unfit people do not hold licences.

It is important that when the need for licences cannot be foreseen they can be granted speedily. That will remain at the discretion of the licence authorities. A rogue fox could cause serious lamb losses or damage to ground nesting birds during a delay of a few weeks. Once we know that a fox is operating in a given area he is likely to come back and do a great deal more damage unless he is killed. It is essential, therefore, that if there is a badger sett somewhere in the area, destruction of the fox is carried out speedily before too much damage is done to the farmer's

Column 581

flock. I do not think that that has been decided yet. I am concerned that we should ensure that licences are issued speedily, where appropriate.

In most cases, gamekeepers, members of fox destruction societies and hunt staff will need a general licence in advance of a problem with a fox in or near a badger sett. The licences must run for a reasonable period--I should have thought at least on an annual basis. In the other place Lord Astor was able to confirm that licences would be issued in advance, and for a prolonged period, where regular fox control, for protection, may risk occasional interference with badger setts. I hope that such licences will be issued to the right people. I am also a little concerned about the arrangements between licensing authorities. The Bill does not make it clear whether the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be the authority or whether, in given areas, it will be the Nature Conservancy Council. Before the Bill is on the statute book the Government should provide greater definition so that that point can be clarified.

Dr. Godman : Amendment No. 15 states that

"(6) A licence under this section shall not be unreasonably withheld or revoked"."

Could it not be that a person who feels that his application is entirely genuine has his application rejected and that he is then in a position to argue that it has been unreasonably withheld? Where would he take his case? Would there be an appeals system?

12 noon

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : As the law stands, if I understand it correctly, if there is a provision that the Government may not act in a certain way but they do, there is recourse to the courts. How simple it would be to invoke that procedure I do not know, in the light of the generalities with which we have been dealing. We shall need to look closely at that point. It may be in everyone's interest that an arbitration system should be established. Nothing in the Bill would prevent that from being done, if the Government felt it to be appropriate. As an ex-practising lawyer, I am well aware of both the expense and the delay that can result from having to apply to the courts in such instances. I should much prefer an arbitration panel to decide at first instance whether a person had been unreasonably dealt with. If the arbitrator felt that that person had been unreasonably dealt with, that would be a much simpler, swifter and cheaper procedure, which I should welcome.

There is the question of who is to be the licensing authority, and in what circumstances. The position is not yet entirely satisfactory. We are not clear how licensing will work. None the less, I welcome these clauses, as amended. I am sure that they will set up a structure that can resolve these matters, with the assistance of the Minister. We shall have to get together to ensure that the Minister is aware of the needs of those who desire licences and of those who are rightly anxious that the wrong people should be prevented from obtaining them. A balance will have to be established to ensure that only those people who operate properly are allowed to have licences, and that when they are operating properly they should be allowed to get their licences without undue hindrance or difficulty and certainly not be refused without good grounds for doing so.

Column 582

Mr. Tony Banks : The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) have all mentioned the damage that is caused by foxes in the countryside. We heard the touching story of the geese of a constituent of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North- West. I was the proud possessor of two geese at one time. They were bought for me. Unfortunately, Mrs. Banks imposed a block on them being brought home to my small garden in Forest Gate, on the ground that she thought that they were rather bad-tempered and frightening beasts. While they were being kept my two lovely geese were taken--it was alleged at the time, by badgers. I do not know who is telling the truth, but I do not bear badgers any ill will because they took my two geese. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West obviously feels upset about foxes, even though the geese he cited were not his.

I am not sure about the extent to which anecdotal evidence is admissible about fox damage. I accept that some damage is caused by foxes, but until there is a far more accurate scientific assessment, we are left with anecdotal arguments, which do not seem to be the best basis for making good legislation. I understand that a fox's diet is predominantly small rodents. I think that foxes are one of the greatest controllers of rats in the country. Foxes eat worms, carrion, frogs and insects. No doubt they take a sickly lamb from time to time, but that is nature's way of dealing with sick animals.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I think that the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I told the House that I lost three lambs from my park because of foxes. There is nothing anecdotal about that. It is factual. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's implication that foxes normally eat insects, worms and frogs and occasionally sickly lambs. The lambs that were taken from my park were perfectly healthy--until they were eaten by the fox.

Mr. Banks : I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman told the sad tale about the three lambs that he had lost. He said that all that was left was a severed head. Either someone was using a lamb for a rehearsal for "The Godfather", or one of his hungrier constituents may have decided to consume the carcase. I do not intend to reduce this to a Committee debate, but to what extent was the hon. Gentleman aware of the health of those lambs? He may say that they were bouncing around, as frisky as ever, and just waiting to end up on a plate with some new potatoes and mint sauce, but they may have been slightly sickly and that was why the fox took them.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : The lambs were inspected daily. They were frisky, romping about and perfectly healthy until they were eaten. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman's hungry constituents were therefore unable to come along and purchase them.

Next Section

Home Page