| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.6 pm
Mr. Michael J. Foster (Worcester): I wish to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I am grateful to Labour colleagues for enabling it to take place by their use of parliamentary procedure. They are to be commended, and I thank them.
The Bill has all the hallmarks of what was termed the "Foster Bill". A similar Bill not only received an overwhelming majority on Second Reading in November 1997, but went through Standing Committee and reached Report before Opposition Members--although not all of them--decided to use procedures to frustrate its progress; the Bill subsequently ran out of time.
The Foster Bill was without doubt about one issue alone--animal welfare. I, like the vast majority of Members in the House, believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
All sorts of theories have been put forward as to why I moved the motion to enable us to move on to this debate. The answer is pure and simple and there is no hidden conspiracy. I want fox hunting to be banned as much as my hon. Friend does and as much as hundreds and thousands of my constituents do. That is why I moved the motion; there was no hidden agenda.
Mr. Foster:
The record will show how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for getting the debate on to the Floor of the House. This is an important issue, and one in which the British people think the House has frustrated their wishes. Opinion polls show that overwhelming numbers of people rightly want a ban on hunting with dogs. One day the British people will thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has helped, I hope, to bring that about.
Mr. Bob Russell:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
I wish to make a bit of progress, and I shall then give way.
I said that the Bill is about animal welfare and that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary. One argument used in favour of hunting with dogs is the so-called quick-kill theory. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that it takes 0.6 seconds for a kill to take place, but I would like to see the evidence. I think that he is talking nonsense, and I shall explain why that is so.
Mr. Gray:
The hon. Gentleman is just about to tell us how hounds dispatch a fox. He will remember that in the Committee stage of his Bill he was forced, under heavy questioning, to admit that he had never been at a hunt of any kind and that he had never seen hounds killing a fox. He knew nothing about it, because he had no hands-on
Mr. Foster:
I shall certainly deal with that point. I went on a hunt with the Worcestershire hunt before my Bill had its Second Reading in 1997. The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong, and the record will state that.
Mr. Gray:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
No, I want to make progress before I take any more interventions. The way in which a pack of dogs chases a fox--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment.
Mr. Gray:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I was incorrect in saying that he had not attended a hunt. I should like to correct the point--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a matter for the debate.
Mr. Foster:
Invariably, when dogs are pursuing a fox, the fox's rear quarters come closest to the dogs when the chase comes to an end. It is obvious that the dogs will get hold of the fox at the rear and bring it down so that it can no longer run. That is a tendency of all canine hunting packs. The fox is then flipped over, attacked and disembowelled. The occasional kill might take 0.6 seconds, but that is not the norm. We have seen post-mortem evidence of the remains of foxes where the spinal column was intact and had not been cut in a quick kill. The veterinary evidence was that the fox had died of haemorrhaging, through being torn apart while alive. Let the record state that that is the case.
Mr. Tredinnick:
I have seen foxes killed in hunting, and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that foxhounds' instincts are to go for the neck, and foxes are normally killed in that way. There may be occasional aberrations, but they are a tiny percentage and most foxes are killed very quickly.
Mr. Foster:
We have not only veterinary evidence from post-mortems but video evidence of dogs bringing down a fox and tearing at its stomach before it is killed. We also have evidence from individuals who have witnessed kills, sometimes in their own back garden, where hunt havoc has taken place and they have had to witness an episode that has disgusted them.
Mr. Öpik:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
No, I want to make a little progress before I give way again.
It has been said that there is no alternative way to dispatch foxes, but shooting is viable and it is the recommended way in which to dispose of foxes. It has been said also that hunting with dogs does a great service
to the fox community because it culls the weak, the old and the lame. Unless I am very much mistaken, foxhounds cannot, by picking up a scent, distinguish between a healthy young fox and a three-legged or old fox. I do not believe for one moment that once the hounds are on the scent and in full cry, the huntsmen will call off the chase. That is utter nonsense.
Furthermore, why does cub hunting still take place in the autumn, when fox cubs are about six months old? If cub hunting did not take place, the arguments of Conservative Members would have some credibility, but young foxes are killed in cub hunting.
Mr. Leigh:
Of course the hounds do not differentiate between the scent of an old, sick fox and that of a young, healthy one. The point is that the young, healthy fox simply gets away. There is overwhelming evidence that the great majority of foxes caught by the hunt are the old, the sick and the wounded, including very often those that have been inexpertly shot. The hunt therefore fulfils an animal welfare purpose in dispatching elderly or sick foxes.
Mr. Foster:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point because it allows me to nail another myth put forward by Conservative Members, which is that many foxes that have been wounded by inaccurate shots are roaming the countryside. The RSPCA, which has looked after thousands of sick and injured foxes that have been brought to its animal hospitals, says that less than five have been brought in suffering from shot wounds. There are clearly not vast numbers of wounded foxes hobbling around the countryside.
Sir Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell):
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the fox is extremely prone to gangrene? If it is shot by lead shot, gangrene kills it relatively quickly, so that is probably why so few have ended up at the RSPCA.
Mr. Foster:
I accept that the wound of any wounded animal can turn gangrenous, but I do not believe the myths put forward by pro-hunt groups.
To maintain a healthy rural economy, a relatively easy switch could be made to drag-hunting. All the jobs associated with hunting with dogs would continue to exist, all the services provided to hunts would still be needed, and the social aspects of hunting, which I know give great pleasure to those who go hunting, would be preserved. When I was out with the Worcestershire hunt in autumn 1997, the hunt followers told me how important the thrill of the ride and the chase was to them, and what great pleasure they get from it. I know that they do not go into it for the killing. They go hunting for the pleasure, the chase and--to use a term that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will understand--the crack.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
My hon. Friend mentions jobs. Does he welcome the inquiry set up under Lord Burns to examine the potential impact of a ban on hunting on employment opportunities, particularly in the countryside? Does he recall that when we debated his Bill on 28 November 1997 and it received such overwhelming support in the House, one of the best contributions came
Mr. Foster:
I hope to deal with the Burns inquiry later in my contribution. There is no doubt that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made an enormously powerful contribution in that debate. It was widely noted, especially by the press, and her arguments about jobs is logical and stands up to scrutiny by the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |