§
Lords amendment No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert
("signs indicating current use by a badger").
§ Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Roy Hughes.]
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorI do not wish to detain the House, but it is important to mention that it is critical to the success of the Bill that the definition of badger setts should be correct. We have had much debate about the correct definition of a badger sett and I am now satisfied with the Lords amendment, which refers to
signs indicating current use by a badger".For all the reasons that were expressed earlier, it is clearly important that empty holes, pipes and other places where badgers occasionally live should not be brought within the scope of the Bill or it will become unworkable and many people in the countryside will be unable to pursue their lawful interests. Therefore, I very much welcome the amendment with its satisfactory wording and I am happy to join the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) in recommending it to the House.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI am not happy with the amendment because it weakens the Bill. We have had long arguments about how a badger sett should be defined and about whether someone found interfering with a badger sett could be excused if they said that they had believed that the sett had been vacated. One could make many points about this issue, including the fact that badgers have been known to leave their setts and to return to them later. Members of Parliament are not the only creatures on this planet to have two homes—badgers sometimes have two homes. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) would be a damned sight more sympathetic towards badgers than he has been. On this occasion, he has got what he wanted—a looser definition of a badger sett which, as I have said, is a weakening of the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) says "Come off it" or some such phrase that he has got from Jeeves and Wooster, but I will 593 not come off it because I believe that the amendment weakens the Bill. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) I must perforce accept it. Unless we do, I doubt whether the hon. Member for Upminster and the forces of darkness on the Government Benches would allow the Bill to proceed. I register my protest, but I must accept the amendment.
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorI am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to me "and" the forces of darkness, thus dearly differentiating between the two. I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the amendment. He should accept that badger baiters will attack the live badger where he is, and they will be responsible for their actions under the terms of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is entirely candid, as he has always claimed to be, he will accept that the purpose of the Bill is to get the badger baiter and not to try to obstruct fox hunting. That being so, I do not think that he should take the attitude that he does to the amendment.
§ Mr. BanksThe hon. Member for Upminster, or Darth Vader, as he is known among his admirers, knows that the amendment represents what he fought long to get into the Bill. I do not believe that he or any other Conservative Member supports badger baiting. The one thing that united us throughout was that no one in this place represents badger baiters. Indeed, many of us would do unspeakable things to the baiters when they were caught. In that sense, we are united. The amendment protects the sport that the hon. Gentleman supports, but in which he does not participate—that is, fox hunting. The amendment will make life easier for fox hunters and therefore I am opposed to it, but at this stage I have no alternative but to accept it.
§ Question put and agreed to.