| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Gray: I do not accept the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he accept that what he proposes is identical with what is proposed under schedule 1, which is titled ''Exempt Hunting''? He would remove the distinction between registered hunting and exempt hunting, and thereby wreck the entire Bill. Mr. Pickthall: The last thing on my mind is wrecking the entire Bill. I am anxious to retain some central points of it, and of course I realise what is in schedule 1. The amendments also include the requirements that the dogs used are kept under proper control, which seems axiomatic to me, and that
Perhaps most importantly, amendments Nos. 222 and 224 both say that
which would prevent what I think is one of the worst aspects of pursuing wild mammals with dogs; the use of terriers in digging out. The use of terriers in the digging out of badgers is banned in law for well accepted reasons that we all understand and which most people support, although it is not unknown in my constituency for badger diggers, who still exist, to use the excuse that they were digging for foxes. The Burns report was clear in expressing a strong view about the process of digging out. I do not want to go into that at great length now, because I suspect that we might come back to the topic in discussion of new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. In paragraph 9.20, the Burns report says:
In paragraph 6.52, Burns concluded that
the famous phrase—
The Burns committee examined two post mortems of foxes killed by terriers underground in which trauma before death was reported. It does not take much imagination to realise what goes on in a small hole under the ground when two fairly strong animals with good teeth meet face to face. It not only damages the fox and can be very protracted; it often damages the terrier.
3.30 pmMr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there may be circumstances—for example, if a fox has been shot and wounded and gone to ground—in which using terriers is a humane course of action that prevents the fox dying a lingering Column Number: 17 death? I do not accept his general argument either, but, on that specific and narrow point, does he agree that his amendment is inhumane and cruel?Mr. Pickthall: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I honestly cannot conceive of the activity as humane. I am very much aware of the tremendous speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on the Second Reading of the previous Hunting Bill, which we considered a year or more ago. He exposed terrier work for what it is at great length and in great detail. I knew some of what he said beforehand, but his speech confirmed my opinions. As I said at the start, the amendments are intended to toughen, strengthen and clarify clauses 27 and 28. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept all or some of the amendments, at least in spirit, and I look forward to his reply, which I hope that I will hear soon. Mr. Swire: I should like to preface my remarks about the Conservative amendment by saying that I, too, would rather be with other hon. and right hon. Members who are taking part in the debate on humanitarian contingency plans in Iraq. I apologise for not being here on Tuesday; I was taking part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines for 48 hours. When I spoke to them they were amazed to hear that I am spending so much time debating a Bill to ban hunting with dogs; all they are really concerned with talking about is the forthcoming war, if there is to be one, in the middle east. I am sure that you will quite properly stop me if I go too far, Mrs. Roe, but, having caught up with the debates that took place in my absence on Tuesday, I am extremely surprised by the allegations of the bung to the Government from various bodies— The Chairman: Order. I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that there was considerable debate on that issue. That moment has passed. Mr. Swire: Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I knew that I should not be able to dwell on that for too long. I will start by discussing amendment No. 39, which differs from the two amendments that the hon. Member for West Lancashire spoke about. Amendment No. 39 is a positive suggestion whereas, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the other two amendments are wrecking amendments, as I will demonstrate. The thinking behind amendment No. 39 relates to animal welfare, consideration of which has been so woefully absent from so much of the debate. The subjective nature of the matter means that we need dwell very carefully on the question of who is or is not competent to dispatch a fox at any stage of its life; towards the end of its life or when it is wounded. We need to ensure that we are clear about what we mean when we use that all-embracing word ''competent.'' That is why the Conservatives suggest that a hunt master, a representative of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or a police constable should be best placed to pronounce on that matter. We have fallen into the habit of selecting from the Burns report, and why not? In paragraph 6.60 Burns says: Column Number: 18
The report goes on to talk about snaring. There is a genuine concern. We should decide who is or is not competent in this context. I do not know how many members of the Committee have tried to shoot a fox, whether or not it is wounded. I have, and I can assure the Committee that with a shotgun it is sometimes very difficult. Achieving a clean kill of a fox on the move requires considerable skill and—dare I use the word—competence. That is why I have argued at previous sittings that I like the idea of hunting with hounds rather than shooting foxes, because there is no middle way. If one chases a fox with hounds the fox will either escape, by giving the hounds the slip, or it will be caught and dispatched quickly. There is no such guarantee with shooting, particularly if one is not very competent. Therefore, the amendment has been advanced for animal welfare reasons in an attempt to ensure that wild mammals are not wounded by inaccurate shots or, indeed—equally important—by the use of the wrong shot. The amendments tabled by Labour Members alter the nature of the Bill. They bring to mind the only similar piece of legislation, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, whereby dogs are allowed to be used only for the purposes of locating and flushing wild animals from covert in order that they may be shot. I shall not rehearse some of the descriptions given earlier in our Committee sittings, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) quoted the wife of a master of foxhounds in Scotland as saying how horrified the hunting community in Scotland was increasingly becoming over the amount of wounded foxes that they were leading out. Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): If they are so horrified, why do they do it? There is no need for them to go out and chase the fox and then have somebody shoot it. If they were horrified, they would stop it. Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman is unique if he is the only person in the Committee who believes that foxes do not have to be controlled. I strongly suspect that even the anti-foxhunters in Scotland saw that there was a legitimate role— Mr. Martlew: Coming from Cumbria, I am very conscious that on occasion foxes need to be controlled, but there is no need for people to get on horses, chase the fox for a considerable period and then shoot it. In my area, when farmers have a problem with a fox, they get the men with the lamps in. That is how they control the problem. Mr. Swire: If they were doing in Scotland what the hon. Gentleman suggests, to my way of thinking they would be breaking the law. That is not what now happens in Scotland. Mr. Gray: Not only is the hon. Member for Carlisle wrong, that is not what his hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire is proposing. His hon. Column Number: 19 Friend is proposing that dogs should be used to flush the fox out of a wood to a dismounted person—there will be no horses in any shape, size or form necessarily—who will shoot it. All this business about horses exposes the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not like horses and red coats, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.Mr. Swire: Indeed; I think we need to move on from this point. The whole question of restricting the use of terriers to two raises a further point about what has and has not been promised to people who have corresponded with the Minister in the past. It is interesting that under schedule 1(5):
That is clear for everybody to see. But compare and contrast that with a letter that the Minister sent to Mr. Ken Butler, the chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation, on 12 January of this year in which he says:
The truth is somewhere, but I have yet to ascertain where. Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Where does that leave those who are tasked with having to deal with the fox population, namely the gamekeepers? Gamekeepers would have to make 2,000 applications if they wished to continue their work. If the exemption is not made, animals will suffer. For instance, what will happen if deer is out of season? The requirement could also lead, the gamekeepers maintain, to dangerous shooting. That is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked about the use of terriers to flush out wounded animals. Lord Burns in paragraph 6.56 of his report says:
That clearly has a role. One of the key points about amendments Nos. 222 and 224 is their failure to comprehend the landscape and size of the country that we are talking about. The average Welsh plantation, for instance, is nearly three times the size of the Palace of Westminster; 357 plantations in Wales are over 100 hectares or 1 million sq m, an area 31 times the size of this vast building. To expect two dogs to find a fox in such an enormous area is optimistic and exposes yet again the weakness of the argument in the amendments. There are 1,672 forests in England and Wales, an area of over 1 million sq m. If those forests were square, which they rarely are, they would have perimeters of at least 4,000 m. They would need, at the very least, in perfect conditions on flat ground more than 80 competent marksmen. There are 288,000 hectares of woodland in Wales, and 1,104,000 hectares of woodland in England. Many of them are in Column Number: 20 uplands, often surrounded by sheep farms, and act as a natural reservoir of foxes. The only practical method of controlling foxes in such areas, even if one intends to shoot them, is to use packs of hounds.The hon. Member for Weaver Vale proposed the licensing of packs of foxhounds for periods of as little as three months so that they could deal with a rogue fox. We suggested that where there is one fox, there is likely to be more than one. However, the hon. Gentleman's point underscored the failure to recognise the sheer size of the problem. It is not fair to put such pressure on licensed gamekeepers who will be held responsible for dealing with foxes' welfare. Nor do I think that it can be argued that it is fair on the fox to allow people to shoot and wound it, probably at the wrong range and with the wrong calibre weapon.
3.45 pmI do not believe that amendments Nos. 222 and 224 would contribute anything to the Bill but—the Minister probably agrees—they would fundamentally alter its purpose. However, if the Committee is genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it will agree that our amendment would be beneficial. It is increasingly obvious that nothing that the Government propose is driven by concern for the welfare of the fox.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 30 January 2003 |
