HL Deb 15 July 1977 vol 385 cc1179-205

2.46 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Regulation of Otter Hunting]:

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("referred to in subsections (3) and (4) below.")

The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment, but since your Lordships agreed at the Second Reading of this Bill that we should wait for this stage until the report of the Joint Otter Group of the NCC and SPNC was received, and that group reported in June on the status of the otter, I think it might be as well if we were to consider that before we proceed any further. The group reported that the otter was widely distributed but uncommon in some areas; that there was a normal population in Scotland, and probably in Wales; that the surveys made in two counties found that it was at the normal 1950 density in Suffolk at about one otter for 10 kilometers of river and rather less than half that in Norfolk, where it is obviously rather rare. They finally reported that there was not enough evidence to support the otter being placed on Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Animals and Wild Plants Act 1975; that it certainly should not be put on the Schedule for one or two places where it was undoubtedly rare, and certainly that Scotland should not be excluded.

They concluded that quite clearly some form of new legislation was necessary to cover animals such as the otter, about which we are all disturbed but which they—and I must confess I myself—are satisfied cannot be dealt with under the 1975 Act. As a naturalist, I agree entirely with them. Not being gainfully occupied I have been able to spend a considerable time trying to find evidence about this creature, and certainly the evidence which I have found supports all their conclusions.

From the point of view of animal welfare I welcome particularly their statement that the otter should not go on the Schedule for parts of the country and, in particular, that it should not go on the Schedule excluding Scotland, because it is relatively abundant there. All that would happen would be that otter hunting would be transferred to Scotland from England; there would be no control over it unless this Bill was passed. I would just remind your Lordships that the criteria for putting an animal on the Schedule to the 1975 Act are twofold: firstly, the animal must be exceedingly rare; and, secondly, it must be being killed or taken to such an extent that its status as a British species is endangered. Quite clearly, that is not so. With that as our background, perhaps we can look at the Amendments to this Bill. I beg to move that Amendment No. I be agreed to, since it is a purely drafting Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

The Government can see that some useful purpose would perhaps be served by this Amendment, and we are certainly not opposing it. I only want to say to the noble Earl that it has not been possible at this stage to get Parliamentary draftsmen to look at this. We do not anticipate difficulty, but if there is any problem about the drafting I will let the noble Earl know. Meanwhile, we are not opposing the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

2.52 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— ("(d) a condition that dogs shall be prevented from actively pursuing an otter by sight or by following the scent left by any otter which is known to be on the move in front of them at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.")

The noble Earl said: On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that his information was that an otter's scent could be followed for a time without disturbing the otter, and that, of course, is because the otter is a nocturnal animal. The only trace of it which can be found by a river during the daytime is the scent which he left the night before, and while that scent is being followed the animal is asleep in its refuge. What the noble Lord and a number of other noble Lords objected to was the fact that the otter would be terrified if it was being pursued by hounds: one or two other noble Lords objected on conservation grounds, that an otter which had been chased up and down a river would desert it for—I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said—up to four months.

If this Amendment is accepted, no otter will be chased, no otter will be terrified, no otter will be disturbed by being pursued. Otter hunting as we know it, that is to say, chasing the otters with hounds, will come to an end; that indeed was the recommendation of the joint committee to which I have just referred, who say that in the absence of legislation it is preferable that there should be a voluntary ban on otter hunting for conservation reasons.

We know that this Bill cannot become law this Session, but if we can get it satisfactorily amended, where necessary, today, it will be printed and we can recommend to hunts and to owners of riverside land that it should voluntarily be the condition under which otter hunting takes place. I hope the hunts may follow this Bill, if only on 50 per cent. of the days that they hunt and over 50 per cent. of the country over which they hunt. I think perhaps that would be more useful than adopting it altogether. We could then compare what happens in each of those two areas, and see how valuable it is. I beg to move.

The Earl of LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 3 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 2: Leave out ("on the move").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I hope I may be allowed to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. All the other Amendments that stand in my name on the Marshalled List are in fact Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I shall, therefore, not move them. I hope that these Amendments of mine may be acceptable because they are intended to serve the purpose the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has in mind in his Amendments, which mine amend. As he has just said, he wants to prevent otters from being caught and killed by hounds when they are following the fresh scent of any otter "known to be on the move in front of them". But, surely, the otter is no less likely to be caught and killed when hounds pick up a fresh scent and it is not on the move but resting up in a hole or under cover on the river bank. Indeed, the otter would be more likely to be caught if it was resting and had not got time to get into the water and escape.

The effect of my Amendments would be to stop the hounds following a fresh scent of any otter, either on the move in front of them or resting in front of them on the river bank, by having them called off by the master. By removing the words "on the move" the wording becomes "any otter which is known to be in front of them" in the course of the hunt. The noble Earl's Amendments as they stand will not avoid the risk of killing an otter when it is resting at a short distance, as it may be, in front of the hounds. I beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

The great difficulty about the noble Earl's Amendment is that otter hunters would then have to take some steps to find out whether in fact an otter was in front of them. I could perhaps explain that more clearly by saying what exactly happens when hounds which are following the drag left by an otter the night before come up to the place where he is lying, if indeed he is lying alongside the river. In a number of cases, we know, of course, that otters lie in reed beds or alder carr some way away from the side of the river. Over most of England the rivers have fairly rocky banks. An otter will be lying in a cavern in the rock, perhaps a cavern in the roots of a tree, the entrance to which is too small to allow the entry of an otter hound. Your Lordships will see that the Minister can forbid the use of terriers. That otter will stay put; he will know that he is quite safe. It will be obvious when the hunt get up to him that he is there, but he will not he in danger. That is what happens with the vast majority of rivers in this country.

In the rivers in my part of the world, and in Norfolk and in few other parts, the banks are not rocky. The otter may find a hole in the roots of a tree, where what I have just said applies, but the chances are that he will be disturbed when the hounds come up to him. I think this is the only case which is worrying the noble Earl opposite. The otter will then jump into the water. The noble Earl is fearful that he might be jumped on by the hounds before he gets into the water. The information I have been able to obtain is that that is a very rare occurrence indeed, that the otter will be warned of the approach of the hounds by hearing them when they are within a few yards; I do not mean within ten yards, but within a hundred yards or so. The otter w ill jump into the water, will swim across to the other bank, and he will then be known to be on the move and the huntsmen can act accordingly.

I do not think that what the noble Earl fears is likely to occur more than once in a blue moon. I have heard of one case. I think he can be assured that, if it is left as I have suggested, the otter will be quite safe. The alternative is that the huntsman has to send someone ahead, probably with terriers and perhaps with one or two hounds, to discover whether an otter is lying under the bank or in what is called a couch near the bank. That is almost exactly the same as following with the main pack. I have been able to discover no other way of finding out whether there is an otter in front of the hounds, and it may, of course be miles ahead of the hounds.

Lord CRAIGTON

I was worried when I saw the first attempt at this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, so I tabled an Amendment. But at his second attempt my noble friend answered my worries. I have looked carefully at the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and it seems to me that the answer, like so many points in the Bill, is that it is probably right in some areas and wrong in others. I have tabled a new clause which answers all my hopes and fears about the Bill, and on the whole I support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

I find myself in an embarrassing position, because I know very little about natural life in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, does. In fact, I must confess that much of what I now know I have learned from him. I am grateful to him for all the instruction—both direct and indirect—which he has given to me. However, I believe that the Bill is really concerned with the method of protecting otters.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has introduced the Bill essentially for two reasons. Perhaps I may interpret what he has done. The first is to protect otters. As I indicated on Second Reading, I have not regarded this as a very good way in which to protect otters. Nevertheless, I accept his essentially absolutely worthy motives in this matter. However, the noble Earl has also been concerned with the question of learning more about otters. Part of the Bill is concerned with the whole problem of finding out much more about the otter than we already know.

My noble friend Lord Listowel has tabled an Amendment in order to make more definite the protection of otters. From what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, I cannot help feeling that there is nothing in this Amendment which is essentially undesirable. I believe that the Amendment goes some way towards further protecting the otter. That is an essential part of the noble Earl's Bill.

If one is dealing purely with physical phenomena—the matters in which I am moderately versed and which I have studied most of my life—it is possible, within certain restrictions, to make fairly clear statements as to what will happen if we do something. That is the nature of physical science; if one puts forward a certain proposition, one can deduce from it what will happen. In other words, if one is examining nature by the methods and the laws of physical science, on the whole cause leads to effect. But it is very clear that, in the area of animal nature and of the living world as a whole, it is extremely difficult to make predictions of cause and effect.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said that this might occur once in a blue moon. I am not an astronomer and I am not very certain of the quantitative significance of a blue moon. I do not know how often one can say that the moon is blue; I suppose that it depends upon the eye of the observer. Consequently, when the noble Earl makes a remark like that I am left wondering what he means by it. If a blue moon may occur a few times in one's lifetime, it means that this particular incident may occur a few times in one's lifetime. I think that one should not make remarks like that when one is legislating in such a vague way. It seems that one is really asking: is there a chance that this could happen and what is that chance? Is the chance one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000? One must try to be a little more quantitative. From what I have heard so far, I think that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Listowel was worthy of the consideration of this House.

3.8 p.m.

Lord DENHAM

I ought to make it clear once again at this stage that, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, T am speaking for myself alone. It has always been a tradition in the Party which I support that the Party, as a whole, do not take a view on matters of this kind but leave it to individual consciences. Having said that, I will come to the Amendment.

My noble friend's Bill, as it is at present before us, seems to say that otter hunting is all right provided you do not actually kill an otter. His Amendment now makes it that otter hunting is all right providing you do not actually hunt an otter. It is, to my mind, getting a little difficult. I think that my noble friend's Amendment is impossible to enforce. Nobody will be able to say, when hounds are hunting, whether they are in fact hunting a mink, perhaps, instead of an otter. A lot of otter hunt packs hunt mink. It will be very difficult to enforce, and laws that are difficult to enforce are, by and large, bad laws.

I think I like the Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, even less. I am not quite clear that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, does anything at all, because, by taking out the words "on the move", in order to offend against this you have to know while you are hunting the drag exactly where the otter is in front of you, and you have to know that it is at such a distance as would terrify the otter if the dogs were following its scent. I do not see that this could ever happen because while the otter is holed up and while you are following the drag you do not know where it is, and so therefore I think removing the words "on the move" makes no difference at all.

Although I dislike these Amendments, and the Amendment to the Amendment, and I do not think they improve the Bill, I do not propose to divide the Committee. I very much hold the view that otters should not be killed unless they are, in that particular place, a pest and for that reason need killing. Nothing in these Amendments helps that. The Bill, as it stands, will encourage packs of otter hounds to conform to this ruling, as indeed they are doing already. I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment, and I hope that if he does the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will not press his Amendment to the Amendment. As I say, even if they do I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide on them.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I do not wish to enter the controversy which is obviously apparent at the present moment, nor do I want to get up time and time again to make comments on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will recall that, during the Second Reading debate, on behalf of the Government I expressed what I think could be summed up as being the attitude of benevolent neutrality, and I indicated that some redrafting of the Bill might well be necessary if this is to reach the Statute Book in an acceptable form. It is because there are a number of things relating to not only this Amendment but Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 that I want to intervene at this stage to prevent my getting up more often than is necessary; and my intervention really concerns (shall I say?) the use and the meaning of certain words.

I must draw your Lordships' attention to the difficulties to which this and related Amendments, the ones that I have mentioned, give rise. I appreciate that the noble Earl has the interests of the otter at heart. I have known him for a good many years. I know his reputation in this field. I lived in East Anglia for some years and I know the high esteem in which the noble Earl is quite rightly held. No one can doubt that for one moment.

The Government have to consider the consequences of these alterations to the Bill from the point of view, first of all, of those whose hitherto lawful activities might bring them into contact with the criminal law and, in addition, of those who have the task of enforcing the law. I am referring to the police and the courts. In the first place, let us remember that the replacement for the present paragraph (d) and the additional new paragraphs (e) and (f), which are Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 on the Marshalled List, are to be mandatory conditions. There is thus no question of the matters referred to in the Amendments being merely matters to which the otter committee, which is to be established under the Bill, can have regard. The words state quite firmly: … there shall be included among such conditions: This is to be mandatory upon the otter committee. If it is proposed under a Bill to set up an otter committee to consider all these matters, one wonders whether it is wise, or advisable, to tie the committee's hands by imposing on it certain mandatory conditions. Given the mandatory nature of the conditions, and the fact that an expert committee is to be given the task of devising them, your Lordships might have thought it desirable to specify in the Bill the nature of such conditions in the broadest possible terms by reference to the purpose, rather than to spell them out in detail.

It appears—and I say this very kindlily—that here the noble Earl seems to be doing the work for the committee, the committee which he wishes to have established under the Bill, and which we support. I should like to set out a few of the difficulties that we see in the Amendments. Let us take the first circumstances in which dogs are to be called off. The dogs are to be: … prevented from actively pursuing an otter by sight …". That does not present too great a difficulty. The otter is spotted, and the dogs are whipped in, though I note that there is some disagreement as to whether this can be done effectively.

The second circumstances in which the dogs are to be called off is when they are about to pursue an otter: … by following the scent left by any otter which is known to be on the move in front of them"— that is, the dogs— at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow …. What do we mean by "distance"? What do we mean by "terrify"? I just do not know, nor do the Government know. Again, this is a matter which ought to be left to the otter committee. The otter committee has to decide when formulating the conditions for otter hunting, what is a suitable gap. Is this to be measured in metres or in yards? I am not being facetious; I am merely trying to point out the difficulty which the otter committee will face. There is the question of the suitable distance between the otter and the dogs in relation to the otter being pursued and then being terrified. I am not a hunting man, and I find it very difficult to understand how this matter can be satisfactorily determined.

In the course of a hunt dogs and otter—one or other, or both dogs and otter—are on the move, and they must in the nature of things be at varying distances from each other at different times. There would, I imagine, be few occasions when the distance is measurable. How is it to be measured? Is it to be measured in a straight line along the ground, or in terms of the centre of a river? Is it to be measured around, over, or through obstacles? I ask this because this is one of the questions which the otter committee may have to answer, if the noble Earl is successful with the Amendments. Perhaps this matter would present the committee with no great difficulty—I just do not know—and perhaps I am being unnecessarily alarmist.

I would ask your Lordships also to ponder the position of those who will he called upon to observe this condition, those who will have to consider the possibility, or the reality, of a prosecution for breach of it, and those who will have the task of determining whether, on the evidence, such a breach has in fact been proved. I should like to suggest to your Lordships some of the questions that may need to be asked and answered. I have already referred to the difficulties of determining the distance and the difficulties regarding the word "terrify". Is the animal terrified because it runs away or because it swims away? Can it be established beyond reasonable doubt that the scent followed by the dogs was that of a particular otter, that is the one in danger of being terrified, and not an otter which has passed along the same route earlier?

I know that this sounds facetious, but these are matters which must be determined, and they must not be determined merely reasonably accurately, but, as I understand it, accurately. As I said before, the Government do not object to this Bill. This is not a ploy to upset the Bill, nor an attempt to destroy it; but that is not to say that we have not a responsibility to see that it will work if it is passed. As your Lordships know far better than I do, the Government have a responsibility to see that a Bill is workable.

I do not want to say anything further other than to indicate that, while we are at the moment happy to leave the decision on most of today's Amendments to your Lordships, I wanted to take this opportunity to point out some of the difficulties that the Government feel there may well be on the question of explanation and interpretation. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has had discussions with Home Office officials on his aims. If he feels that there is any validity in the points that I have tried to make briefly, then let me say that we would be very glad to meet him again—two or three times, if necessary—before the Report stage. But, having said that, it is a matter for your Lordships to decide, and not for the Government. I merely wanted to point out the difficulty that the Government find themselves in at present; and I am most grateful to your Lordships.

3.22 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

Perhaps the noble Earl opposite will allow me to come in here on his Amendment for just one moment. I can say to him that, if he feels very strongly about it, I do not feel very strongly against it. For instance, if it was a full Committee I would not think of dividing the Committee against him. I think it would also be convenient if I replied now to one or two of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made on behalf of the Government. First, we are all agreed, I think, that we want to avoid, first, the killing of otters and, second, the terrorising of otters, although that is not a phrase I would use; I lifted it from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on Second Reading. He raised doubts as to whether it was possible to find out if the otter was within such a range of the hounds that the otter committee could think that it would be terrified. Quite clearly, if it is within 10 yards it will certainly be frightened; if it is at 1,000 yards, it certainly will not be frightened.

In former days, I am informed, when otter hunters tried much harder than they do now to kill the otter, they kept a man walking a few hundred yards ahead who kept his eyes open continuously to see whether the otter was on the move. In those days, if he saw an otter he called the hounds on to it so that they got on to it quickly and had a greater ease of killing it, instead of having to puzzle out the line over that few hundred yards which he was kept ahead, which would have taken some little time. I do not think it will be difficult for the otter committee to decide whether that distance ahead is 100, 200 or 400 yards. It will be something of that nature, I suspect, when it will be quite clear that the otter is really frightened. You can keep just such a man walking ahead today. His duty will not be to call the hounds off, but, directly he sees an otter on the move, to go straight back towards the hounds and prevent them from following on any further.

Although the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, did not specify what he meant by "terrifying", on Second Reading he used that phrase and I lifted it from him. I think that it might be up to him to define what he means by it instead of asking me. I am pretty certain that it would not be difficult for the otter committee to decide the range at which the animal is terrified. As I have explained, it will be fairly easy to keep a man ahead to find out when an otter is on the move. If the noble Earl opposite prefers his Amendment to my definition, I should have no strong objection to it. I think that, if mine is left as I have put it, there will be less interference with the otter, but I should not think of opposing it if he feels strongly about it.

Lord FORBES

May I suggest that it may be helpful to the Committee if the Minister indicates whether the Government are likely to bring in their own Bill to conserve the otter?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I have no reason to suppose that that is the intention of the Government.

The Earl of LISTOWEL

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on my Amendment; and we discussed the noble Earl's Amendments at the same time. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Wynne-Jones, for his support. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell drew your Lordships' attention to the difficulties that are inherent in the enforcements of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook; and the same difficulties would apply to my Amendment. I pointed out on Second Reading that I thought that the noble Earl's Bill was unenforceable. That seemed to me to be a Second Reading objection. I did not think that it was answered by the noble Earl. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised these points in the hope that the difficulties might be overcome by the noble Earl and, in that spirit, I am sure that they are relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill.

May I return to my own Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment? I appreciate the practical difficulty, to which the noble Earl drew your Lordships' attention, of finding out before the hunt if an otter is likely to be found resting in the path that the hounds are likely to follow but, unless this practical difficulty can be overcome, the purpose of the noble Earl's Amendment, which is to prevent the killing of otters when the hounds are following a fresh scent—he made that quite clear—may be defeated.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

It is to prevent the terrifying of otters as well.

The Earl of LISTOWEL

I did not mean to exclude that. Of course, I agree entirely with the noble Earl, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that the difficulty of any committee deciding when an otter had been terrified would be very considerable. But the main object of the noble Earl is to prevent the killing of otters—which is also the object of otter hunts generally, and has been since 1967.

But it seems to me that, as was admitted by some of the speakers (and even the noble Earl admitted it) there will be occasions—they may be very rare; the noble Earl called it "a blue moon", and some doubt was cast on the difficulty of ascertaining the frequency of blue moons by my noble friend, who is a scientist—on which an otter is caught and killed because there will be nothing under the noble Earls Amendment to stop the hounds from surprising an otter when it is asleep in a hole or under cover on the bank of a river.

Lord DENHAM

Can the noble Earl explain how his Amendment has that effect?

The Earl of LISTOWEL

My Amendment has that effect because it would oblige the hunt to call off the hounds if an otter was known to be not merely on the move but a certain distance in front of the hounds, whether on the move or in hiding.

Lord DENHAM

But it would not be known.

The Earl of LISTOWEL

It has to be known. I agree that it is a serious difficulty. May I use this Amendment to illustrate a more general point? I am glad to see that the noble Earl drew attention to the recently published report of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation on otters. This was published since the noble Earl introduced his Bill. We are glad that the noble Earl thought this was a good report. He was in favour of it and wanted, so far as possible, to keep his Bill in line with it. He will have noted that the report expressed great concern—and I quote: about the status of the otter in England and Wales". And recommended an immediate—and I quote again: legislative measure for the protection of the otter". The legislative measure recommended in the report was not a measure such as that of the noble Earl for the regulation or control of otter hunting. The legislative measure recommended by the report was either an Otter Bill like the Badgers Bill (which is now of course an Act of Parliament) or an amendment of the 1975 Act for the protection of wild creatures and wild fauna, which was originally a Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones.

Not only was it not recommending a Bill for the control of otter hunting or the regulation of otter hunting, but it said that it would prefer a voluntary ban on otter hunting pending effective protective legislation. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that recommendation carefully. This Amendment illustrates the fact that the noble Earl's Bill goes a very short way to carry out the object which he has in mind, the protection of the otter. I have noted carefully the opinions expressed on my Amendment and I counted three voices against, one voice in favour and one neutral voice. In view of the fact that the majority are against my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.33 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 21, at end insert— ("(e) conditions as to the minimum size of stream on which otter hunting may take place.")

The noble Earl said: The Masters of Otter Hounds Association have already laid down a rule for their members saying that they should not hunt or draw in small waters, tributaries and the head of main rivers. But since that is the place in which bitch otters usually have their pups, it would be better not to leave it to the deposited rules but to make it a statutory condition. This is just a small matter of opinion. We can either leave it for this to be put in the rules or make it a statutory condition. I would sooner make it a statutory condition. I beg to move.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I was going to try and persuade the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment. We are back again to something which is mandatory. Somebody has to consider width, size, length and whether it is a brook, river or stream. As I understand the situation, the provision is to safeguard and protect pregnant bitches. If I am right about that, would it not be possible to do it by saying that there should be a closed season? I do not know enough about this subject, but it may well be that it is possible to define "a close season". I wonder whether the suggestion appeals to the noble Earl and, if so, whether he would explore that possibility, either on his own or with myself and my advisers, to see whether something more suitable and tangible might come out. That is my only reason for suggesting that he might like to withdraw this Amendment.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My instinct, I must say, is to try to leave as much as I can to the otter committee, which I know is what the noble Lord would wish. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to leave it to them and, if the noble Lord thinks that is the best way, I will now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 21, at end insert— ("(f) a condition that, when dogs are following the scent of an otter, all reasonable steps are taken to ascertain whether or not an otter is on the move in front of the dogs at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.")

The noble Earl said: I think we have virtually dealt with this Amendment in dealing with Amendment No. 2. I described how one can take all reasonable and possible steps by having somebody ahead to make quite certain that the otter is protected from the hounds. I do not think I need amplify that any further. I beg to move this Amendment.

[Amendment No. 6, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("and the deposited rules shall be amended accordingly.")

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

3.38 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8: After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

Extended application of conditions for otter hunting. .Unless the Secretary of State on the advice of the otter committee shall otherwise determine, the conditions under which otter hunting may take place shall apply to following the scent left by an otter which is not known to be on the move in front of the dogs at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.

The noble Earl said: I have already explained how, because the otter is a nocturnal animal, the only traces of it which can be found by dogs during the daytime is the scent left by an otter as he went through the night before. I think I explained on Second Reading how watching the hounds follow that scent is one the major pleasures of watching hounds following the drag of an otter.

Now that we have just passed Amendment No. 2, in fact that will be the only pleasure left to otter hunters. Otter hunting, as we know it—that is to say, pursuing otters with hounds—will be dead. It will be an offence against the Act, once the Bill is enacted. The only thing left will be to follow a drag in the absence of the otter which left it. I think that while that is going on it would be just as well if the conditions we have decided should govern tracing an otter should also govern following the scent left by an otter in its absence. It may well be that the otter committee may not think it is necessary, and I have left it open for them to say so. The decision is left in their hands. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 9, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 8, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

3.40 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 10: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Prevention of damage by otters

Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is satisfied that such damage is being done by otters to a fishery or other form of property as to make it necessary to drive the otters away from the area where the damage is being done, he may grant a licence to any person authorising that person, subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in section 1(2)(a) to (c) above, to encourage dogs actively to pursue by sight or by scent an otter found within five miles of the site where the damage was being done.

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will appreciate that the original Bill made quite elaborate provision for an otter doing damage to be pursued by hounds, at the request of the authorised person on whose land the damage was being done, and that exonerated the huntsman of the otter hounds from any penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out that if an otter was chivvied up and down the river for some time, he tended to leave that part of the river for up to four months. The alternative is to kill it. It seems to me that, where the Ministry of Agriculture was satisfied that damage was being done, it would be less cruel and less serious, from the conservation point of view, if it could authorise a pack of hounds to chivvy an otter to such an extent that he would leave the area where he was doing damage; and the process could be repeated if he came back again.

I do not think that this will happen very often. I have been making such inquiries as I could about otters doing damage. I have seen places where they go into the fixed stake nets along the coast where salmon are caught; I have discussed the matter with people who set night nets, and I have also discussed it with fishermen. I have written to the National Farmers' Union and obtained their opinion on the effects of otters on fish farms, and it is very seldom that one can say that an otter does any damage; although when it does damage it can be serious. One has either to try to kill the otter or do what I suggest in this Amendment, and I think that this is probably the better solution. I beg to move.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I am certain all of your Lordships present here today, would say without a moment's hesitation that there is no point in putting something into a Bill unless it will serve a useful purpose. I know that the noble Earl has had discussions not only with the Home Office, on whose behalf I am speaking today, but also with the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This Amendment gives the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food power to licence otter hunting for the purpose of driving away otters which damage fisheries or other forms of property. The noble Earl knows that there is no evidence that otters are causing significant damage either to fisheries or to farm produce, and, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, the fish farming section of the National Farmers' Union sees little or no reason for any specific proposals to be made to control otters.

If I am right about this—and I feel sure that I am, and that the noble Earl will not disagree with me—there is no point in putting this into the Bill; and I suggest, with the greatest respect, that it is not necessary. Do not let us clutter up the Bill with something which will not serve any useful purpose. In these circumstances, I beg the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he has not answered my question. There are occasions when otters do damage, as we all know, but they are rare. Does he think it is better that the otter should be snared, which is probably the only way of catching one which may live five miles away and come only at intervals, or that it should be driven away by this method?

That is the point at issue, not whether it is vitally important to have some method of getting rid of an otter which is doing damage. An owner can get rid of an otter lawfully. The question is whether it is better that he should snare it or that the otter should be chivvied and frightened away. On balance, I believe that less cruelty is inflicted if the otter is chivvied and frightened away. What do the Government believe?

3.46 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

The Government can respond and behave only in the light of the expert information which has been given to them, of which the noble Earl is aware, and I have already said that the fish farming section of the National Farmers' Union see little or no reason for this Amendment. If I may say so with the greatest possible respect, it is not the slightest use for the Government to obtain advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment and then to disregard it. My feeling is that the noble Earl does not really believe that this Amendment is necessary. He is saying that damage happens occasionally. But it happens so rarely that, in the circumstances, the Government do not feel that there is any real need for this new clause to be included in the Bill. One could argue that the new clause will not do any harm. However, over a period of years we have suffered from including in a good many Bills far too much which ultimately has been found to be quite pointless and useless.

Lord CRAIGTON

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. Killing and taking an otter is not illegal. Many fishermen consider that otters are vermin. I should prefer them to be chased away rather than trapped or killed. For that reason I support my noble friend.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

I am impressed by what the Minister has said regarding the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. If we put into the Bill a clause such as that which the noble Earl proposes, it seems to me that damage done by otters will be regarded as a common cause of fish depredation. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that people often make remarks about otters, seals and other animals. If this clause is included, people will say: "Yes, we know perfectly well that otters eat up all the fish, otherwise it would not have been put into an Act of Parliament". It is very dangerous to put a clause of this kind into the Bill. It is inviting any person who believes that the fish in his river have fallen in numbers to turn to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and say, "Please give me permission to exterminate the otters in my river". I ask the noble Earl seriously to consider not his own intention but what will happen if this clause becomes part of the Bill. I feel sure that it would have a harmful effect, not the good effect which the noble Earl is suggesting.

Lord FORBES

Otters do damage. I know of a case where otters killed a number of pinion duck. Surely it is better to be able to chase them away if they are known to be doing damage?

Lord WYNNE-JONES

That is exactly what I was saying.

Lord DENHAM

The noble Lord opposite says that this Amendment will give people the impression that otters do damage. Everybody has that impression already.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

By implication.

Lord DENHAM

I do not believe this to be so. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, that some form of words is necessary to allow otters to be killed when this is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, says that otters never need to be killed. However, he must consider the point that in a large number of cases people may believe that otters should be killed. If they do not have the means of killing otters as suggested by my noble friend, they will use snares, the spade or something else, which is a very much less satisfactory and a very much more cruel way of killing an otter. Personally, I prefer the method that is included in the second half of Clause 3 and in Clause 4 of the original Bill, which my noble friend will seek to delete at a future stage. I see the difficulties about this Amendment as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but I think perhaps it may be better if my noble friend withdraws this Amendment and also withdraws Amendment No. 14, and his Amendment proposing to leave out Clause 4.

The Earl of LISTOWEL

A case has been made out for this Amendment being unnecessary, but whether or not that case is valid I hope the Committee may think that this Amendment is undesirable, for this reason. I think your Lordships would agree that the main cause of the decline of the otter has been disturbance: disturbance of many different kinds, but one of the causes, of course, is otter hunting. This Amendment proposes that if someone finds that damage has been done to his stock of fish he may ask for a licence to allow hounds to pursue by sight or by scent an otter found within five miles of the site where the damage has been done. That means a radius of five miles from the fish farm or the hatchery or wherever it is the damage has been done by the otter. That is an enormous area and it may impinge on the territories of other otters besides the "criminal"; it may mean that other otters are chased away in an area where otters are already scarce.

I do not know whether there is a choice, because I am not at all certain if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with the advantage of the expert advice he has received, may not be right. But whether or not he is right, I should prefer some other method, such as trapping or shooting which at any rate would pin down the culprit, rather than a method which would threaten other otters over a large area of river banks. I hope your Lordships will feel that this Amendment is undesirable whether it is necessary or not.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

I must confess that I am more encouraged by the support that I have had than frustrated by the opposition, which seems to me to be not very convincing. I am glad that the ci-devant Minister of Agriculture has left the House. For the moment I was frightened that he might be going to voice the opinion of his late Department: "For Heaven's sake don't give us anything more to do !" I hoped the noble Lord would accept this Amendment. It would be very seldom used and I think it is a more humane method. However, I am not prepared to press the matter to a Division and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Grant of licence by Nature Conservancy Council A licence may be granted to any person by the Nature Conservancy Council authorising that person for scientific or educational purposes or for the better conservation of otters and subject to compliance with any special conditions to contravene any of the approved conditions as defined by section 2 of this Act.

The noble Earl said: I regret to have to say that there is a convention that we finish at half-past four. I had intended to use this new clause as a medium for saying exactly what I thought of the Nature Conservancy Council for having gone directly against the advice of its scientific advisers, but I would not wish to waste your Lordships' time in enjoying myself perhaps at the expense of other people.

This is common form. In almost every conservation Act it is customary to give the Nature Conservancy Council the power to authorise people to go against it. I beg to move.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

We think this is a good Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he would not start an acrimonious discussion, which I do not think would have helped the situation at all.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

If I may briefly reply to the noble Lord, he and I have had many acrimonious discussions in the past: they were great fun and I bitterly regret that we cannot have another today.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.57 p.m.

Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 12: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

Power of Secretary of State to ban otter hunting The Committee constituted under Schedule 1 shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, have power to ban otter hunting for any period in any area where they consider that the continued activities of the hunt may affect the continued existence of otters in that area.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really crucial to the whole Bill and to its ultimate success if it becomes law. I ask my noble friend and the Committee to accept it. If my noble friend will accept that he will have the wholehearted support of all the conservation interests in this country. I do not say the drafting is right. It may be that the Nature Conservancy Council, of whom he is so fond, should be in place of the Secretary of State, but that could come at a later stage.

The air is full of conflicting opinions about otters. If my noble friend is right in his view then this new clause would never be used, but the most excellent report says, in paragraph 12(2): It is open to argument whether it is practicable to hunt without killing otters and in any event any reduction in disturbance from hunting can only be of benefit to the otter". So if my noble friend is wrong and the report proves correct, who will be more pleased than my noble friend that he has in this Bill a way of putting matters right? And in putting matters right whose opinion will be better than the statutory otter committee who are dealing so closely with the whole subject? I believe they are in the best position to decide if, when and where, otter hunting should be stopped. I beg to move.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

As drafted, this is a thoroughly bad Amendment. It is putting a conservation clause into a Bill which is primarily an animal welfare Bill. The otter committee was devised as a committee which would see that—in those days it was otter hunting, which is now dead—that otter hunting was conducted in such a way that it was not cruel to the otter. It is entirely an ethical committee. It has no means of collecting information about the status and distribution or anything else about the otter, other than through the hunts. It would have to consult with the hunts on this, and I am bound to say that, although I have been opposed to otter hunting for as long as I can remember, we should all be prepared to pay great tribute to the efforts that the hunts have made for the conservation of the otter.

I have here the circular issued following the first Otter Report of 1969, in which it is laid down that, voluntarily, in certain areas otter hunting should cease altogether because the otter was in a bad state there, that in other areas, where the otter was falling away but not seriously, otter hunting should be reduced, that certain rivers in various parts of England were not to be hunted at all. There is a river in my county which the Association said should not be hunted which has not been hunted for the seven years which have elapsed since then, although I have credible information that there was certainly one litter seen in one tributary last year and another in another tributary this year. The hunts have taken an infinity of pains to see that, where the otter is in any danger, they cut down on its disturbance; I think we should all be ready to pay tribute to them.

I am quite convinced that the otter committee would be able to agree with them on places where that kind of thing should be done. It is not the job for the otter committee; we really must get this tidied up on Report. According to this Bill, the committee merely advises the Minister what to do. If the noble Lord worded his clause so that the otter committee were to advise the Minister, it would be better than it is now, but the people who ought to be advised are the Nature Conservancy Council. I hope that perhaps at the next stage the noble Lord will move another Amendment making it the responsibility of the otter committee, if they find anything like that is necessary, to advise the Nature Conservancy Council to take the necessary action. At the moment I do not want to divide against this clause. But it is important that we get the Bill properly drafted and it must be tidied up.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I wonder if noble Lords would allow me to intervene. I hesitate to suggest that the House should divide: if fewer than 30 noble Lords vote in a Division the proceedings finish for the day. I think that within the next quarter of an hour we can complete this Committee stage entirely.

The suggestion I have to make is this. I do not know whether it will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. We have some reservations. I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment today and be prepared to see us—myself and my advisers at the Home Office—and discuss this. He is not bound by anything that is said; he can put this Amendment down again at Report stage, if he wishes. Some useful purpose may be served by our meeting and discussing this matter. It would allow the business to continue and the Committee stage to be completed today. His rights are preserved in the sense that, if he is not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion, he can put down precisely the same Amendment, or one like it, at Report.

Lord CRAIGTON

I am most anxious to take advice. It would be very much understood by the conservation interests which are watching so closely the progress of this Bill. If I undertook to put down an Amendment which had been agreed with the Department to amend what I have put down in the Amendment today, could this Amendment not stay in the Bill now and be taken out at the next stage? I should prefer to do it in that way.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

There is some difficulty about Amendments that have been agreed in the Committee being deleted at the later stage. I know that the later stage in this case would be Report stage, but I think that it is regarded as being undesirable, when the House has decided something, that at the next stage it should seek to remove it. I think there are certain difficulties. Perhaps I am exaggerating the difficulties; I am not sure.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that, if lie does as suggested, I will try and arrange with the Whips that we have another stage, if only to deal with his Amendment and put it in a more tidy form.

Lord CRAIGTON

We should be most unhappy to let this Bill go through. I divided the Committee because I thought that we were perpetuating in law an additional disturbance to the otter. So I objected completely to the Bill. I shall be happy only if I have an Amendment of this nature in it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I would support him in his Amendment but I think it would be wise to put it in the right form. With the assurance that that could be done, I would entirely agree with what he now proposes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Unlawful hunting]:

4.6 p.m.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 13: Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("than") to ("he") in line 15 and insert ("may be permitted under the Act,").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14: Page 2, leave out lines 19 to 23. The noble Earl said: As a result of the withdrawal of Amendment No. 10, I do not wish to move this Amendment.

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Interpretation]:

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 16: Page 2, leave out lines 36 to 40.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 17: Page 2, line 37, leave out from ("otter") to end of line 40.

The noble Earl said: There are better definitions under Amendments Nos 2, 5 and 8. I beg to move.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

This Amendment is consequential.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("dogs") to end of line 43 and insert ("and pursuing an—otter so found by sight or by scent.")

The noble Earl said: This is a better definition, and I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.