| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1249
hunt is not a factor. There are whole countries in which fox hunting does not take place, and the number of foxes there are determined by the availability of the food supply.All the arguments against the Bill are false and threadbare. They will convince nobody. We have heard welling up from the country a huge demand from people saying, "Let us take this small step forward in the progress of our civilisation." The past has always been brutal and cruel and progress has been faltering and slow. Today we are recognising and seeing with a new clarity the sordid, gratuitous cruelty of hunting, which has been tolerated for far too long. We shall take a step forward by giving this Bill a Second Reading today--a step forward in our civilisation.
12.3 pm
Sir Charles Morrison (Devizes) : What strikes me as extraordinary about the debate is that, even if those who support the Bill have read it, they are not prepared to face its implications. None the less, I agree strongly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the human race has a responsibility to look after wildlife.
Indeed, the second remarkable aspect of the debate is the paradox that there is a great deal of common ground between those who support the Bill and those who are against it. Both sides are concerned with the well-being of wild mammals ; the division between us concerns how best to achieve that end. The Bill's supporters believe that it can be done by more and more protection, whereas its opponents believe that it can be achieved only by management of wildlife.
There is nothing new about the attitude of the opponents of the Bill. The British countryside is not a pristine environment. Its appearance, and the birds and wildlife within it, stem from the fact that man has intervened for the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. For the past two centuries, much of that intervention has been undertaken by people who have enjoyed field sports. If the ecosystem that we now have is to be maintained, man's active and positive participation will continue to be a necessity.
That amounts to what the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has called conservation through wise use--a concept first promoted as a conservation tool by the world conservation strategy of 1980.
I wonder whether, before the Bill was published, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) attempted to consult the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage or Scottish National Heritage, or organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology or the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust.
We have heard about the Bill's implications for employment. There are now about 5 million participants in field sports and they support no fewer than 14,400 trade and service organisations. That represents a considerable amount of employment. Direct expenditure on countryside sports is about £1.4 billion. Indirect expenditure is about £1.2 billion. Much of that goes into the rural economy, which is quite impoverished enough without our taking any more out of it. Such is the extent of the participation, expenditure and employment that the sponsors of the Bill wish to destroy. That would be their achievement if it, or any similar successor, were ever to become law.
Column 1250
We know that the Bill would ban hunting, but it would also be a disaster for shooting--whatever its supporters may say--and it will threaten fishing. Worst of all, it will have a devastating effect on conservation.It is a pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did not pay full attention to the Scott Henderson report, which said, among other things :
"fox hunting makes an important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue." The hon. Gentleman poured scorn on that report, but I remind him that, since 1948, there have been several other Labour Governments. It would have been within their power to have another
inquiry--although I have no doubt that such an inquiry would have come to a similar conclusion.
It is a pity, too, that the sponsors did not attempt to pay attention to Richard Course, who has already been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). In Horse and Hound of 30 January, Mr. Course wrote : "When I became fully and objectively appraised of all the facts, and conversant with all related arguments, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the prosecution'--or the anti- Hunt case--would not advance fox welfare', and consequently it could not be justified." It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not consider the hypocrisy of saying that it is unacceptable to hunt foxes with hounds, which ultimately leads to the fox's sudden death or escape, while continuing to support the slow death of rats from warfarin, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that he wanted to elevate the position of wild animals to that of domestic animals. In reality, far from being the cuddly animal depicted by some people, the fox, although attractive, is a barbarous and opportunistic murderer.
Hon. Members have spoken about hill farmers. One of my constituents, a farmer, wrote :
"I have had many bad experiences with foxes at lambing ... I had to go out every night at lambing with a high powered rifle. One night I saw seven foxes stalking lambs in the field."
That shows the level of damage done by foxes.
The Bill is a direct threat, albeit small, to fishing, because it sets out to protect mink. It is also an indirect threat, because if the Bill is enacted there is no doubt that before long we shall see anti-shooting and anti-fishing Bills.
Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath) : No.
Sir Charles Morrison : The right hon. Gentleman says no. He and some other hon. Members will not be here. It is naive to pretend that the League Against Cruel Sports will give up its battle against other field sports if the Bill becomes law.
Mr. Howell : The hon. Gentleman has been following sport with me for many years and I have never seen him make such an agitated speech. Whether I am here is immaterial. The Labour party in successive manifestos has made it plain not only that it will support angling but that it will take positive steps to clean up waters and give anglers much greater access to the countryside than they have been given by this Government.
Sir Charles Morrison : Labour policy has often changed ; on this occasion, it would be change for the
Column 1251
worse. I have no doubt that Labour's attitude to field sports would change as a result of pressure from organisations thatsimply do not know the realities of conservation.The Bill would have a devastating effect on conservation. Foxes have a disastrous effect on wild birds. For example, research on Salisbury plain showed that up to 51 per cent. of hen partridges were killed every year. But the birds killed, a major loss to the partridge population, would not have formed even 1 per cent. of the annual diet of the foxes, which live mostly on rabbits and other such species.
The same is true of a wide range of bird species. Salisbury plain is one of the last resorts of the rare stone curlew in southern England. Nationwide, there are only about 160 pairs of that species. Where a handful of breeding birds desperately hang on, they are under constant threat from foxes. The Red Data Bird Book states : "Foxes appear to cause heavy egg and chick losses, particularly on semi-natural grassland. The recent increase in fox numbers in southern Britain, particularly in East Anglia where gamekeepers formerly kept the population at a low level, may seriously reduce stone curlew productivity."
The same is true of sea birds, and in a number of reserves, such as Scott head, Gibraltar point and the Ouse washes, foxes are controlled by wardens.
The avocet is the emblem of the RSPB, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is a member of the council of that society, knows. The society reports on the effects of fox control measures on the production of young avocets at Minsmere. Where foxes were controlled, each pair of avocets fledged four times as many young as where foxes were not controlled. Therefore, foxes must be controlled and short-sighted legislation would prevent the effective control of such predators.
12.15 pm
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his success. I wholeheartedly support clause 1 of the Bill and agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about that. He and other hon. Members have sought to lift us to the peaks of the moral high grounds. Perhaps we should also come down to the foothills of practicality. I shall speak about drag hunting, because I think that I am the only Member present who has been a master of drag hounds that hunted human quarry. What I have heard in the debate about drag hunting amounts almost to nonsense.
Sir Antony Buck (Colchester) : Naivety.
Sir Richard Body : Thank you--that is the word.
It is difficult to persuade 30 or 40 farmers to allow a drag hunt over their land. I can vouch for that, because I spent many days trying to persuade my fellow farmers to allow our hounds to hunt over their land. I understand the difficulty. Hounds go over my land, and it can be a nuisance when 100 horses gallop over turf after rainfall and cattle need to graze on the land.
Several hon. Members will remember the late Reggie Paget who represented Northampton for many years. He
Column 1252
had one simple test for any proposal on animal welfare : whether the proposal would cause the total amount of animal suffering to be more or less than at present. If it caused less suffering, he supported it, and if more he opposed it. He emphasised that one must have regard to the total amount of animal suffering and not just that inflicted on one species. That test enabled him to come down against shooting but to approve of hunting.Some hon. Members have criticised colleagues for speaking about the war years. About half a century ago, I took part in my one and only fox shoot and the memory of that event is still vivid. During the war, fox hunting was curtailed and the hounds went out on two days a week instead of three. In those days, every farm in our area had a flock of free-range poultry, and many others had a few laying hens. The destruction caused by the increase in the fox population was great, and a party went out one morning on an organised fox shoot. At that time, a lad of 12 or 13 could lawfully have a shotgun, which is not the case now, and I was a member of that party. The guns blazed away all day and the shoot was well organised. We shot two foxes, and they were the lucky ones.
I was allowed by the farmers in the area to shoot rabbits over their land, and I was at liberty to roam over this large area of the fox shoot. Over the following two or three weeks, I saw six foxes that had died, unquestionably from gangrene. I regret to say that the fox is not a clean animal. If anyone is misguided enough to shoot a cat, the cat, being a clean animal, will lick its wounds and prevent the onset of gangrene. But a fox is not like that.
I wish that the Bill's supporters who believe that shooting a fox is desirable could see what I saw--emaciated, wretched animals that had died five, six or more days after the fox shoot. They had suffered a lingering death, which must have been most painful. As a boy 50 years ago--I am sorry to go back 50 years, because I know that Labour Members do not like it--I resolved that, if I ever had control over land, I would never permit the shooting of foxes. I have held to that resolve.
A few years ago, it was my turn to shut the chicken hut. Unfortunately, the Whips had changed the business of the House, and we had a vote at 7 pm. I got back late, and found a trail of feathers from the chicken house leading across the fields to a cover which told its own tale. I was rather angry, but when it was suggested the following morning that the fox should be shot, I composed myself sufficiently to say, "No, I think that the Whips should be shot." The other predator is the mink, about which hardly a word has been said. The River Pang, a tributary of the Thames, goes through my land, and alongside it there has always been a good deal of wildlife. About 30 years ago, I set aside an area to be left undisturbed to see what would happen. I discouraged anyone from going in, so that it was left alone. Some 15 years ago--I am sorry to go back again, but it is important on this occasion--we had a mink. It was a few days before we realised that a pair of mink had come into what my neighbours kindly call--I am not pretentious enough to call it this--a wildlife sanctuary.
Once we realised that the mink were there, I got my son who was then aged 15 and a friend of his to shoot the two mink. It was three weeks before they were able to shoot one of them. There was a great deal of cover in the summer months, and it was difficult to get a shot at the mink. By the time the mink was shot-- [Laughter.] Hon. Members may find that funny, but I do not. [ Hon. Members :-- "No."]
Column 1253
I wish that they could understand what I am saying. By the end of three weeks, all the wildlife had gone. The fish had gone from the river, the kingfisher had been killed and the water voles--I call them water rats, which is often misunderstood ; which are delightful animals and no relation to ordinary rats--had all gone. The mallard had gone, and that little area of land was dead. It took eight years for the wildlife to return.I ask those who support the Bill what advice they would give me if the mink returned. [ Hon. Members :-- "Shoot them."] Where at my age am I to find another 15-year-old son who can stand waiting for three weeks in the summer holiday? That is ridiculous. That would not work anyway, because after three weeks, all the wildlife would have gone. It is an absurd suggestion.
Apart from the cruelty of trapping, there is only one practical method, towards which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is edging his way. The only practical and humane way is to use hounds. The hunt for a mink is not long. The longest period is when the hounds work along the line of a mink for a mile or two. When the hounds get fairly close, the mink may try to escape down an earth and may have to be dug out, which is not a pleasant business, although it is done only when the owners of the land ask for it to be done. The mink is more likely to climb a tree and then, with a bit of luck, one can shoot it. That is a very humane end.
If the Bill proceeds further in this Parliament or in the next, I hope that mink hunting will be removed from it. The case for mink hunting is overwhelming. I do not blame the mink, and I believe that it was a wretched, rotten individual who first brought the mink-- Mr. Denis Howell rose --
Hon. Members : No--there is no time.
Sir Richard Body : I simply apply the test of the late Reggie Paget. I believe that the total amount of suffering in the animal kingdom will be not less but more if the Bill goes through in its present form.
12.24 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) spoke with great sincerity which showed that this has been a civilised debate. We are all aware that there are strong pressures and feelings outside. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said earlier that he had received an anonymous postcard and I am sorry about that. I have received a few strong letters. I received one telling me that I was consorting with communists in supporting the Bill and another saying that I was supporting socialist crackpots. Another said that I was "a repulsive creep", whatever that is, and another said--the most serious charge of all--that I was a disgrace to the Monday club.
Fox hunting is not an issue in which I had any real interest for many years. I took the view, shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, that if one had to control foxes, there was no harm in having that done by the hunt. It appeared to be an effective method which added some glamour and colour to the countryside. However, having visited a number of incidents involved with hunting and having studied the issue, I find that the
Column 1254
case for fox hunting seems to fade away whenever it is exposed to any logical examination. There also seemed to be no doubt that the amount of cruelty involved, which is deliberate cruelty, is grotesque.One of the great arguments against the Bill is that it is a means by which the townies seek to impose their way on country folk and that the country folk are upset about that because they are united in supporting hunting. The evidence shows the contrary. In many of my visits to the countryside, I have found that the vast majority of the population regard the whole hunting business as basically offensive and wrong. If hon. Members doubt that, they should look at all the opinion polls, including a recent opinion poll in Exmoor which is a great centre of hunting. The poll showed that fewer than one fifth of the population there considered that hunting was acceptable. It has been said that some people see the Bill as a class business in which the upper class is being attacked by left-wing elements. Again, the opinion polls tell us clearly that more than two thirds of all Conservative voters are opposed to fox hunting and want it to be banned.
The misleading impression is given that hunting makes a significant contribution to the control of foxes. Again, the figures are clear. The contribution made by fox hunting is so insignificant that if it disappeared tomorrow no one would notice. Only about 2.5 per cent. of foxes killed in a season are killed by fox hunting, which shows how insignificant hunting is.
The most worrying group are those who suggest that hunting is part of the natural world of the countryside. We know that that is nonsense. The hounds have to be specially trained to go on the hunt because it is not part of their natural instincts. It has to be done through the appalling and grotesque procedure that is called cubbing, which I have observed. A group of young hounds are brought to a small group of trees where it is known that there is a family of young foxes. The hounds are then set to work, to try to encourage them to become involved in the business of fox hunting. In other words, it is not natural for hounds in any way.
The idea that there is a quick kill and that there is no question of any cruelty is absolute rubbish. I think that most hon. Members appreciate that. The principle of hunting--especially in Exmoor, where deer are hunted as well as foxes--involves a situation in which there is the choice to extend the length of the hunt for the ponderous, slow hounds. It is not a matter of setting off a greyhound, when the hunt is over quickly--in a flash--and the fox is killed. Instead, there is a deliberate extension of the hunt, obviously for the purposes of entertainment and relaxation. Why should we say that it is not cruel when the principle of the hunt is deliberate and specific cruelty as a result of extending it? The hunt for a deer can be as long as 20 miles.
We know that a fox tends to run extremely quickly but will be overtaken by the hounds over a long period. The hunt is deliberately prolonged and there is deliberate cruelty. There is the idea that the hounds come along and simply go pop, as it were, and that is the end of the fox. That is nonsensical. We know that almost every organisation that is committed to hunting in Britain has a group of terrier men. If, as often happens, the fox goes underground, they get to work their little terriers. For more than an hour there can be the most grotesque cruelty. The fox is eventually dug up and it is often shot or hit with a stave. In some instances--I am sure that this is not with
Column 1255
the approval of the master of the foxhounds --the fox is thrown alive to the dogs. I say in all sincerity that I have received some appalling hate mail over this issue. The one person whom I exempt is the splendid Captain Wallace, who is the head of the master of foxhounds organisation. He has replied to my letters with great courtesy and respect, although he disagrees with me strongly. We must ask ourselves what the Bill is about. Basically, it is nothing to do with the control of foxes. The argument used to be advanced that poor chickens were torn to bits by ghastly foxes. That argument is now irrelevant because most poor chickens are now contained in ghastly cages as part of factory farming. The chickens can hardly turn round in the cages. Then there are the little lambs. All the scientific evidence and all the studies by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office and the universitites have shown that where lambs are taken they are usually dead or particularly weak ones which are about to die in any event. Even if I were wrong and the Ministry and the universities were wrong, the hunts do not constitute an attempt to wipe out the foxes who go for dear little lambs. Indeed, the hunts say that they want to keep a balanced population of foxes, so they do not have the protection that could be provided.My feeling is that there is no point in denying that fox hunting is a deliberately cruel sport. It is designed to involve great cruelty by extending the long period of a hunt. There is no point in trying to argue that there is a social purpose in fox hunting. The contribution made by fox hunters to the control of the fox population is so insigificant that it does not really matter at all. What about the slippery slope argument? Is there a danger that if fox hunting is made unlawful we shall move on to make everything else unlawful? I am sure that there are many who want to do lots of new things. For example, I should like to go much further in controlling factory farming, which in my view is the most cruel activity that one could have. Other Members may want to do many other things. Whether we want to go further or to stay where we are, we cannot run away from the fact that we are faced with a specific proposition that we must consider. I suggest that on the basis of logic and real arguments there is no case for fox hunting. We have the continuation of a practice of deliberate and grotesque cruelty. It should be banned and I hope that we shall start on that process today. 12.34 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not lose his membership of the Monday club. The club would be the poorer without him.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on bringing forward the measure, and on having the courage to do so. He has given the House an opportunity to debate an issue that may well feature in the Labour party's general election manifesto, unless it is prepared to have second thoughts about that. I refer to its commitment to end hunting.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did well in moving the Bill's Second Reading. I think that his performance--he is a Labour Front-Bench spokesman--
Column 1256
will have been heard with great interest by the 5 million or so active field sportsmen in the country. On average, there are 7,000 per constituency. I have no doubt that they will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that a Labour Government are not elected. The hon. Gentleman could not have timed this measure better. He spent a great deal of his speech explaining what was not in the Bill. Perhaps I could address my remarks to some of the remarks that he made. I declare an interest not only as a countryman and a field sportsman but as chairman of the Council for Country Sports, which is the umbrella beneath which some 52 organisations representing field sportsmen and women unite to defend their freedom to participate in field sports. They range from horsemen to falconers and from coarse fishermen to pigeon shooters. They campaign together and their slogan, like that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is that an attack on one is perceived as an attack on all. All field sports seem to be under attack by the provisions of the Bill, which is no more than a trailblazer for the legislation that we might see from a Labour Government.Therefore, if Labour Members want to improve their chances of winning the general election, they have the time, with their manifesto not yet off to the printers, to remove any commitment to attack field sports. I hope and believe that many of them will have second thoughts and take the party politics out of field sports. The Bill's long title says that it makes
"provision for the protection of wild mammals from cruelty ; and for connected purposes."
The Bill's aims are not based on compassion or conservation. Its main intention is simply to end hunting with hounds. The Bill is disguised as an animal welfare measure, but, if enacted, it would give protection to pests and do incalculable damage to other wildlife and to the countryside.
Hon. Members cannot claim--although many have attempted to do so--that shooting is unaffected by the Bill. Certainly, the new clause that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned would not be worth much more than the paper that it is not yet written on, to judge by what he said about it.
The Shooting Times and Country Magazine described as "baloney" the claim that the Bill is an animal welfare measure. The editor said that the Bill revealed the Labour party as the enemy of hunting, shooting and honesty. That is strong stuff, but perhaps it has some consistency with the survey of the views of Members of Parliament on country sports, which was carried out by The Field magazine last December. It showed that almost 50 per cent. of Labour Members who gave their view said that they would support a ban on shooting. I am sure that hon. Members will also have seen reports in this month's newspapers that the Hunt Saboteurs Association has said that it would target fishing and shooting next if hunting with hounds was banned. Mr. Ponton, its national spokesman, said that the progression was inevitable. He said :
"We are starting a fundamental shift in orientation to take in shooting and fishing, particularly shooting."
His views were echoed by Mr. Eric Staples, the national fund raising co- ordinator of the HSA, who said that
"once hunting was banned it would move on to shooting and fishing. It is clear that not only hunting and shooting but angling is threatened by the Bill. The League Against Cruel Sports has said that it, too, would campaign against
Column 1257
angling. It has said that, although as yet it has no policy on angling, the league will look at it in the near future. It believes that fish feel pain and, therefore, that fishing for entertainment inflicts unnecessary suffering on other living creatures. That exposes the hypocrisy of the Bill.The Campaign for the Abolition of Angling has already promoted direct action against anglers with its national anti-angling day. There have been physical attacks on anglers and angling shops. We do not want to see such action. It is the action of people who have lost the argument on hunting being extended to other field sports. There is even a political threat to angling. I give one example. Labour-controlled Plymouth city council has attempted to adopt an animal rights charter to include a ban on angling on council land. Yet the Labour party claims that it is not opposed to angling. Under pressure from the "Right to Roam" lobby, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned, Labour has agreed to give a right of public access to foreshores, rivers and canals together with their banks. Nothing could be more damaging to fishing. I remind the House that, in a recent poll conducted among hon. Members, nearly one third of Labour Members replied that they were merely neutral on the issue of angling, whereas hon. Members from other parties overwhelmingly supported the sport.
I received a letter from the National Federation of Sea Anglers, which says :
"We feel that if the Anti Brigade' manage to force this through the House', their next target will no doubt be the Fishing Fraternity'."
The federation asks us to oppose the Bill with vim and vigour, and that is what I am doing my best to do.
Mr. Flynn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can it be made clear that the Bill deals with specific matters and that there is no suggestion in it that we are attempting to ban the hunting of sea fish by dogs ?
Madam Deputy Speaker : As was made clear earlier by the occupant of the Chair, a wide debate is allowed on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is taking up the time allowed to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has the Floor.
Mr. Colvin : Thank you for that defence, Madam Deputy Speaker. Much has been said about the effect that a ban on hunting would have on employment. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about that, other than to say that all field sports create jobs and trade and contribute significantly to the conservation of the landscape and its livelihood. There has been some debate about the figures. According to a letter from the British Equestrian Trade Association, "Hunting contributes 16,500 jobs and £148 million of turnover to the British economy".
That is a significant amount.
There has been some discussion today about the Scott Henderson report, which--I know--was written a long time ago, in 1951. Giving evidence on the Scott Henderson report, the RSPCA said that, although it could not approve ethically of any form of hunting--that is written into the society's constitution--it regarded fox hunting as an effective and traditional method of control and felt that,
Column 1258
if hunting were abolished, greater cruelty would be caused to foxes by the more widespread use of other methods. That is the nub of the argument today.That was the view expressed by the majority of members of the RSPCA at the time, although I know that others--a minority--wanted hunting prohibited. That is typical of the division of opinion among people who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of animals. Since then, through what is now described as entryism, the RSPCA has been taken over by people who seem to be more interested in politics than in the welfare of the animals for whose welfare they are constitutionally obliged to campaign.
It became clear to the authors of the Scott Henderson report, as long ago as 1951, that the opposition of some people to fox hunting is based on considerations other than cruelty. Some of the evidence that was submitted to that committee left it in no doubt that there were many who objected to fox hunting only because of the widely held misconception that it existed solely for the pleasure of wealthy people. In the view of the authors of the report, that was quite untrue and I can tell the House that it remains untrue today. We are debating not only cruelty to animals but the rights and freedoms of individuals. In criticising Scott Henderson, hon. Members should take account of what the then Labour Minister said--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
12.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) : First, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports. I have received about 300 postcards from my constituents. I regret that a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), should have attempted to smear the League Against Cruel Sports as a result of one--or perhaps half a dozen--isolated forgeries. I checked every card that I received to find out whether its sender was on the electoral register. I have answered each one. No one has responded in any way other than to say that he or she sent those cards. It is disgraceful to take an individual case, or a handful of them, in an attempt to smear an organisation such as that.
Mr. Michael Brown : All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I had a letter from a constituent who said that he was appalled that I had sent him an unsolicited letter. I agree that all the cards I have received came from people on the electoral register. However, I must point out to my hon. Friend that if somebody has taken the trouble to forge a card for one of my constituents, it is more than probable that many other cards were similarly forged.
Mr. Bowden : I accept my hon. Friend's withdrawal of his attack on the League Against Cruel Sports. What one individual does is an entirely different matter. The league did not need to forge cards ; it sent out thousands and thousands because the vast majority of the people of this country are against hunting.
There is another aspect to this smear campaign. Many hon. Members will have received a letter from the Campaign Against Animal Rights Terrorism.
Sir Teddy Taylor : What is the address?
Column 1259
Mr. Bowden : There is no address on it.The letter says :
"The Campaign Against Animal Rights Terrorism is calling for a number of animal rights groups to be proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Act."
It lumps the League Against Cruel Sports with organisations such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the Animal Liberation Front. No hon. Member on either side of the House--there are patrons and vice-presidents of the league on both sides--would be associated with an organisation that indulged in illegal or criminal activities. That anyone should use any such argument to undermine or attack the league is disgraceful.
It never ceases to amaze me that the pro-hunting lobby continually repeats that fox hunting is needed to control the number of foxes. We know that there are at least 300,000, and probably up to 500,000 foxes in this country. The hunts themselves admit that on average they kill only between 12,000 and 13,000 a year. We know that the fox population would continue to breed and exist if there were up to 70 per cent. culling of foxes in any given year, so hunting in the context of the control of foxes is completely irrelevant. It is not true to say that it controls the number--it does not control the number.
Let us not forget that all measures that go on to the statute book--this is why fishing and shooting are irrelevant--have to be approved by the House. To say that because we pass one Bill we automatically pass another Bill to do something else is a futile argument. In its wisdom, Parliament decided, rightly, to ban the digging for and the baiting of badgers. To dig out a badger and to smash in its head with a spade was legal not so long ago. Why on earth, therefore, cannot we accept the argument that it should be as totally revolting and disgusting to do the same to a fox? That is what is happening, however, throughout the country.
I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). I listen carefully to his comments on animal welfare. He has a proven track record and he has made a strong case regarding shooting. I have referred to the irrelevance of hunting the fox and he has talked about the dangers of shooting. Ought not we to examine whether there is a strong case for leaving the fox alone completely? Let nature take its course. The fox will breed only where there is food. Where there is a shortage of rabbits, rats and other vermin, foxes will disappear in great numbers. We know that hunting will not control the fox. We also know that there are great difficulties when it comes to shooting the fox.
The objective of hunting foxes with hounds is not conservation ; it is not to control numbers ; it is not a quick chase and a swift kill. The objective is to provide a cheap thrill for sadistic entertainment. Hunting with hounds is an organised, deliberate and calculated act of cruelty. Like cock fighting, bear baiting, dog fighting and badger baiting, it will soon be condemned to the dustbin of history.
12.50 pm
Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate) : There has been a tendency in this debate to strike an abstract ring, almost as though the natural environment --nature itself--does not exist now as it has done over the centuries. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) brought some reality into the picture of the environment that we are discussing.
| Next Section
| Home Page |