Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting
Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
My hon. and learned Friend anticipates some of my later remarks. I find it very strange, because amendment No. 69 has the blessing of some of the shooting organisations that have resisted attempts by the Middle Way Group to put codes of practice into law in Lord Donoughue's Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill. They are acquiescing in a bland, unspecific endorsement of a code of practice, but they are resisting our more stringent attempts to do it a systematic, thoughtful way. We are rushing through bad legislation that was intended to be introduced in the House of Lords. The Minister's original intention was to delay tabling amendment No. 69 until the code of practice was available. It would have been better if we had seen the code of practice that we have been asked to endorse.
The National Working Terrier Federation is an organisation for which I have great respect, and is very different from the sort of people who write for ''Earth Dog, Running Dog'', which featured in our earlier discussion. The chairman of the federation, Barry Wade, wrote to the Minister on 25 March and shared many of the concerns expressed by Government Members. Mr. Wade said that the federation's prime objective was to identify, promote and advance the best and most humane practice associated with the use of terriers for pest control purposes and to discourage bad practice. In order to meet those objectives, it drew up, published and promoted a code of conduct for terrier work that covered all quarry species and different types of activities involving the use of terriers.
Even those who oppose hunting with dogs have never offered any criticism of the code because it is not enforceable in law. The National Working Terrier Federation went on to suggest amendments to the Minister that would introduce the code of conduct into the Bill. We have a difficulty here. There is some reluctance to include a code of conduct in the Bill because the real situation changes. I do not think that that is a satisfactory way of proceeding myself.
A code of practice introduced in the way suggested by the Minister is probably right, but it would be good to see it. We are implicitly invited by amendment No. 69 to endorse the code before we pass the amendment and send it back for consideration on the Floor of the House. Amendment No. 72 is a better way to proceed. The amendment would exempt practitioners from a total ban on terrier work under certain conditions.
The Minister has said repeatedly that the Bill should not affect shooting. As I understand it, that is more of a manifesto commitment issue than a matter of principle. It is certainly more of a manifesto commitment issue than a matter of animal welfare, but let us leave that to one side. Amendment No. 72 is a better way of proceeding.
It is important that I make the Committee aware that, as printed, amendment No. 72 is wrong due to a printing error. Given the rush of the timetable motion, when the amendment was drafted, paragraph 1(3) of schedule 1 referred to the second condition under which
''stalking or flushing out takes place on land . . . which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing''.
That is now covered by paragraph 1(4). On Report, we inserted a new paragraph 1(3) about field trials. Reference should be made in amendment No. 72 to sub-paragraph (4). If we succeed in pushing the amendment to a Division, it would be on the understanding that we are referring to sub-paragraph (4), not (3). I hope that I will secure assent to that proposition, Mr. Pike.