| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan Johnson (Hull, West and Hessle): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Foster: Yes, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Johnson: It shows what one can do with a bit of charm and finesse.
Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was a convention of this House that, when an hon. Member is named in another's speech, he is allowed to intervene if he seeks to do so. The hon. Gentleman is now giving way for the first time to a member of his own party who he thinks may support him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members give way to whomever they choose.
Mr. Johnson: Like most hon. Members, I have had a record postbag on this issue. Of more than 300 letters, only one has been against the Bill. How many letters has my hon. Friend, as the Bill's promoter, received on this issue?
Mr. Foster: I have received 450 letters from my constituents supporting the Bill, and 19 against. I have also received a petition signed by 5,000 constituents and nearly 10,000 letters from ordinary members of the public. The overwhelming view expressed is the desire to ban hunting with dogs.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The hon. Gentleman will not be aware that I have received 2,374 letters from my constituents in favour of fox hunting and 467 against. What does he say about that?
Mr. Foster: I say that that is what happens when people elect someone like the hon. Gentleman.
In July, I embarked on a consultation exercise with the major players of the debate. Responses were invited to be received by the end of September. I wrote to some 75 organisations, and 39 replied.
Ms Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire):
I welcome my hon. Friend's democratic approach to
Mr. Foster:
One important dimension of the written submissions came from those involved in sheep farming in Wales, who were concerned about controlling fox numbers and the perceived threat to their land. I say "perceived", because the scientific evidence that I shall produce calls into question the reality of that threat.
However, I acknowledge that it is a genuine fear, so I felt obliged to help protect the farming community. While remaining fixed on the principle of humane methods of controlling animal numbers, I agreed to accept the principle of flushing out in the Bill so that dogs could be used to flush foxes out of cover, where they could be quickly and humanely shot. Clause 5 introduces that exemption.
In October, I witnessed a hunt at the invitation of the Worcestershire hunt. I thank Mr. Robert Breirley for his courtesy in showing me around the hunt, and for other meetings that we have had. We fundamentally disagree on the issue, but the fact that we parted on speaking terms says a lot for both of us.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
I wish to make progress, because complaints have been made about the slow start.
I expect that even my opponents would welcome the fact that I have been hunting. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton introduced such legislation, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) severely criticised him for not having been on a hunt.
Mr. Garnier:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
No, I said that I would not give way.
I followed the hunt on foot and in a four-by-four vehicle. Three foxes were sighted and chased, but none was caught. They were followed by some 40 dogs in hot pursuit. One fox came within 3 ft of where I happened to be standing. It was certainly not happy; indeed, it looked panicked, and did not know what to do. It is therefore surprising that the previously mentioned Robert Hanbury-Tenison should have said:
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
At the invitation of the Worcestershire hunt, I also visited the kennels there, and met the staff. A serious journalist covered that meeting, and someone from Horse and Hounds was also there--their reporting was somewhat less factual. I had frank discussions with the staff about their job content and about care for the dogs.
I have deliberately spent some time discussing the process that I have gone through, because I firmly believe in continuous process improvement: the better the process undertaken, the better the end product. The Bill is a good product. It aims to protect wild mammals from cruelty and from the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted in the name of a so-called "sport". Preventing cruelty is the centrepiece of this Bill.
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon):
Can my hon. Friend see parallels between the hunting of wild mammals with dogs and the previous practices of bear baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting? Does he agree that, given the animal welfare evidence available to us now, the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should have joined those barbaric activities a long time ago?
Mr. Foster:
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She too has noticed the similarity, but it was also noticed by others in the past.
In 1825, somebody whom even Conservative Members may have heard of--a chap called Peel--spoke on the Cruelty to Animals Bill. Mr. Peel felt bound to oppose the Second Reading of that Bill. He confessed that he did not see on what grounds monkeys, badgers and bears were entitled to a distinct and separate legislative enactment for their protection. Why were the monkey and the bear to be protected, while the fox, the stag and the hare were subject to the most unrelenting persecution?
I shall state now, and repeat whenever necessary, that the Bill does not extend to shooting and angling. It extends to the 100,000 wild mammals that are hounded to death in the name of hunting. That number is a conservative estimate, because of the number of unrecorded killings by unofficial hunts.
Clause 1 approaches the task by identifying two basic offences. The first covers the public perception of hunting: wild mammals being followed on foot or on horseback. The latest survey by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee suggests that Britain's hare population is now only 800,000, compared with 4 million at the turn of the century. It is generally accepted that that reduction has been brought about by changes in agricultural practice, but the suggestion by hunters that hunting promotes animal numbers is a myth.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pickthall:
Because we are much nicer than you lot.
I am glad that my hon. Friend is discussing hare coursing. Does he agree that hare coursing is particularly obnoxious--perhaps even more so than other blood sports--because it is a spectator sport? It belongs alongside cock fighting, bear baiting and bull baiting, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said.
Mr. Foster:
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I am sure that the whole House recognises how hard he has worked for the abolition of hare coursing.
Hare coursing and hunting have not been significant in helping to conserve hare numbers. Official hare coursing is recognised as killing 1,000 hares annually. The speed of the greyhounds and lurchers that take part in the event enable them to catch the hare quickly, but they then often use the hare as a living tug-of-war rope pulled between them. The human race, if I may use the term loosely, often bets on the result.
It is estimated that 6,000 hares are killed annually by packs of harriers, beagles and bassets. Those are slower dogs. They follow the scent. They wear down their prey until the hare becomes exhausted, thus enabling the dogs to catch it. Hares are not naturally suited to such a chase. It is artificially created for the pleasure of the human followers.
The Waterloo cup hare coursing finals perhaps symbolise this obscene sport most graphically. In 1951, even the Scott Henderson report on animal cruelty condemned that event, and others of a similar nature.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North):
Those opposing the Bill are most likely to quote the Scott Henderson report. Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the House the part of the report that states:
Mr. Foster:
I thank my hon. Friend. It is accepted that the Scott Henderson committee contained very few members of animal welfare organisations; in fact, it could be said to be biased towards people who hunted. Even so, it accepted that hare coursing was an extremely cruel act.
"If you have ever been hunting, you've seen how foxes laugh at the hounds".
Foxes do not laugh at hounds when they are being chased, and to suggest otherwise is to act with ignorant disregard for the welfare of animals.
"Consequently, the suffering which is caused to hares coursed at such meetings comes within the definition of cruelty which we have adopted"?
Even Scott Henderson condemned hare coursing, and then did not have the courage to abolish Altcar.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |