| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Salter: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for
Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 28 November were misguided and wrong? What unanimity is there among Conservative Members on this issue?
Mr. Lidington: I have had many cordial discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this subject. We disagree firmly about hunting with hounds. On this issue, if on no other, my right hon. Friend is wrong. I share the views expressed by another formidable lady, my constituent Baroness Mallalieu, who talks a great deal of sense on this subject.
Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other lady who talks a great deal of sense and was in the Chamber briefly this morning is the Minister for Sport, who spoke so powerfully in the debate on 28 November?
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point well.
I shall first deal with the economic impact of a ban on hunting with hounds.
As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there can be no certainty about the economic cost of a ban. A report produced about three years ago by Cobham Resource Consultants estimated the total expenditure in the economy generated by hunting at just over £300 million a year. It also concluded that about 15,200 jobs in Great Britain owed their existence directly to hunting, and that the existence of just under 8,000 could be attributed to it indirectly. According to a survey of the hotel and guest-house trade in the Exmoor and Quantocks area, about 25 per cent. of business in the local economy could be attributed to hunting.
Even if the claim by Labour Members that only a few jobs would be lost as a result of a ban were proved right, I do not think that that would make it right for the House to dismiss the cost as unimportant or irrelevant. For many years, it has been our duty to take careful stock before enacting legislation that would make unlawful the livelihoods of people who are going about their legitimate business. During my time here, we have engaged in debates about the impact of the BSE regulations on small occupational groups such as cattle head deboners. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) making the case very strongly. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, we discussed the possible cost, in terms of employment, to manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition.
Even if the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) were right in saying that the cost in terms of jobs would be much less than the Countryside Alliance estimates, I would still contend that we should reflect carefully, and that we should require an overwhelmingly powerful argument to be presented before depriving people of their livelihoods by Act of Parliament.
Mr. David Taylor:
If it is right--and it often is--to fight vigorously in the Chamber in defence of jobs, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how vigorously he fought to oppose the large-scale job losses that resulted from the activities of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) under the last Government, when tens of thousands of mining jobs were lost, and there was barely a peep out of Conservative Members?
Mr. Lidington:
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has given an accurate account of the history of that time;
A ban would have a further economic impact, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and which is important to farmers in my constituency and elsewhere. I refer to the disposal of fallen stock. I believe that, in the absence of hunts, that would be a heavy cost for farmers to bear, especially at a time when every sector of British agriculture is in deep and prolonged recession.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the rural community. Does he agree that this is a matter not just of cost--although that is extremely important at a time when farming is under such pressure--but of public health? The collection of fallen stock by hunts, which is carried out on a wide scale, solves a problem that is difficult to solve in other ways.
Mr. Lidington:
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point.
The contribution of hunts to the disposal of fallen stock was admitted by the Government. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), when he was Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said in a written answer on 25 June 1998 that a survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service had indicated that hunt kennels were responsible for the disposal of well over half the carcases of calves, for more than a third of adult bovine carcases, and for about a quarter of all sheep carcases following falls.
Any hon. Member who has a significant agricultural sector in his or her constituency will know that the problem of fallen stock has become a lot more acute since that MAFF survey, and that the withdrawal of the payment scheme for disposal of new-born calves has added enormously to the burden on hunts and others, who take on the responsibility of disposing of fallen stock. There would be a clear economic cost if the Bill became law.
There would also be damage over the medium to long term to conservation. We know--I think that it is accepted even by most opponents of hunting--that animals such as foxes and deer damage agriculture and forestry. It is common ground between those of us who oppose a ban and a number of those who support a ban that the populations of those animals need to be controlled and that some sort of culling system should be permitted.
The argument for hunting is that culling can be selective, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, and that it provides farmers and landowners with an incentive to maintain habitats in a state that does not add to the productivity of their businesses. Those habitats benefit not only quarry species, but other forms of wildlife.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate):
Some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made the point that the hunt destroys foxes who are injured, elderly or diseased. Therefore, the argument that the hunt is necessary to keep fox populations down and that it is a form of culling is absurd. According to his hon. Friends, it is the healthy fox, the fox that is still in a position to be
Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness)
rose--
Mr. Lidington:
May I respond to the hon. Lady first? The point about hunting is that it enables the effective management of the fox population, or, for that matter, in Exmoor and the Quantocks, the deer population. Hunting provides the mechanism whereby those who make their living from agriculture and forestry are prepared to tolerate the presence on their land of a larger number of potentially pest species than would be the case if a ban were in force.
Sir Richard Body:
I have simultaneously managed two farms about 10 miles apart. On one, I was happy to see foxes; on the other, I was not. The reason is that, if foxes are fairly young and healthy, they tend to keep down the rat and rabbit population, but, as foxes get older, once they have had a taste of chicken or duck, rather like human beings, they do not want to eat rats. Again, they cease to be useful predators for farmers and become what some us of would call vermin. It is those foxes that tend to be hunted successfully and culled by a pack of foxhounds.
Mr. Lidington:
I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
The conservationist argument for hunting was perhaps best summarised in an article in New Scientist, on 19 April, which stated:
Mr. Lidington:
No; I have given way once to the hon. Lady.
The core of the argument made by hon. Members speaking in support of the Bill has been that a ban is justified because it would prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals. Even if one opposes a ban, one has to take that argument seriously. My problem with the way in which those arguments have been expressed so far today is that ban supporters seem to be reflecting very little on the cruelty of alternative methods of animal control.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Before my hon. Friend deals with that very important point, will he say whether he agrees that his point on the balance of nature is fundamental to the argument? Where one finds hunting flourishing, one finds a balance and wide variety of nature. One always finds in such places a healthy fox population, but it is a fox population that is under reasonable control. Such habitats are always diverse and flourishing, not only for foxes, but for a huge range of wildlife--which I think every sensible hon. Member much cherishes in the British countryside.
Foxhunting has helped change the British landscape. Areas where it is common often have more hedgerows and thickets which benefit other wildlife besides the fox. These would disappear if hunting was banned.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |