| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Garnier: Like the hon. Member for Sherwood, the hon. Gentleman is being candid about his intention, but I want to be clear about his attitude to the clause and to the Bill as a whole. Perhaps he can also help me with his hon. Friends' views. Does the Column Number: 980 hon. Gentleman want to see all forms of hunting, with or without hounds, banned altogether? Does he believe that the licensing system effectively licenses cruelty?Rob Marris: First, I shall not speak for my hon. Friends. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves. Secondly, it is not a licensing system; it is a registration system. Thirdly, as I have said, I should like to have seen foxes included in the clause. I shall not vote against clause stand part, because I believe that deer should be included, but if an amendment were tabled on Report to include foxes in the clause, or a mechanism to that effect, I would be likely to vote for it. Opposition Members have often criticised the Bill for altering or making illegitimate certain human behaviour. As I have said more than once in the Committee, the Bill is about human behaviour, and I believe that hunting is as much about human behaviour as about animal welfare. It is demeaning for humans in the 21st century to carry on activities that, although they have a pest control element, are not to do with collecting food. Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the first time that a Labour Member has accepted that the Government are seeking to change human behaviour and that the Bill has nothing to do with animal welfare? That is contrary to what they have been arguing for the past six weeks. Rob Marris: I do not accept that at all. I did not say that it had nothing to do with animal welfare. I said that the primary motivation for me was human behaviour. As I said earlier, my hon. Friends can speak for themselves. I shall not read out all the scientific evidence, but the Burns inquiry commissioned a joint report, ''Contract 7'', from Patrick Bateson, the behaviourologist, and the physiologist, Roger Harris, who tend to have different views about hunting. They may have fallen out later following the joint universities study and so on, but this joint piece of work was done in 1999. It is available on the handy CD at the back of the Burns report, which I am sure we all have cracked into. I appreciate that I shall be accused of selective quotation. In one sense, that will be justified, because I shall not read it all. Bateson and Harris say:
I end the quotation there to say as an aside that the average length of a chase—I stress the word ''average''—is three hours and the average distance covered 18 km. That is 6 km an hour, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton said from a sedentary position, is a brisk human walking pace. One gathers from what Bateson and Harris have said that deer are a bit lazy; they stand around all day trying to eat and do not go far. Bateson and Harris go on:
Column Number: 981
I move on, again briefly, to the vets. There is a body called Vets for Hunting. Figures were bandied about earlier about what vets think. Out of, in round terms, the 15,000 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Vets for Hunting has managed to sign up 3 per cent., in spite of all the publicity, the debates in its journal and so on. Mr. Flook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Rob Marris: I shall finish the point and then give way. An opinion poll run on vets by NOP in July 2001 was often cited as saying that 63 per cent. of vets in rural areas oppose a hunting ban on welfare grounds. Another question in that survey produced the result that 66 per cent. of vets thought that a ban would decrease the suffering of foxes or were unsure. Mr. Flook: I am sure that there are 15,000 vets in Britain, of which a large element no doubt operate their surgeries in cities, because the amount of money that we spend on our domestic pets is of great importance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that the 400 or 500 vets in Vets for Hunting are rural vets? Does he know what percentage of rural vets they represent? Rob Marris: I confess that I have no means of knowing. I stand to be corrected but, as the hon. Gentleman tempts me, I would say that there was a disproportionate number of vets in rural areas, although I appreciate that there are many cat and dog vets in cities such as Wolverhampton. Even if we agreed that only a third of vets were in the rural areas, it would be 5,000. Vets for Hunting represents 427 out of 5,000, which is not even 10 per cent. Mr. Swire: I have stumbled across the figures, if the hon. Gentleman will indulge me. He referred to the NOP poll, published in The Daily Telegraph on behalf of the Countryside Alliance, of 1,000 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Despite all the statistics, the key point is that only a small fraction of those polled—24 per cent.—supported the total ban option contained in the options Bill. In other words, the majority favoured the continuation of hunting either under a form of licensing or through registration, as the hon. Gentleman wants. Rob Marris: I do not dispute that figure, but I respond to the hon. Gentleman with the figure that I gave earlier. In the same poll, the July 2001 NOP poll, 66 per cent. thought that a ban would decrease the suffering of foxes or were unsure. I appreciate that the clause stand part debate relates to deer, but inevitably Column Number: 982 we bring foxes into it. The Bill is concerned with decreasing suffering. That is, pursuant to clause 8, a cornerstone of the Bill. Some of the 66 per cent. might have thought that a ban would decrease the suffering of deer, but still thought that there should not be a ban; for example because of the community of interest argument that we heard earlier. Therefore, one figure does not necessarily lead to another. We must be careful with statistics, as we all try to be.The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has a point when he says, ''What is the logic of the Bill? Foxes are in one category and will go through registration. Deer, under clause 6, will not. That is illogical.'' To some extent I agree with him and I look to the Government to do something on Report to address that illogicality. It would be more appropriate if it were done on the Floor of the House. Gregory Barker: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he answer the question that I put earlier to one of his hon. Friends? How does he rate the pain, agony and experience of a wounded deer that is shot, but not fatally injured, alongside the exhaustion of a deer that runs for 18 km? Does he agree that it is infinitely worse to be shot, left wounded and waiting some hours to be dispatched than simply to run across Exmoor? Rob Marris: I shall respond to that and then sit down. As I said earlier, a primary driver for me on this issue is human behaviour. Animal welfare comes into it— Gregory Barker rose—
Rob Marris: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman tempts me on animal welfare. All I can say to that is that in my whole life—this may greatly surprise members of the Committee—I have never been shot and I have never run for three hours being chased by a pack of dogs over 18 km through the countryside, so I cannot say. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): I had not intended to speak in the debate, because I have had to miss a large chunk of it, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale said. I apologise for that, but the new hours that we voted for in this place make the number of conflicts that we face almost intolerable. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I apologise to you, Mrs. Roe, and to the hon. Gentleman for my absence. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is always interested in the Middle Way Group's view. Its view on hunting deer is not terribly strong. Wildlife Network, the group that gave birth to the Middle Way Group, had a policy of opposing deer hunting.
4.39 pmSitting suspended for a Division in the House. [Continued in column 983]
|
| |
| Prepared 11 February 2003 | |
