| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mullin: The Bill does not provide for that. It is quite restrictive in relation to dogs, and we have made it a great deal more restrictive. For example, dogs will be excluded from grouse moors altogether, and I was about to come to yet another restriction on the use of dogs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will settle for that: we will just have to see how things work out when the Bill is implemented.
Lords amendments Nos. 165, 168 and 169 provide that, where dogs are required to be on leads under schedule 2, those leads must be of a fixed length of no more than 2 m. The Bill therefore contains plenty to satisfy those who raised that legitimate point in Committee.
Lords amendment No. 166 implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in relation to the period when dogs must be kept on leads. The Committee recommended that the regulatory power to vary that provision should be deleted, as the power could be used to skew the balance of the Bill. We are content with the Committee's recommendations, and are happy to implement that recommendation in full.
Mr. Paice: I give a considerable welcome to the amendments. I shall not go through them all, but the Minister should not imagine that Opposition Members do not appreciate what lies behind them. Many of the amendments are minor, but they are steps in the right direction. However, there is still room for improvement, and that is why we have tabled some further amendments.
As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 4 changes from 24 hours to 72 hours the period of banishment for someone who breaches the regulations under schedule 2. I do not want to tire the House, but I refer hon. Members to what the Minister for the Environment said on 13 June on this matter:
- It is not realistic to assume that landowners will know whether a walker has breached restrictions in the previous 72 hours on someone else's land; nor would it always be appropriate to impose such a sanction on a walker whose breach of restriction might be extremely minor. Therefore, there is no reason why the ban on returning to access land should extend beyond the rest of the day, or to access land in different ownership.--[Official Report, 13 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 826.]
Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would change the period of banishment and increase the extent of the land from which a person would be banished. It would ensure that he would be banished from a particular parcel of land, and from other land in the same ownership. That was resisted in Committee, but the fact that it has been accepted now is welcome.
However, that is not enough. As the Minister said in the statement that I read out earlier, it is not going to be easy for a person to know what land belongs to whom. That is why we suggest that the application of Lords amendment No. 4 be increased, marginally, to cover adjoining land. That would put beyond doubt the area of land from which a person was banished. By definition, a person walking over open country will see no obvious delineation of ownership, so stipulating all adjoining land would remove the possibility of a person unwittingly continuing to walk on land owned by the same person as land from which he had been banished. The National Farmers Union has strongly supported the amendment.
Information is another important matter. A question widely debated in Committee concerned how people who want to use the rights enshrined in the Bill can be informed about the various minor regulations that apply to particular pieces of land. Such regulations would have to do with when the land was closed, or whether dogs had to be on leads or were forbidden. The Minister noted that some of the later amendments are very specific to pieces of land, and another matter that caused debate in Committee was whether an owner would be able to close off parts of his land.
There is a clear need for potential walkers to know what rules pertain to a piece of land on any given day. That is why our amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19 would incorporate into the amendment the phrase
- and appropriate points of access to, . . .
- the situation and extent of, and means of access to, and appropriate points of access to, access land.
In Committee, we argued that access should be restricted to certain points. Although amendment (b) does not go so far, it concentrates the mind on the concept that access is preferable at certain points. Those are the points about which information would have to be provided. I hope that the Minister will accept that that amendment is sensible and worth while.
Our amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 deal with the requirement for consultation in the information provided by the Countryside Agency.
We welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23 and the question of Saturdays and Sundays. We did not press for Sundays to be included, as field sports do not take place on Sundays. The Minister has been more generous than we expected, but although we would be happy to trade all the Sundays when access is restricted for more Saturdays, that option is not on the table. The move to allow four Saturdays of exclusion is welcome: it may not be as many as we would have preferred, but it is a step forward. I spoke earlier about information and the need for access points. This is another example of how, day by day, the rules governing access to a piece of land may change.
Lords amendment No. 24 concerns dogs, and I welcome the Minister's change of heart on this point. Owners of grouse moors--and gamekeepers, who take such pride in their role--will welcome the amendment. However, I am puzzled by the significance of the
five-year period. Does it mean that after five years, the grouse moor in question can never again be closed off? The Minister shakes his head but perhaps he could clarify that issue.Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24 seeks to change the word "lambing" to "livestock breeding". The inclusion of lambing and the exclusion of dogs for the period of six weeks is welcome. But in Committee, we discussed other forms of livestock farming which are becoming more common in the hills of this country. Mention was made of llamas, alpacas, angora goats and deer, and yesterday I attended the launch of the bison industry in this country. On top of that, there are cattle. [Interruption.] The Minister of State laughs, but the point is that the Deputy Prime Minister earlier was exhorting people to diversify. Many farmers are diversifying into different forms of livestock.
The sensible decision to exclude dogs from fields of up to 15 hectares during the lambing period should apply to the period when cows are calving, deer are calving and llamas are doing whatever they do. [Interruption.] Goats are kidding--that is one I do know. I have no idea what llamas and alpacas do, but it no doubt consists of the same motions. This is a time of immense sensitivity for livestock, when baby animals are at considerable risk--as a walker would be. Some animals are exceptionally good mothers and would resist and resent any intrusion into what they see as their territory by someone walking, let alone someone with a dog. [Interruption.] The Minister suggests that people could walk around them, but a field of 15 hectares is not particularly large and the scope to walk round could be limited.
We propose also that the period of six weeks be increased to eight. The principal lambing period should be over in six weeks but, with any flock, it will straggle a bit. However, we should not assume that once every ewe has had a lamb, the risk is over. Those first few days are a period of great risk to the lamb--and, with some breeds, there can be a risk to anyone else who appears. Cattle breeds such as the Galloway can become extremely fierce in protection of their young. It would be very unwise for someone to take a dog into a field where a herd of Galloways had recently calved.
Mr. Llwyd: Nowadays many farmers stagger the breeding season to try to catch the market. Also, some farmers have a variety of breeds.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come to my rescue and he is right to refer to a point that I omitted.
Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 170 are generally welcome. The Minister referred to trapping and the rather quaint language that has been inserted in the Bill; he will find that references to engines and instruments go back to the 19th-century poaching Acts. Obviously Ministers were convinced in Committee by our arguments for including interference with fences, and extending the dog ban to 31 July, and I am grateful for that.
6.45 pm
The proposals for short leads came as a welcome surprise to me. In Committee, Ministers seemed to resist strongly the idea of fixing a lead length, and spent time saying why it was not necessary to define a short lead.
Overall, we welcome the Lords amendments, although some could be improved. We have put genuine propositions to the Government. I hope that Ministers feel that they are serious and worthy of inclusion in the Bill to add the final refinement to the improvements made by other amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |