| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Morley: For the record, let me point out that gassing foxes is illegal in this country.
Mr. Spring: I appreciate that, but, although it is illegal, it is--regrettably--known to happen. The culling of foxes is a particular problem for farmers. If fox hunting were banned, we might just see an upsurge in such activity, which would be thoroughly undesirable.
The former executive director of the League Against Cruel Sports, Richard Course, observed:
There are 385 registered packs of hounds and 228,000 participants in registered packs and clubs. The 1997 update of the Cobham report estimated direct employment at 15,300 and direct expenditure at £176 million, with a turnover of £122 million involving 9,700 separate businesses. Five thousand pubs are patronised for hunt meets and other fixtures. The hunt is a broadly based social activity, often taking place in remote country areas: it is a way of bringing people together. Seventy per cent. of all woodland planting on English and Welsh farms is for sporting purposes.
Earlier, I tried to express the concern of rural dwellers about such matters as the rural economy, transport, health services, access and so-called green taxes. That concern, however, is merely a backdrop to the exploding sense of alienation from the urban-based, politically correct values that are clearly hallmarks of the present Government.
This is a matter of fundamental principle. No one can deny the right of anyone in our democracy to dislike fox hunting, to argue against it, to ignore it or even to find it repulsive. It is wholly different, however, when that right is translated into the punishment of those with whom such people disagree--their punishment as criminals.
How would the law be enforced when a farmer sought to cull foxes, and tried to flush them out with his dogs? Would that be a criminal activity? Where is the line to be drawn? Foxes are predators: they kill for the sheer pleasure of it. Savagely tearing the limbs off lambs and decapitating chickens, ornamental ducks or even swans has nothing to do with the need to eat. Yet we return to the same principle: should the state have the right to punish someone for his activities simply because the majority find them distasteful, and, in so doing, to have a severe impact on the economy of rural areas?
Last year, 3.3 million people went fishing and more than 700,000 shot game and wild fowl. Annual direct expenditure on country sports runs at £3.8 billion and has provided more than 60,000 full-time jobs. Indirect expenditure totals £2.4 billion and has provided 31,000 jobs. Government income runs at more than £600 million.
In our urbanised society, nature has become entirely removed from what we eat. It is a kind of carnal disembodiment. Butter and milk bear no relation to cows; eggs bear no relation to chickens; and chickens bear no relation to feathers. What is really repulsive is the way in which our new politically correct elite decides, in an inconsistent, illiberal and intolerant way, what is good for us all. Rural Britain is patronisingly viewed as some kind of Disney theme park.
When the sensitive luminaries of Islington, Hampstead and Highgate sit down to eat, the only thing that is wild about the poached salmon is the price. For them, a visit to the countryside all too often means a visit to a luxury health hydro, where they can "de-stress" after all the exhausting intellectual gymnastics of what they have decided is and is not currently politically correct.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
My hon. Friend has set out a great many facts and figures for the record, and for the edification of Labour Members. Should we not also record the fact that fewer than half a dozen Labour Back Benchers have bothered to attend the debate?
Mr. Spring:
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is at the heart of the debate. Rural issues cannot be distinguished from the mainstream of British life; they are part of the nation. The contempt with which the Government are treating rural areas is, however, manifest in the number of Conservative Members who are present.
There is a serious point to be made, to which my hon. Friend has alluded. A substantial part of our population should be allowed to continue a way of life that is currently under threat. This is not only about hunting, but about all the activities that are linked with it: gymkhanas, horse trials and point-to-points. Those who despise the rural life will inevitably go after shooting as well. Not only would the whole rhythm of country life be affected by such moves, but trees, fences and hedgerows would soon be at risk.
Before the general election campaign, the Prime Minister declared his desire to lead one nation. He talked of the community and of social cohesion, and the electorate responded. Only weeks after the election, however, the uncertainties that had already stirred in rural Britain have been translated into real fear and anxiety. The Government's policies so far appear to be at worst hostile, and at best irrelevant, to the needs of rural Britain. I hope that the Prime Minister will not go down in history as the first Prime Minister to cause an irrevocable and damaging split between the rural and urban parts of our nation.
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn):
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing the debate, although I disagree with almost everything that he said. I represent a rural constituency and I won that seat from the Conservatives in 1992. My hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) are present. They won seats from the Conservatives in the recent general election. Many Labour Members speak for rural areas. Conservative Members do not represent as much as a single tree or field in Scotland and Wales.
The Conservative party is not the only party which speaks for rural Britain. The Labour party achieved its highest-ever vote in rural areas on 1 May. We wiped out the Conservatives in rural Scotland and rural Wales. Many of my hon. Friends speak in the Chamber and run the country on behalf of rural Britain as a whole.
I hope that the debate will focus on positive points. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I say immediately that I welcomed much of what the previous Government did to recognise the needs of rural areas. I welcomed the proposals in the White Papers for rural Scotland, Wales and England. I welcomed the fact that "Rural England" was produced by the previous Government, and I recognise that the document "Working Countryside for
Wales" was important. However, the debate should be put in the context of the Conservative Government's performance on rural issues.
I should like to draw Conservative Members' attention to the Environment Select Committee's report on rural England, which highlighted problems that the Conservative Government had caused and which they had to face in the previous Parliament. Their documents proposed a certain strategy, but the Environment Select Committee's report highlighted rural poverty, the need to sustain market towns, the removal of large tracks of woodland and the need to develop key targets to achieve improvements in rural areas, which the previous Government failed to do.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
We all share the aim of removing rural poverty, as the hon. Gentleman calls it. Does he truly think that the introduction of a minimum wage will contribute to removing rural poverty? In an interview during the general election campaign with the distinguished journalist from The Sunday Times,A. A. Gill, the present Deputy Prime Minister, with welcome candour, said that the introduction of a minimum wage was likely to increase unemployment.
Mr. Hanson:
I strongly support a minimum wage. During the general election campaign, many of the people who work in the rural parts of my constituency supported a minimum wage. Many of the farmers in my constituency, who are legion, lobbied me strongly when the Conservative Government tried to abolish the agricultural wages boards. Farmers and people in rural areas in my constituency recognise the need for an inclusive society in which everyone has a stake and in which people are part of the businesses in which they work.
"When I became fully and objectively appraised of all facts, and conversant with all related arguments, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the prosecution of the anti-hunt case would not advance 'fox welfare' and consequently could not be justified."
I dwell on the subject because the importance of fox hunting is essentially twofold. As the New Scientist put it on 19 April 1997,
"Foxhunting has helped shape the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerow and thicket which benefit other wildlife besides the fox. These would disappear if hunting were banned."
Fourteen thousand acres of woodland are owned or managed by hunts, and 95 per cent. of hunts undertake conservation work--the maintenance of bridleways, gates and so forth--while 1.4 million carcases are disposed of each year, either free of charge or at minimum cost. Hunting is an essential part of the traditional life of the countryside and has considerable economic significance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |