| Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
|
|
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that his next response to me is a little more temperate than the last. What is the difference between new clause 7 and paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1, which says that an exemption to the prohibition of hunting is that the
The schedule makes it possible to use dogs to locate an injured animal. What is the difference between that paragraph, which is part of the Bill, and new clause 7, which the hon. Gentleman is promoting? Lembit Öpik: I do not want to fire from the hip on that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, when I have finished my contribution, and should there be time for a summation at the end, I shall respond to that point, but I do not want to do that while I am standing up now, because I would be making up the answer. Obviously, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the two are identical, there would be no point in having both. I commit to coming back to that, perhaps by intervention if there is no other way of responding. Column Number: 049 The Middle Way Group has always been happy to take feedback and accept it when appropriate.
2.45 pmMr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): My hon. Friend may wish to consider the point that the schedule is subjective, whereas his new clause 7 is objective. His point about animal welfare is surely underlined when one considers the current state of foxhunting with gun packs in upland Wales. Am I not right in thinking that gun packs operate predominantly in wooded areas and that the welfare of the fox will therefore be much better protected by the continuation of the present gun-pack system than by allowing the indiscriminate shooting of foxes in wooded areas? Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his first suggestion. On his second point, he is right that much flushing to guns occurs in wooded areas. The dogs surround the area, then flush the fox out. There are two issues there. He is right that not being able to use dogs more liberally will cause welfare problems, as I have described. The second, incidental problem, which I shall mention briefly, is that the legislation is bound to increase usage of guns in the countryside. Given the greater access to the countryside that the Government have passed for ramblers, I do not need to tell the Committee that there are dangers associated with the increased use of guns in the countryside. I for one do not want to be in an emergency Standing Committee to introduce yet more legislation because some tragic event has occurred as a direct result of the increased use of guns in the countryside. Gregory Barker: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves flushing out, may I draw his attention to the fourth condition in schedule 1? It is that
Can he conceive of any possible way of controlling dogs sent to chase an animal into a thicket, hedgerow, wood or copse that will prevent them from chasing the quarry into a rabbit hole or any type of underground space into which they can fit? It is absolute nonsense to think that the dogs are suddenly going to stop at the entrance to a small hole. Lembit Öpik: One could regulate the size of holes in the countryside and demand that all dogs in the countryside have to be larger than the holes that are permitted. I think that the best place to discuss that point is when we discuss terrier work under the relevant Government amendment. I shall have a great deal to say about terrier work and the underground activity of dogs, some of which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). Without my amendments, the legislation will, without question, have a detrimental impact on animal welfare in the countryside. The number of animals killed is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting, a conclusion from Lord Burns, which I do not think is a subjective interpretation. Alternative methods of control would replace hunting, which might result in increased animal suffering. No Column Number: 050 verifiable evidence proves that hunting is cruel or that hunting people tend to cause unnecessary suffering. We are trying to ameliorate some of the worst effects of the changes made to the Bill during the past few days. We hope that hon. Members will take that seriously.Only one person has questioned the quality and validity of our shooting research, but so that there can be no doubt that the Middle Way Group's objective and data-based conclusions are genuinely open to scrutiny, I shall quote Professor Patrick Bateson's response to some of our inquiries relating to requests for a perspective on our gun research. In a letter, he said:
In fairness, I will read the next bit out for the sake of balance. He says that
I accept that Professor Bateson raises some issues, which we can discuss at another point, but, crucially, although we have differences of view with him, even he has accepted the scientific validity of our research. Although he has other things to say about the chase, that research is exclusively devoted to shooting. I hope that I have outlined why we tabled the amendments. I thank you for your gentle patience with my brief outburst towards the hon. Member for Worcester, Mrs. Roe. Mr. Garnier: It was righteous indignation. Lembit Öpik: Righteous indignation might be a better description. More than anything, I hope that individuals who may not be predisposed to support amendments tabled by me because I happen to be in the Middle Way Group, will think again. Throughout the debate, we are seeking to improve animal welfare. If the amendments are ignored simply because of the affiliation of their originator, those who ignore them will be responsible for making animal welfare worse. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on the way in which he spoke about amendments Nos. 75 and 74 and new clause 7, and the people who work for the Middle Way Group on their nimble-footedness. They were so clever and nimble that they were able to put down their amendments first in this and the next two groups. I congratulate Jim Barrington and Georgia Boundy on that. In that context, the Countryside Alliance is sad to be losing Sarah Godderidge and James Legge. Over the four or five years in which I have been involved in this business, they have carried out outstanding work briefing us all, and they will work hard right up until the summer. I thank them very much for what they have had to do, in spite of the fact that, on this occasion, they were outmanoeuvred by the Middle Way Group. I will not hold that against them. I will speak briefly about the Middle Way Group amendments later, but first I want to touch on amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83. They are alternative Column Number: 051 amendments, and the intention was not to get all of them agreed, although I hope that one of them may be. The Committee will recall that, when we discussed flushing out previously, we proposed an amendment that would have allowed 40 dogs to be used for flushing out. The Minister said that 40 dogs was ludicrous, because that would be just like hunting. He said that 40 was far too many and he could not go along with the proposal. I suggested that if he did not like 40, he might consider a smaller number. The Minister said that he would certainly have considered intermediate numbers between two and 40, but that because we had not proposed such amendments, it would not be possible to do so in Committee. I thought it only sensible to give him that opportunity.We have proposed three options—10, 20 or 35 dogs—and it will be interesting to hear which the Minister favours. Perhaps he will respond by saying that he is prepared to consider only two dogs, which is what is currently in the Bill. In that case, that may be a reflection on the Minister's approach to the issue, rather than the realities of finding foxes in the countryside. We are talking about extremely large wooded areas. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was rightly corrected. Gun packs are used to shoot, whereas fell packs are like other fox packs, except that they are on foot. Gun packs and fell packs are both on foot, but they are different. We are talking about gun packs, rather than fell packs. Gun packs often use dogs in extremely large areas of wooded countryside. We are talking not just about trees, but about heavy undergrowth that has not been cleared for many years. That is where the fox likes to live. It is what we hunting types call bottom. The fox needs lots of bottom—lots of brambles and so on—to live there. If there is a clear wood in which trees have been felled so that the sunshine gets in and there is grass on the floor, there will not be a single fox. One finds foxes only where there is a good level of bottom to the cover. We might be talking about woods in Wales that are 100, 200 or 300 acres or more. The woods could be extremely large with few rides through them. It is completely impossible to flush foxes out of such country using two dogs because there is no way in the world that one would find the fox. If one did, there would be no hope of flushing the fox out. Foxes are not stupid. They do not just run in straight lines and say, ''Oh goodness me, here's a dog. I'll run in a straight line and see if I can find a chap out here with a gun.'' They do their best to avoid hounds if they possibly can. That is why it is essential to have a reasonable number of hounds seeking to flush the foxes out of the cover. Otherwise, there is no chance that they will be successful. Foxhounds are pack animals, and they operate as a pack. It is hard to believe that two foxhounds operating on their own would necessarily be effective. If the Minister accepts the utility of gun packs, and using dogs for flushing foxes out of often dense undergrowth, he should consider whether eight, 10, 15 or more would be more effective. If, on the Column Number: 052 other hand, the Minister is not prepared to consider the notion that hounds should be used for flushing foxes out, he might as well say so.By including the number two in schedule 1, the Minister has admitted that he does see some utility in using hounds for flushing foxes out for waiting guns, and we are talking only about the best means by which to do that. If, contrary to indications, the Minister believes that the use of hounds for that purpose is disgraceful, wicked or sinful, he should remove the number two from the exemption. We should hear from him whether he believes that eight, 10, 15 or some other number that he might mention would be most effective. Any number of learned and weighty organisations entirely support what we have said. For example NFU Cymru—[Interruption.] The Minister is Welsh; I am a Scot and we do not have that sound in Scotland. The Welsh NFU met the Minister recently and specifically asked him for an increase in the number of dogs that would be allowed to flush foxes from cover.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 3 July 2003 |
