| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman.
There is an argument that farmers will not allow drag-hunting on their land--that they allow fox hunting because it is a form of pest control and gets rid of the fox, whereas with drag-hunting there is no kill, so they will not allow it. I believe that farmers allow the hunt on their land because it picks up the fallen stock that they would otherwise have to dispose of in a more costly manner. That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting on their land.
Mr. Coaker:
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am listening to his speech with interest. From the fact that some people resist the change to drag-hunting, the only conclusion that one can draw is that they would miss the thrill of the kill. Is not that the reason why they do not want to move to drag-hunting?
Mr. Foster:
The majority of people who take part in hunting do not do so for the kill. Many have never seen a kill, and I do not believe that they hunt for that purpose. The minority may like the blood, but the majority participate for the ride, the chase, the pleasure and the day out in the countryside. That is why drag-hunting is such an obvious alternative; people can enjoy all that without a kill.
Mr. Gray:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
We all accept that farming is in difficulties. Why not let farmers charge for allowing a drag-hunt to go over their land? That would encourage farmers to allow drag-hunting. They could thus earn some income on the side. We embrace the free market; charging for drag-hunting is private enterprise.
Mr. Soames:
I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about how quickly hounds would take to following a different scent if they were taken into a drag pack. A foxhound will follow a scent because that is its instinct. If one chucks a ball at a Labrador puppy, he will return it instinctively.
I have addressed the mid-Surrey farmers' dinner, and a famous pack of draghounds runs in my constituency and nearby constituencies. Farmers welcome the drag, but they also welcome the hunt. They welcome it not only because of the fallen stock--although the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was right to mention that the hunt fulfils a useful function for farmers--but because they love having the hounds on their land, even though the hunt gets in the way on agricultural land. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss tradition and love of the sport as a motivation for many farmers.
Mr. Foster:
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall extend his argument. Hunting is a bit of nuisance on agricultural land, but it is welcome because some farmers like to experience the pleasure of the hunt. Drag-hunting would provide that pleasure, with the additional benefit of greater certainty about its direction. A fox will go where it wants to go; a drag-hunt will lead the chase to its intended destination. It would help farmers if they knew where the hunt would go on their land.
Let us consider pest control. It has already been said that up to 20,000 foxes are killed by hunting with dogs. Eighty thousand are shot and 100,000 are killed by cars. The pest-control argument is not therefore a reason to allow hunting with dogs to continue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that the Bill excepted terrier work. I ask him to read clause 3(3), which prohibits flushing out from underground. Terriers would not be allowed to flush out a fox that had sought cover.
Let us be clear about what happens during a hunt. To prolong the hunt and the chase, people go out on the previous night and fill up the holes where foxes would naturally seek refuge. The official term is "stopping". If it is claimed that hunting is part of some sort of natural existence, why stop holes where the fox could escape? It is done to prolong the chase. That is unacceptable.
Mr. David Taylor:
Does my hon. Friend agree that at least poachers use the fast-running lurcher to kill their prey, while fox hunts use foxhounds because they are slow running, thus prolonging the chase and the agony?
Mr. Foster:
The Bill would also outlaw the type of poaching to which my hon. Friend refers because it involves dogs.
Mr. Öpik:
I do not want to keep bothering the hon. Gentleman, but may I quickly put two questions? Is he against terrier work because he does not think that it can be done in a way that prevents the terrier from attacking
Mr. Foster:
I shall come to the Burns inquiry shortly, but we made our arguments on terrier work in Committee and the hon. Gentleman knows that I am against it. He suggested the idea of timing a dog and getting it to come out of an earth after exactly an hour. I have yet to see a dog that can tell the time, so I dismiss that argument.
Hunts always create artificial earths. In its submission to the Burns inquiry, the Masters of Foxhounds Association acknowledged that they are used to encourage the fox to seek refuge and shelter. I do not understand why that goes on. Why would anybody who thinks that killing a fox is suitable pest control do that?
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North):
To encourage the fox to be there.
Mr. Foster:
Using artificial earths does not make sense--it is illogical--and, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, people must want to encourage the fox to be there so that they know where the quarry is when they go out hunting. That is why artificial earths exist.
I return to the submission to the Burns inquiry, which says that cub hunting is designed not only to kill young foxes, although it is acknowledged that there is a greater concentration in autumn so hunting is easier, but to train the dogs. I accept that, but it is also stated that cub hunting involves dispersing foxes. Why disperse a pest? Why push a pest into the countryside so that no one knows where it is? If the fox is a pest, surely people want to know where it is so that they can kill it--if they think that needs to be done to a pest--and they should not disperse or hide it. Again, that shows the inconsistencies in the arguments made by the pro-hunt lobby.
Mr. Gardiner:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Foster:
I would like to make progress, if I may.
That brings me to the Burns inquiry, which is considering the whole issue of hunting with dogs. I am on the record as expressing concern over the membership of the inquiry team--that is no big secret--but I believe that if the inquiry considers the submissions objectively it will reach no conclusion other than that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury):
I should make it clear at the outset that, as always when this subject is under debate in the House, Members from my party will
I preface my remarks by repeating what a number of hon. Members have already noted. It is extraordinary and disgraceful that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)--having secured time for his private Member's Bill, in which he presumably believes very strongly--should so disdain the House of Commons that he cannot even be bothered to attend the debate. I remember the sense of privilege that I felt at obtaining a high place in the ballot; the hon. Gentleman's conduct brings nothing but contempt on him and his reputation here.
Mr. Salter:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington:
No, I shall not give way on that point.
The Government's failure to vote against a motion that the House sit in private is also contemptible. I cannot recall that happening in my time in the House. The Countryside Alliance and others who have been engaged in this debate have trusted the Government's protestations of good faith and have been prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that will send a message to people outside the House that the Government put the quick soundbite and photo opportunity ahead of any serious regard for the arguments.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make it clear, especially in the light of the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), how the Government intend to approach the findings of the Burns committee, which they established. The hon. Member for Worcester clearly made the assumption that, whatever the conclusions of the Burns committee report, he expects the Government in due course to introduce legislation to outlaw hunting with hounds. That is what he and those who support his line of argument expect. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption, or whether the Government will approach the conclusions of the Burns committee in an impartial spirit, given that they may be at variance with those to which the hon. Members for Worcester and for Brent, East would like it to come.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |