| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): May I make it clear that none of the Members of the House who carry the Liberal Democrat Whip is an embarrassment to our party?
Mr. Salter: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong? They are a cause of deep embarrassment.
I wish to look briefly at the arguments in favour of hunting wild animals with hounds. We have had some ludicrous claims from the Countryside Alliance and the pro-hunt lobby about the number of job losses. It put the figure at 16,000. I understand that in a press statement last week, the Countryside Alliance made the crucial admission that there may have been a slight exaggeration. I think that the Burns inquiry will show that it was more than a slight exaggeration--it was probably a bare-faced lie. We shall wait and see.
Mr. Gray:
The hon. Gentleman uses rather extreme language, and I hope that the Burns inquiry comes up with figures that are as close to accurate as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of lying when I say that to the best of my knowledge, the full-time equivalent of 11,400 people are employed directly by hunts. A further 4,000 or thereabouts provide the other services that hunts need. Roughly speaking, 15,000 or 16,000 people seems to be the best estimate. For him to accuse the Countryside Alliance of lying is extraordinary.
Mr. Salter:
Well, I did, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. The facts are quite straightforward. About 1,000 people are directly employed by hunts. Let us wait until the Burns inquiry comes out. We will also have to weigh the beneficial effects of a potential transfer to drag-hunting and other forms of pursuing this so-called sport before we can make an accurate assessment of the likely job losses to result if the Bill becomes law.
Mr. Blunt:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salter:
No. I will lay the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) a small wager that the figure will be nothing like 16,000.
I dealt with the argument about jobs as best I could in my earlier intervention by quoting the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I should like now to deal with the argument that hunting with hounds is an essential pest-control tool. If it is effective, why do members of the pro-hunting lobby
constantly tell us that hunts do not really matter, because they rarely catch anything? Either hunting is an effective tool for pest control, or it is not.
The fact that drives a coach and horses through the pest control argument is that hunts, such as the Sinnington and others, continue to breed cubs in order to hunt.
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham):
Of course, there is also an argument about the close season. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are talking about dealing with vermin, it is nonsense to suggest that there is a close season? We would not decide not to put down mouse traps at certain times of the year, if our houses were infested with mice--as is this House, on the ground and on the other side of the Chamber.
Mr. Salter:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It had not occurred to me that there could be any logic for a close season in hunting.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
With respect, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) does not make a very good point. Does the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) agree that we want a balance of nature so that a reasonable number of foxes live healthily in the countryside without causing a problem? To compare that with the extermination of mice and rats in a domestic house is not fair or sensible.
Mr. Salter:
I am struggling to follow the logic of that argument. We are being told that we want a balance of nature--so we must breed and then kill foxes to achieve it. I am sorry, but I cannot follow that logic.
Mr. Gardiner:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a balance of nature was really required, simply to hunt and kill those foxes that were already lame and about to die--as some hon. Members have described the matter--would not assist in producing it. Only if we killed the foxes that were healthy and able to breed--the very ones that we have been told get away--would it make any sense to pursue that means of vermin control.
Mr. Salter:
I am trying to follow the logic. Some hon. Members are trying to convince us that we should give the fox a fertility test before we hunt and kill it, so as to achieve the balance of nature.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I do not want to add to the burden of my hon. Friend's attempts to find a way through the illogicalities, but is there not a further illogicality? If one accepts the argument that the only foxes killed by hunting are those that are old, diseased or lame, why does it take a hunt so long to catch them? Why do hunts engage in activities specifically designed to prolong the hunt?
Mr. Salter:
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Later in my contribution, which was intended to be short, I shall refer to the havoc caused by hunts.
One problem is that hunts are not confined to fields but stray on to roads and railway lines. It is a miracle that they ever manage to catch foxes. That is why it is nonsense to
claim that this so-called sport has anything to do with pest control. I should have more respect for hunters and their Conservative supporters if they did not make such claims.
Mr. David Taylor:
Does my hon. Friend endorse the conclusions of research into control of the fox population, which suggest that the population is largely self-balancing? If foxes are vigorously hunted, leaving only a small number in a large terrain, they will breed more frequently and produce larger litters. If the population grows larger than can be supported by the terrain, the animals breed less frequently and produce smaller litters.
Mr. Salter:
I am sure that that is so, but I am also sure that there is a case for pest control in certain circumstances. Let us be in no doubt--we farm the land, putting animals on the land to produce food for ourselves, and that upsets the balance of nature.
On a humane alternative to hunting or, as I would prefer to put it, a sensible method of pest control, let me tell the House a short anecdote. Before the general election, I was involved with many other colleagues in campaigning for--
Mr. Taylor:
My hon. Friend had a proper job then.
I was campaigning for the House and the Labour party to take the issue of a hunt ban seriously. We were collecting signatures in Broad street in Reading, and we had no problem whatever in attracting the support of the local population for a ban on hunting. In fact, I believe that most Members will concur that by far the largest amount of mail that they have received on any one issue in this Parliament has been that in support of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester.
Mr. Salter:
I should like to develop this point; then I shall be happy to take an intervention.
I was genuinely surprised that one fellow signed the petition. He was a gamekeeper, working on a rural Berkshire estate. This was a person whose job depended on the countryside. I asked him, "Why do you support the campaign against fox hunting?" and he replied, "Mr. Salter, hunts will often protect areas to allow foxes to breed so that the hunt will have a quarry to hunt." That simple fact drives a coach and horses through the pro-hunt lobby's argument. I asked the gamekeeper, "What is the alternative for humanely controlling the fox population where it is necessary?" and he said to me, "If you want to put a fox down, you can shoot it. We are gamekeepers; we are professionals. We rarely miss, and we know our job. That is the humane way to control foxes where they are pests."
Mr. Salter:
I give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
Mr. Gray:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and many gamekeepers would say exactly what he describes
Mr. Salter:
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure of the relationship between pheasant shooting and the deliberate professional culling of foxes that are proving to be a pest.
Mr. Salter:
I will take no more interventions; I want to conclude.
I want to touch on the libertarian arguments that were pursued primarily by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. All societies draw a line somewhere in controlling the activities of the population, by legalising or outlawing certain activities. The age at which sexual activity between consenting persons is deemed lawful is an example. The fact that we are in favour of lowering the age of consent, be it for heterosexuals or homosexuals, be it from 21 to 18 or from 18 to 16, shows that we are prepared to draw a line in the sand. It does not mean that we are in favour of anything else. I am afraid that the libertarian arguments that are advanced by the pro-hunt lobby are exactly the same arguments that are used to justify badger baiting, otter hunting and cockfighting.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |