House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Feb 1992

Column 1271

by those who hunt to construct artificial earths and stick heaps for foxes to breed in and to feed and nurture foxes when the weather is hard.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Corbett : I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : Will the hon. Gentleman give way to me, too.

Mr. George Howarth : Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot has been made of the point that if we vote for the Bill today it will be the thin edge of the wedge for angling? Does he agree that the two things are distinct and separate and that it is possible to support anglers and angling while voting for the Bill today?

Mr. Corbett : I intend to come to that point later. My hon. Friend will be aware that sitting in front of him is my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who, when he was Minister for Sport and filled that office with such distinction, took the lead in setting up a national angling council to give anglers a unified national voice. My hon. Friend is, of course, right that the Bill has nothing to do with angling or shooting.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbett : In a moment.

If, as the hunters argue, foxes are a vicious pest that must be driven from the face of the countryside, why all the tender loving care towards them? Most hunts know exactly where foxes live in their area and could easily dispatch them by shooting, if they chose to do so. If it is argued that shooting runs the risk of injuring rather than killing the fox, one wonders whether it is appropriate for such bad shots to hold a shotgun or firearms licence as they would appear to be a danger not only to wild animals but to themselves and other sporting shooters.

Mr. Paice : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbett : I wonder why groups of people seek pleasure in the cruel destruction of so much of the wildlife with which we share this planet. It is a shame and a stain on a society which calls itself civilised that the badger has no enemy but man. Despite the law, men still dig up badger setts in a brutal and senseless manner. [ Hon. Members :-- "It is illegal."] Of course it is illegal, but I hope that no one is suggesting that because it is illegal it does not happen. Those of us who have seen badgers at close hand marvel at their beauty and dignity.

Some people--a minority--claim that it is perfectly all right to turn our countryside into the killing fields. There is no justification for any form of hunting with hounds in this day and age--if there ever was--and for such wanton cruelty to wildlife to continue under the name of sport. It is no such thing. It is the organised ritual destruction of wildlife, carried out in fancy dress amid great ceremony by those who pretend that they care for wildlife and its habitats. It degrades and disgraces the name of legitimate sport.

Column 1272

Why cannot those who live in the countryside and those of us who visit it simply enjoy it, marvel at its beauty, rejoice in its variety, find solace in its silence and listen, relax and learn?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The country will be very interested to hear an official statement from the Labour Front Bench of the party's vitriolic hatred of people who pursue country sports. If the hon. Gentleman's case is that, because the opinion polls show that a large proportion of people are against hunting, the House should act against hunting, may I invite him to join me in the Lobby in support of capital punishment?

Mr. Corbett : No, not at all.

I also wonder what otherwise responsible parents feel they are doing when they encourage children as young as six or seven to see a fox, hare, stag or badger needlessly killed, and in some cases have those children blooded. What effect do they think that that has on a young mind, and what does killing for pleasure do to people who hunt over the years?

I am aware of, and have seen at first hand, the care that estate owners and landowners take with the conservation and protection of the threatened environment in our countryside, but if the price of that is that much of our countryside has to be needlessly soaked with the blood of wild animals, it is too high a price to pay. Those who hunt seem to claim that, in return for looking after the countryside, they should have the unfettered right to slaughter the wild animals that live there. That is a claim without foundation. As citizens privileged to have private access to the land, it is their duty to treat it with respect on behalf of us all and on behalf of future generations, and they should not seek--nor should they have--any privilege in return.

Some argue--although the polls show that it is not the case--that it is just us townies who oppose hunting with hounds. Although I help to represent a great city, I yield to no one in my devotion to, and concern for, the countryside, and I spend as much time as I can in it. To those who live in the countryside, I would also say that the environment is not just theirs--it belongs to each and every one of us.

Ms. Mowlam : Will my hon. Friend clarify the point about our being opposed to the people who go hunting? We have no objection to people who go hunting and we have tried to explain--as the Bill explains--that drag hunting is another option. Apart from the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), no one has come up with a reason why drag hunting is not acceptable, and the hon. Gentleman's explanation is that it is like kissing one's sister. Does my hon. Friend have any view on that?

Mr. Corbett : My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill is about the protection of wild mammals, not the protection of people. Those who took part in yesterday's so-called farmers' protest at the Stoneleigh showground in Warwickshire were under close instruction to make themselves look more like a squad from "The Archers" than those engaged in bloodsports. The National Hunt Committee memo instructed :

"There will be no hounds, no red coats, no top hats, no hunting horns. Banners should be made which state clearly the county you are from eg Gloucester farmers say this', Warwickshire farmers demand that' etc.".

Column 1273

Why the modesty? If there is nothing to hide, if there is nothing to be ashamed of, why no hounds, why no red coats, why no top hats and why no hunting horns? Are they not all part of the ritual that hunters claim is their birthright? Why was there no bold assertion of that ancient right? The truth is that somewhere behind those who organised yesterday's demonstration was just plain shame--a shame which prevented them from literally demonstrating in their true colours and a shame which stains their sporting claims.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a briefing note was sent to all his colleagues who feel as he does suggesting that they should refuse any invitations to go and talk to the hunts or to see how the hunts operate?

Mr. Corbett : I have not seen such a note ; I did not get one. [H on. Members :-- "Nor did we."] I said earlier that there has been a bid by those who engage in blood sports to turn this into a townie-versus- villager issue. I shall read out a few random cuttings from a number of newspapers which circulate almost exclusively in rural areas. On 6 December 1991 the West Cumbria Evening News reported :

"Cumbrian villagers are up in arms after claiming that fox hunters cause mayhem' in the countryside Anne Watson, of Newcroft Kennels, Mawbray, said I was appalled at the mayhem they caused.' " The Western Daily Press on 23 December 1991 stated :

"Angry businessman Joe Hughes yesterday rapped the Beaufort hunt--a favourite of the Royals--after hounds and riders galloped through a field of valuable young ponies huntsmen cut through a padlocked chain to gain access to the private paddock."

I do not doubt that those very same huntsmen would be quick to condemn those who indulge in violence and vandalism at football matches.

The Shropshire Star of 8 December 1991 reported :

"Residents in a Shropshire village were angered when hounds from a hunt poured into gardens hot on the scent of a fleeing fox the incident upset a number of villagers in Sheriffhales, near Telford." My favourite newspaper, the Royston Crow, on 29 December 1991 reported :

"A family looked on in horror as a fox was slaughtered in their garden by hounds from the Puckeridge and Thurlow Hunt."

I have here similar reports from around the country and a list as long as my arm going back some years.

No other group of people would be allowed to cause such unfettered mayhem and distress, annoyance and damage. In urban areas the police would rightly have charged them with public order offences before they could say "Tally- ho." We know from the polls that hunting with hounds upsets large numbers of people who live in the countryside. We also know that most people in the countryside are opposed to hunting with hounds. We know, too, that if it is claimed that foxes are such an expensive pest and menace, hunting them with hounds must be the most costly and inefficient method that anyone could possibly devise to deal with them. If the aim is to exercise some form of control, it would be better for the huntsmen to admit that that is a senseless ambition and turn to drag hunting.

I like the comments of Miss J. E. Holland, whose address is Beech Hall, Depden, Suffolk. From the heart of rural England, and from an address which might suggest a political persuasion other than Labour, she says :

"Whatever one's opinions of the morality of cub/fox hunting perhaps these alleged sportspeople should consider

Column 1274

how they would feel if, for example, their homes were besieged by football fans with dogs. I can think of no other sport where such unruly and selfish behaviour is considered acceptable."

Neither can I, nor can my right hon. and hon. Friends, and nor can a substantial number of Conservative Members of Parliament. There have been many comments about the Labour party's attitude towards angling and shooting--and indeed, to its animal welfare and wildlife policy generally. Among those who have questioned that is Jonathan Young, editor of the pro- hunting publication The Field. As a responsible editor, he should know that in 1978 the Labour party published a document called "Living Without Cruelty". It was the first major political party to publish such an animal welfare docment. It followed a decision by Labour's national executive committee to seek the abolition of all blood sports. That was reflected in our 1983 election manifesto, which stated :

"Hare coursing, fox hunting and all forms of hunting with dogs will be made illegal."

In 1987, our election manifesto pledged to

"end all forms of organised hunting with hounds."

In each of those documents, significant extra words followed those that I have quoted. I shall quote them now to rebut the false allegations made by those who hunt and by others in this House. The 1987 manifesto said that, following the pledge to ban all forms of hunting with hounds :

"These changes will not affect shooting and fishing."

I ask the House to accept that that is Labour's policy now, that it will be Labour's policy at the coming election, and that it will remain Labour's policy. When silly Jonathan Young of The Field asserted in the Daily Mail on Tuesday :

"An attack on one field sport is an attack on all",

he was talking through that part of his body which usually sits upon a saddle. I repeat that Labour has no intention of extending the ban on hunting with dogs to shooting or angling.

The Bill gives the House the opportunity to respond to the public demand. By majority, people in town and countryside want an end to the needless slaughter. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading on an all-party basis. If it does not, the new Labour Government will introduce a Bill early in that Government's life. 1.52 pm

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : I declare my interest--although it is well known to most hon. Members--as chairman of the British Field Sports Society, and I am a farmer--[ Hon. Members-- : "Disgraceful."] I can hear the cries of "Disgraceful" from the Labour Benches. That clearly gives away both the intention behind the Opposition's support of the Bill and what they intend the Bill to accomplish.

Until the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) we had had a good debate, conducted in a fair and proper manner. The hon. Member for Erdington made one of the worst and most provocative speeches that I have heard in a long time. It was divisive-- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pleased with himself. He claimed that he was looking for all-party support, but in fact he managed to divide both the parties and the town and countryside communities.

The hon. Gentleman's views, expressed as a representative of Birmingham, were clearly hostile to not only those who participate in field sports in the countryside but those who live and work the countryside. They were hostile to

Column 1275

those who have the trust--that is the only word that he uttered with which I agree--of maintaining the countryside and improving it for future generations. That is the intention of those who live in the countryside. The consequences of Bills such as this, and the attitude of people like the hon. Member for Erdington, make their job more difficult and make it less likely that the countryside will be maintained for future generations in a way that those of us who live in it and work it try to achieve.

Before the hon. Member for Erdington spoke, we had had an interesting and stimulating debate. Several issues were raised, and I wish to deal with them briefly. The first question is : what lies behind the Bill? It has two purposes. The first is to eliminate cruelty to wildlife. In so far as that is its intention, we on this side of the House and in the British Field Sports Society certainly agree with it. We supported the Badger Bill in the last Session, once it has been put into a state in which it genuinely protected badgers and no longer clandestinely threatened hunting. That was also a hidden agenda in that Bill in its original form.

We would support any legislation that gave added protection to hedgehogs against being maltreated or to any wild animal against being beaten and cruelly ill treated deliberately by people who have no business to do so.

Whether such a law would be effective is another matter. We have legislated on badgers yet, sadly, I read in my papers last week of a revolting attack on badgers during the past two weeks or so, in which one was impaled from head to tail by a stake. Such behaviour is disgusting. No hon. Member and few people in the country, other than the appalling perpetrators, would support it. Unfortunately, however effective we try to make the law, it cannot wholly prevent such activity from taking place. In so far as it does take place, it must be condemned. If an hon. Member introduced legislation to give hedgehogs the protection that has been given to badgers, of course I would support it.

It is, however, not the main purpose of this Bill to give such protection in the countryside. As the hon. Member for Erdington made absolutely clear, the principal thrust of the Bill and the main intention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the supporters is undoubtedly to abolish fox hunting. The hon. Member for Erdington made clear his personal commitment to shooting and fishing. I should like to know how he justifies logically an attack on hunting on the ground of cruelty and distinguishes it from an attack on shooting or fishing on the same ground. There is no logical way of claiming that hunting is unnecessarily cruel while in the same breath saying that fishing is not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and others have expressed that point well.

In any culling or killing operation, an element of cruelty is undoubtedly involved. That is true in slaughter houses. It is true in particular of the Halal system killing. I think that those of the Jewish faith have that system of slaughter before they are prepared to eat any meat. There are degrees of cruelty in any method of slaughter. It is the job of the House, rightly, to try to eliminate that element of cruelty in both wild and domestic situations. Again, in so far as we are trying to do that, the British Field Sports Society, all my colleagues and I would agree.

Column 1276

The Bill is bad because that is not what it would do. It is picking on fox hunting for all the old, class-divisive reasons behind why the Labour party tried to do this before and it has no justification. It is not true that hunting is an activity that only toffs and very rich people enjoy. It is probably one of the best sports enjoyed by people of all walks of life.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : I reinforce completely what my hon. Friend has just said. Indeed, a constituent of mine wrote to me, saying : "I am not a toff or a snob but a welder by trade and work in a local factory in a dirty and demanding job. The reason I feel so strongly about this issue it is down to the freedom of choice if I want to go I go, if not I don't go but these people who want the sport banned are telling me I should not go. So much for the freedom of choice."

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Yes, it is about freedom of choice. The author of that letter expresses my precise point well. This sport is enjoyed by people from all walks of life. It is enjoyed by those who live in the town as well as those who live in the country. It has an important conservation role.

The attack on fox hunting is misconceived and politically guided. I find it astonishing that, in the 1990s, the old Labour party and, I am sorry to say, one or two misguided members of my party, are still walking down that precarious path.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity today to dissociate himself from the activities of the Quorn hunt, as shown on film? Will he also condemn those who control that hunt for their lack of commitment to stop the barbaric actions that were vividly shown on television a few months ago?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I dissociate myself, the British Field Sports Society and the Masters of Foxhounds Association from the misconduct of those running the Quorn hunt on the day in question. That is why disciplinary action was taken against those masters and why the Masters of Foxhounds Association is now reviewing its rules. I hope that it will produce a code of conduct. That is why every step is being taken to ensure that such behaviour is not repeated. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that every walk of life, even this place, is not populated by saints. In every aspect of human activity some people behave as they should not. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked me to dissociate myself from the specific conduct of the Quorn hunt. I have done so and I will do so on any occasion should it be repeated.

Mr. Budgen : Would my hon. Friend also concede that when that conduct occurred at the Quorn hunt it was dealt with effectively and quickly?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Yes, it was. The disciplinary committee of the Masters of Foxhounds Association reviewed those activities as soon as they were brought to its attention. It took the necessary action as swiftly as possible.

Mr. Tredinnick : My hon. Friend should be aware that two votes have been taken in Leicestershire county council on whether hunting should be allowed on county council land. In 1982, the county council narrowly voted by a majority of four to allow such hunting. Another vote was taken after the Quorn incident and a decisive vote of 47 to 34--a majority of 13--found in favour of maintaining

Column 1277

hunting on county council land. That suggests that my hon. Friend is winning the argument and it demonstrates to the House of Commons what an elected body in Leicestershire, the centre of hunting, feels about that issue.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : It is true that in Leicestershire and in many other counties this issue has been reviewed recently. In almost every case, the decision has been to continue with hunting across publicly owned land. That is welcome and it gives the lie to the point made by the hon. Member for Erdington about a huge lobby against field sports. Those who live in and have a duty to care for the countryside are, by a huge majority, in support of field sports. Because a large number of people have no knowledge of hunting and are susceptible to the cuddly bear image of the fox, which Beatrix Potter and others have managed to implant in people's minds, they are, on a superficial level, against fox hunting.

I remind hon. Members that we went through all this in the late 1940s. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded us that the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, a member of the Labour party, urged hon. Members on both sides of the House to support fox hunting. He tabled a motion in 1925 to abolish it. [An hon. Member :-- "That was 40 years ago."] The reasons for supporting fox hunting are as valid now as they were then. In 1949 Mr. Williams argued his case on the issue of cruelty. It is on that issue that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is asking the House to support his Bill. Mr. Williams said :

"the promoters of this Bill regard hunting and cruelty as synonymous, thinking that to abolish the hunt is to abolish cruelty. On the contrary, they render rural recreation illegal, and do absolutely nothing towards abolishing or restraining cruelty".--[ Official Report, 25 February 1949 ; Vol. 461, c. 2231.]

That is the truth. We have today reviewed extensively the alternative ways in which foxes can be culled, and the only Member in the whole debate to suggest that they should not be culled at all was my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who at least followed his argument to its logical conclusion by saying that foxes should not be culled but should be allowed to breed on and on--never mind the farmer, one might say, or the poultry keeper or even the foxes, which might find that there were too many of them for their own health. It was an absurd argument, but at least my hon. Friend carried to a logical conclusion the idea that it is cruel to hunt. It is not. It is more cruel to kill the animals by other means.

Mr. Marland : To add strength to my hon. Friend's argument, he will be interested to know that yet another local authority has voted to allow fox hunting to be carried on across its ground. Gloucestershire county council, having been heavily lobbied by all shades of opinion, has a substantial majority of councillors in favour of allowing fox hunting to continue on council-owned land. It is absolute nonsense to try to persuade us, as Labour Members do, that the majority of people are against fox hunting, when they are clearly not.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. When people consider the merits of the argument and focus on what is involved, they come down on the side of fox hunting.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) rose--

Column 1278

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I do not want to delay the House much longer. There is no doubt that field sports, taken collectively, have always played an enormous role in the founding of the countryside as we enjoy it today. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North dissenting and, I think, making rude noises at me. That helps to show the ignorance of Labour Members in that they are unable to accept even that elementary point.

On my small farm I have eight pieces of woodland. Four of them were planted by my grandfather, who was chairman of the local hunt, two were planted by my father because he was a keen shot, and I have planted two because I am a keen shot. If we did not have country sports, none of those small areas of woodland would have been planted or would be maintained.

There is a glorious ignorance among Opposition Members about countryside matters. Indeed, the impression was given earlier that the trees were everlasting. Why would people take out woodland if fox hunting were abolished? That is a silly question to ask, because they would not take it out. But they would not renew it, either, and on reaching the end of its natural life, the woodland would not be replaced. Conservation and field sports and conservation and farming are synonymous. Sadly, Labour Members are unaware of that and they are careless about the future of the countryside and those who inhabit it.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : Is my hon. Friend aware that a report in The Shropshire Star says that 4,000 people are against a ban on fox hunting and only 2,643 are in favour?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Every time an hon. Member intervenes, new facts in favour of the continuance of fox hunting are produced. The argument is clearly being won by the fox-hunting lobby.

One of the saddest aspects of the measure is that unfortunately the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North does not understand what his Bill proposes to do. I say that with sadness because I know that his intention is honest and that he does not wish to mislead the House or the country. Yesterday, in a radio interview by Mr. Chris Stewart, the hon. Gentleman stated that the Bill covered all wilful cruelty to animals. He said that in the first part of his statement and repeated it a little later. The Bill does not mention "wilful" with regard to the cruelty aspect. Clause 1 states :

"a person wilfully inflicts unnecessary suffering on, or cruelly ill-treats a wild mammal".

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not taken on board the fact that "wilful" refers only to the first half of the sentence. He infers that if the cruelty is inflicted by the nature of an act, as opposed to by someone intending to be cruel, that would not be covered by the Bill. But it is covered. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman misled the people who listened to that radio programme about the precise terms of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman intervented when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was arguing that the only defence under the Bill is to obtain a licence. My right hon. Friend explained how appallingly cumbersome that procedure would be and what a burden it would be on the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman then intervened and referred to clauses 5 and 6. Howeever, those clauses refer only to clause 2, which relates to the use of a dog. Neither

Column 1279

clause 5 nor clause 6 provides a defence for clause 3, which refers to snaring. Unless a person has a licence, he will be unable, for example, to snare a mole in his garden. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's intention is to make someone whose garden has been ravaged by moles go to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a licence to control moles--or rats and mice.

The Bill covers a range of necessary innocuous activities that the hon. Gentleman does not intend it to cover. Indeed, he did not know that the Bill covered them when he accepted the draftsman's proposal for the Bill

Mr. Colvin : My hon. Friend is discussing defences and drawing attention to clause 5, which is meant to provide an exemption. It says that action can be taken, where necessary,

"for the immediate protection of any domestic or captive animal which was being attacked by a wild mammal".

Does not that mean that, to be effective, packs of foxhounds and walkie- talkie sets must be permanently on call ? Clause 5 is totally ridiculous and unworkable.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : Neither clause 5 nor clause 6 would protect farmers or people who live in the countryside, or even people with gardens in rural areas, from being accused of committing a criminal offence if they took the steps that were necessary to protect themselves or their property.

There is no doubt that this is a remarkably bad Bill. It is a pity that the House has had to spend this Friday debating a party political issue that should have been dead and buried long ago-- [Interruption.] I thought that some Opposition Members might find that amusing. The debate should never have taken place.

May I close my remarks with a note of regret, as did Mr. Williams so long ago ? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. The Bill would not even take effect in Northern Ireland, were it to be passed. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman did not find a better and more relevant cause to put before the House today. I echo the sentiment of Mr. Williams--a former Labour Minister--when he said, in 1949 :

Would it not be better to discuss the million people in camps in the depressed areas of Europe? Would it not be better to discuss what an hon. Member opposite writes about so eloquently in The Tribune'--what is going on behind the iron curtain?"--[ Official Report, 25 February 1949 ; Vol. 461, c. 2238.]

Would not it be better to turn our attention to some of the serious issues facing the Government and the country today instead of wasting time by raking up, once again, the old, divisive socialist desire to abolish fox hunting?

2.9 pm

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : I have been present throughout the debate, since 9.35 this morning. I find it most impressive that so many farmer-politicians have found time in their busy lives as farmers to take up their parliamentary duties on a Friday, in order to take part in a debate and vote on the important Bill before the House. Those of a more ungenerous nature than myself may suggest that vested interests are involved, because of the close association between farming and fox hunting, but I do not accept that calumny. I remain impressed by the devotion to duty shown by so many Tory farmers.

Column 1280

However, I am less impressed by the arguments that they advance against the Bill. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who is a member of the Select Committee on Energy, said that he was worried about the Bill's impact on unemployment, and on the 16,000 workers in the British equestrian trade. I could take the hon. Gentleman's concern far more seriously if he had shown any such concern for the thousands of Scottish workers made redundant when British Steel ratted on Ravenscraig and on the Scottish steel industry, or if he had shown any concern for the 2.6 million people whom the Government have made unemployed. I do not take such arguments seriously from opponents of the Bill.

It has been said that opponents of the Bill are just as concerned about the well-being of wild mammals as its supporters. They expect us to believe that, because of such concern, they continue to support the prolonged terrorising of foxes, which are wild mammals. They support the tearing apart of foxes by frenzied packs of hounds, and although they may convince themselves that by taking part in such barbaric practices they show their concern for the well-being of the fox, they would have a hard time convincing the fox of that--or, indeed, of convincing anyone whose view was less prejudiced than theirs.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) began the day with a point of order. Although it was not a bogus point of order, the information that he conveyed was bogus. The hon. Gentleman complained about the postcards distributed by the League Against Cruel Sports to its supporters, some of which have been passed on to hon. Members to try to persuade them to support the Bill. He gave an example of one of his constituents whose name had been used on a postcard without his knowledge or permission. On that shaky foundation the hon. Gentleman argued that the whole exercise conducted by the League Against Cruel Sports was bogus, that the names being sent to hon. Members were fake, and that support for the Bill outside the House was far less than was being claimed. The hon. Gentleman was eager to interpret in a different light the one example that he gave. However, opponents of the Bill, concerned about the massive support whipped up by the League Against Cruel Sports, may have decided to undermine that campaign by sending bogus postcards. I agree with the advice that has already been given to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to pass the matter to the Humberside police. I am sure that they will be able to get to the bottom of it and find out who is trying to kid whom.

The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. N. Ridley) asked whether it was really in the public interest to ban fox hunting. He said that, after all, those who take part choose voluntarily to do so, and that the landowners on whose land hunting takes place give their permission. On that basis, he suggested that the public interest was in no way harmed.

Such logic could be applied to all the other activities that the House has already banned, such as bear baiting, dog fighting and cock fighting. If landowners were prepared to allow people to bait bears on their land and people were prepared voluntarily to take part, would that make it all right? Would that mean that such activities were not against the public interest? Of course not. That

Column 1281

was an especially weak argument and, given the high offices of state that the right hon. Gentleman has held, one would have thought that he would know better.

The right hon. Gentleman said that shooting was a crueller way of dealing with foxes than fox hunting. He cited the example of bad shots, who may wound a fox, which leads to unnecessary cruelty and suffering being inflicted. But he could not give a single example of such a thing having happened. Only once during the debate has such an example been given. That was the only evidence that we have heard that such a thing has ever happened. Yet we know, from the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare bodies that there are countless examples of unnecessary cruelty and suffering being inflicted on foxes by the fox hunters. Given the balance between the two, it is essential that the House should support the Bill. Hon. Members who oppose the Bill will have a hard time convincing voters that it is less cruel to pursue a terrified animal for more than an hour and attack it with terriers or tear it apart with a pack of fierce and frenetic hounds. Nobody is convinced by such specious arguments.

Perhaps the weakest argument was the one about pest control, which does not stand any examination. Opponents of the Bill say that they are concerned about pest control. Why do some hunts rear foxes with the intention of hunting them? No Conservative Member could answer that question. Hunting has nothing to do with pest control. Other hunts keep artificial earths to attract foxes into the area and then hunt them. I thought that the idea of pest control was to limit the number of foxes and not to attract them to an area so that they could then be hunted.

It was said that it was right and natural for man to hunt--a call not so much to go back to the countryside as to the caves. It was said that killing the fox was not important. If it is not important how can it be argued that hunting is necessary to control pests? The Bill's opponents defeated their own arguments and cannot expect anyone to take them seriously. It was said that the chase was all important. What was meant was that the sport--the entertainment--was all important, and that is the kernel of the debate. The Bill's opponents say that it is justified, for reasons of entertainment and sport, to inflict suffering and cruelty on foxes and other wild mammals for the pleasure of men. That is unjustifiable and must be stopped.

Next Section

Home Page