Standing Committee B
Tuesday 23 January 2001
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Schedule 3
Hunting with Dogs: Prohibition
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 6, in page 19, line 28, leave out `commits an offence' and insert
`is liable to a penalty imposed in accordance with paragraph 5'.—[Mr. Lidington.]
4.45 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 7, in page 19, line 29, leave out `commits an offence' and insert
`is liable to a penalty imposed in accordance with paragraph 5'.
No. 8, in page 19, line 32, leave out `commits an offence' and insert
`is liable to a penalty imposed in accordance with paragraph 5'.
No. 9, in page 19, line 35, leave out `commits an offence' and insert
`is liable to a penalty imposed in accordance with paragraph 5'.
No. 10, in page 19, line 39, leave out `commit an offence' and insert
`are liable to a penalty imposed in accordance with paragraph 5'.
No. 11, in page 20, line 4, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
`5.—(1) A person liable to a penalty by virtue of paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4 is liable to a penalty of an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State which shall not exceed the prescribed amount.
(2) The prescribed amount shall not exceed the sum which for the time being is equivalent to a fine of level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) A person liable to a penalty must pay the amount determined by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) to the Secretary of State before the end of the prescribed period.
(4) In this paragraph ``prescribed'' means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this paragraph—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 16, in page 20, line 20, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert `liable to a penalty'.
No. 17, in page 20, line 25, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert `liable to a penalty'.
No. 18, in page 21, line 10, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert `liable to a penalty'.
No. 19, in page 21, line 22, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert `liable to a penalty'.
No. 20, in page 21, line 26, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert
`liable to a penalty'.
No. 21, in page 21, line 44, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert
`liable to a penalty'.
No. 22, in page 22, line 14, leave out `charged with an offence' and insert
`liable to a penalty'.
No. 23, in page 22, line 19, leave out `an offence' and insert `a penalty'.
No. 26, in page 23, line 10, leave out from `The' to `the' in line 11 and insert
`Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates court for an order providing for'.
No. 27, in page 23, line 12, leave out from `of' to end of line 13 and insert
`an act in respect of which a penalty has been imposed under paragraph 5.'.
No. 28, in page 23, line 33, leave out `convicted' and insert
`on whom the penalty has been imposed under paragraph 5'.
No. 29, in page 23, line 37, leave out from `The' to `from' in line 38 and insert
`Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates' court for an order prohibiting a person on whom a penalty has been imposed under paragraph 5 by virtue of paragraph 1, 3 or 4(2)'.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): As you will recall, Mrs. Roe, I argued before our break that the introduction of criminal sanctions would, undoubtedly and sadly, be effective against the larger hunts and would be relatively easy to police. My point was that the introduction of such sanctions could be injurious to police resources, use up a lot of police time, and impose unfair criminal sanctions on gamekeepers and small working farmers who are trying to control a growing fox population. That is a real problem. As I speak for the next few minutes, I want the Committee to forget the traditional image of the hunt—the people in scarlet coats, the expensive hunters, all the paraphernalia, uniforms and traditions—and think in terms of the working man on the farm trying to control the fox.
I am grateful to British Wildlife Management for a briefing that it has sent us, which tells us:
The fox is the world's most successful coloniser after man. Britain's red fox is a star performer with a spring population thought to be growing at more than 400,000 despite big efforts to control their numbers.
Fox numbers are widely controlled because along with other predators in our totally man made environment, they have proved to be a serious threat to other important species, such as ground nesting birds, hares—
and—
other wild species . . . Out of approximately 500,000 that die each year . . . some 220,000 are deliberately killed or culled in a whole range of necessary measures . . . MP's have been asked to vote for the removal of well trained and well supervised working dogs.
I want the Committee to think how gamekeepers will cope with the legislation. They are concerned with creating a balanced environment and face a serious and growing fox population that they must control, but also face tough penalties that could put them out of a job—a £5,000 fine and having to prove their innocence in court.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who drew our attention this morning to an important letter from the National Gamekeepers Organisation. I hope that all members of the Committee will read it. It is a key source document for our proceedings and I am sure that we will come back to it again and again. It states:
If the Hunting Bill were to proceed as currently drafted it would have a disastrous affect on gamekeepers, making it very hard for them to do their jobs. It would threaten their livelihoods and render `keepers, beaters and gun dog handlers liable to prosecution for everyday occurrences in the shooting field.
I stress ``everyday occurrences''. It is important to consider the matter in relation to the management of Britain's wildlife. We have one of the best managed wildlife environments in western Europe, often in difficult situations. The letter continues:
Because the Bill would ban ``hunting with dogs'', vital gamekeeping practices throughout England and Wales are in jeopardy. Gamekeepers use many types of dogs to control large numbers of serious pests, including foxes, mink, rats and rabbits. This routine and unsung work is vital for a balanced, healthy countryside. The exemptions in the Bill are completely inadequate to allow most of this work to continue...The knock on implications for conservation would be dramatic. In the case of the uplands, for example, grouse management—already subject to severe pressures—would in some places cease to be economically viable if fox and stoat control became more difficult than they already are.
I hope that we will return to the organisation's concerns later. I do not need to go through all the arguments, but it deals with the Bill in some detail. It makes a series of good points. On the penalties, it states:
The imposition of a level 5 fine for the offences under clause 1 is draconian. The whole construction of the Bill is likely to result in unfair prosecutions. Anyone using a dog to flush or retrieve a live mammal could be arrested, have his person, vehicle and premises searched, and be taken to court.
They are ordinary working men trying to make a living in the countryside. The organisation's letter goes on to state:
Only there would this innocent person have the chance to prove that his legitimate activity came under one of the `defences' included in the Bill. If he could not prove it, under Clause 5 he would face a £5,000 fine.
Having established that scenario—that the farmer or gamekeeper could be brought to court—let us examine some of the situations that could arise. There is a series of examples. The letter states:
Dogs are also frequently used by gamekeepers to hunt mink or to flush them from cover, or from underground, so they can be shot. Clause 1 would ban both of these methods of mink control. There is no relevant exemption in the Bill.
Flushing is an exemption, but—this is an important point—the letter goes on to state:
Flushing without subsequent shooting, for whatever reasons (safety considerations, range, proximity of a following dog etc.) could be an offence, because exception 7.5(a) is so vague. This would make it extremely difficult for gamekeepers or others to carry out a selective cull and to pick safe, clean shots when shooting mammals. The Bill could encourage people to shoot recklessly in order not to be guilty of a hunting offence.
Under Clause 1, a gundog happening to flush or hunt a rabbit in the open (exception 7.2(a)) could render its owner guilty of a criminal offence. As no-one knows where or when a rabbit may get up in front of a dog, nor from what sort of `cover' this would be a ludicrous legal situation.
Likewise, during shooting, gundogs are often used in the beating line when hares are driven towards guns as a crop protection exercise...Clause 1 would ban the flushing of hares by dogs in the open...Using dogs to push deer out of woodland enclosures is essential for timber management. Clause 1 would ban it. Deer are not subject to any of the exceptions in Clause 7.
I hope that I have read enough to show some of the difficulties that gamekeepers will experience.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee of any organisation or group concerned in the daily management of the countryside and wildlife in the countryside that has written in support of the provisions that we are discussing? Does anyone who is concerned with such daily management, in the way that the people who have just been quoted are, think that the Bill is acceptable or workable?
|
