| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman is much better on asteroids.
Mr. Öpik: I have not mentioned asteroids once during this debate. I will take that as a cue to move on to my concluding remarks.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman has received a certain amount of abuse from Labour Members who have made suggestions similar to the comments of Lord Steel in 1995. He said that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was correct to say that if clause 2 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill--which would have introduced a ban--was accepted, it would not be long before other Bills came before the House to ban other country sports. Lord Steel said that one of the reasons for his concern was that he enjoyed fishing even though he did not hunt.
There may be a misunderstanding. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) knows whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is prepared to accept the cruelty in fishing--it is undoubtedly cruel--or whether he wants to ban fishing too.
Mr. Öpik:
That is for the hon. Member for Brent, East to answer. If I had been on the ball earlier, I would have pointed out to him that asteroids would be a much clumsier and more expensive way of controlling the fox population.
Mr. Livingstone:
I am not sure whether we should make interventions through third parties. However, I point out to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)
Mr. Öpik:
I want to move on from that point. There is no need to filibuster on this measure; many Members with strong views are in the Chamber, so I shall try to bring my remarks to a close.
I have one further point on cruelty. If we stop hunting with dogs, or dispatching foxes with dogs, we should not pretend that that would not cause its own cruelty. Tens of thousands of dogs will be put down, because a dog cannot be retrained to go drag-hunting. If it has been trained to catch foxes, it will always follow their scent. The hon. Member for Brent, East should include in his utilitarian analysis of what is most cruel a consideration of the premium he puts on the lives of tens of thousands of dogs that would make terrible pets. We would be signing their death warrants.
Mr. Bob Russell:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what currently happens to hounds that are no longer required for hunting?
Mr. Öpik:
No. That is not the moral issue about which I am arguing. I know what my hon. Friend is alluding to; he believes that the hounds are put down. I am not an expert on the matter, but I hope that other hon. Members may be able to give him more detail about that in their speeches.
Mr. David Taylor:
I am sorry to bombard the hon. Gentleman with statistics. However, 7,000 foxhounds are born each year, of which 5,000 are put down because they are unsuitable for hunting. There is no logic in the argument that all foxhounds would be put down if hunting were banned. As those hounds were trained to hunt foxes, so they could be trained for other forms of hunting that did not involve the pursuit of mammals.
Mr. Öpik:
Hounds cannot easily be retrained. I am aware that there are experts in the Chamber who probably want to speak on that subject, and I want to conclude my speech to give them the chance to do so. However, it is my judgment, and that of those who have given me guidance, such as David Jones--one of the best in the business when it comes to hunting--that hounds cannot be retrained to go drag-hunting if they have been trained to go fox hunting. Others may want to pursue that issue, but I am covering so many aspects already that I do not want to go into that. I do not want to be accused of gratuitously trying to cover every single subject or subsection.
There are some good elements in the Bill. Some changes have been made, and I have complimented the hon. Member for Worcester on a pretty constructive dialogue, given where we started when his Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill was being considered, some time ago. This Bill permits flushing from cover; it is quite well worded on that. It seems to recognise that
terrier work may be necessary. As I read the Bill--the hon. Member for Brent, East may be able to clarify this--it seems to accept, by implication, that terriers may be used, as long as they are not used to dispatch the fox underground. If that is what is meant, that is sensible, because terriers can be trained not to enter a dogfight. However, that is a technical matter, better suited to the Standing Committee. There are some other bits and pieces that would clarify ambiguities in the Bill.
However, overall, it is my fundamental moral concern that the Bill makes criminals out of law-abiding people who are simply pursuing a traditional method of fox control in their area.
Several times, the hon. Member for Brent, East sought to justify his Bill by saying that the majority supported it. I covered that point earlier, but let me remind him of my point, now that he is present. He has a worthy reputation for standing up for minority rights, even when he has been criticised for doing so. This is a classic example of minority rights being under threat, and I hope that he realises--this is not a spurious or specious argument in the slightest--that if he wants to be consistent, he should at least seriously think about supporting the minority that is under threat now, on the same grounds on which he has taken publicly unpopular decisions to support other minorities. I give him credit for the work that he has done in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman may not like the people who go fox hunting--he may have his own view about their class, or about the fact that they actually enjoy catching foxes--but, whether or not he finds the individuals distasteful, if he restricts himself to the question of cruelty, as he said he would do at the start of the debate, he must set aside his emotional reaction to the individuals carrying out fox hunting and confine himself to the philosophical question.
Mr. Livingstone:
When I attended the Waterloo cup, I confirmed that there were all classes there. Interestingly, most of the working class were on one side of the field and most of the aristocracy were on my side of the field--I was invited into their tent and offered some nice game soup. I have not the slightest doubt that vast numbers of working-class people go hunting; anyone who assumes that only toffs hunt is wildly wrong. The majority of the people who go hunting are working class. The majority of the people who go out without any form of organisation and hunt animals illegally are working class; I am sure of it. This is not a class but an animal cruelty issue.
Mr. Öpik:
I will accept the hon. Gentleman at his word. He has an honest face--at least from this side of the Chamber. I am glad that he reassured us that, for him, this is not a class matter. However, I would still encourage him to recognise that the fact that he finds fox hunting distasteful himself is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to ban it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that had seen the tenderness of foxes, and that that was one of the motivating factors that had caused him to believe that foxes should not be killed in such a way. Cows have feelings too, as have sheep, amazing as it may be. One can see a farmer becoming attached to his animals, and farmers often find it hard to eat animals that they have
reared because--believe it or not--they have developed an emotional bond with the animals. That leads us down the path of vegetarianism or something else. There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism, but there is something wrong with an argument that looks at the emotions of the animals as a justification for questioning one method of controlling those animals.
What would be the best way forward on this issue? There seem to be three options. The first is a total ban. I believe that we have established that that is not on the agenda. It is not in the Bill, so I shall not waste the time of the House in explaining why that would be a bad idea. The second is not to change at all. I know that some people feel that the status quo is acceptable, but I am not among them, and neither is the middle way group.
There are cowboys who pursue activities that are, in my judgment, cruel and unjustified--who torture animals and so on. I believe that there should be regulation, not least to get rid of the cowboys who do it for fun, and who are not represented in the House by myself or any other Opposition Member. That leads us to the third way--the middle way. Not surprisingly, that is the way that I believe that we should go. In simple terms, the middle way group proposes that we establish an independent hunting authority, with statutory powers to enforce a legally binding code of practice, and with inspectors who can drop in unannounced on a kennel or a hunt to compare practice with the standards that are set in that code.
Penalties should exist, ranging from a caution to the revocation of the hunting licence together with, potentially, court proceedings and more serious penalties. The authority--some suggest that it should be called "Offox"--would be paid for entirely by a fee for a licence to go hunting, so it would not cost the taxpayer anything to set up.
I should like to think that even Labour Members and the hon. Member for Brent, East could find some merit in the idea of an independent hunting authority and a code of practice, whether or not the hon. gentleman agrees with the detailed point about hunting with dogs, because I think that such a regulatory structure would be publicly seen as sensible and a fair-minded means of enforcement.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there should be some degree of political independence in that independent hunting authority. It should not be a political or party political grouping. It should consist of individuals who are generally regarded as expert and fair on the question of fox hunting. I have described the middle way group's proposals, and I hope that we can debate them as the Bill progresses, as I imagine it will.
For me, this is a libertarian issue. I hope that, without too much digression, I have explained why it is such an issue. I hope that I have also set forward a challenge in unequivocal terms to the Bill's supporters to explain how they square the circle of dealing with hunting with dogs, but leaving fishing and angling untouched. It is not that I want them to ban other activities; I would like them to think again about what is a prejudicial move based on strong and sincerely held emotions about the apparent cruelty of killing a fox with dogs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |