New clause 11 - Use of dogs below ground

Part of Hunting Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:15 am on 25 February 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire 11:15, 25 February 2003

That was the point with which I was going to wrap up new clause 11. The Minister referred to gamekeeping, but he did not mention terrier work when talking about fox control, although Lord Burns did. I hope that the Minister will make a second contribution to answer my question. When it comes to terrier work, what exactly does he have in mind to ban and what exactly does he have in mind to permit? I have no doubt in my mind that clause 8 imposes an extremely stringent test on terrier work, so there is no need for a further restriction on that work.

I am open minded enough to change my view if the Minister provides a plausible explanation. I do not expect that from the hon. Member for Worcester—it is not his duty to speak for the Government—but I expect it from the Minister because the matter concerns everyone involved in upland fox control, and that probably applies also to the fell packs of Cumbria and elsewhere. Will the Minister state clearly whether he accepts that terriers are necessary for a large number of the hill packs that I am describing? Will he give a specific assurance that he does not intend to ban terrier work in upland packs such as the David Davies pack? Will he also explain how he intends to reintroduce those exemptions into the Bill when the pro-ban lobby has succeeded in introducing a blanket ban on terrier work?

I shall conclude with a poignant observation on new clause 12. When the League Against Cruel Sports assumed that the clause had been tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Worcester, it was pilloried. The hon. Gentleman and I did not table that new clause but, for understandable reasons, an innocent mistake was made and our names were printed with it. However, it shows the degree of assumption—almost prejudice—that has sometimes shown itself simply on the basis of whose name or which organisation is associated with an amendment. That is a salutary and humbling lesson; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are potentially prone to the same thing, but we should learn from it.

The League Against Cruel Sports will ridicule a proposal put forward by one of their primary advocates—the hon. Member for Worcester—and I suggest to the Minister that there may be some merit in taking a lesson from that and looking at new clause 11 in the same context. I know that the Minister wants the Bill to work and that the hon. Member for Worcester genuinely wants to improve animal welfare, but we have seen from what happened with new clause 11 that sometimes our intentions are obscured by our own prejudices.

I hope that we do not enter an abyss from which the Minister will find it difficult to get out. If we pursue that route and new clause 11, that will be evidence that the shooting lobby ought to be concerned about where the Bill is heading.