House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2002 - 03
Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates
Hunting Bill

Hunting Bill

Column Number: 799

Standing Committee F

Tuesday 4 February 2003

(Afternoon)

[Part II]

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

[Continuation from column 798]

7.30 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Gray: I have a couple of points to make before we wrap up our debate on the group of amendments that we were dealing with before our break.

It is disappointing that the Minister has thought it necessary this afternoon to rebuke and handbag everything that the Opposition have suggested. There is a long and distinguished tradition of Ministers listening carefully to what is discussed in Standing Committees and offering to re-examine certain points and consider tabling amendments on Report. It is unnecessary for the Minister simply to argue consistently against every word that we say, not because it is wrong but because it is the Opposition who are saying it.

That applies particularly to the question whether the Bill should allow two or 40 dogs to be involved in flushing or stalking. We believe that if one is flushing game out of a big forestry area, such as is found in many parts of Wales, having a large number of dogs—I snatched the figure 40 out of mid-air—is a good idea. The Minister seems to acknowledge that two is insufficient but in response to our points, he said only that if we wanted a number between two and 40, why did we not propose it and that he will not do anything about it because we did not table an amendment along those lines.

A reasonable way of approaching the Committee would be to admit that we have made an interesting point and that there may be circumstances in which two dogs were insufficient. He could say that although the proposed number of 40 was wrong because it would result in confusion for the group registration, there was some merit in what we have said about the number of dogs it takes to flush mammals out of certain covers. For him to say, ''I accept two is not enough but you didn't say anything else, so you can get lost'' is to allow bad legislation to become law and to prompt problems for the courts. He will do that not because the Minister has considered our points and disagreed with them, but for purely ideological reasons.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should first acknowledge that I have been perfectly willing to listen to what he has said on various occasions. On amendment No. 50, he admits that he plucked the number 40 from the air but expects it to be taken seriously. He has not argued for a number other than two; three or five, for example He has simply plucked a number from the air and said that we should respond

Column Number: 800

to it more intelligently than the drafting of his amendment.

Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman summarises my position extremely accurately. I chose the number 40 from mid-air and am not arguing passionately in favour of it. I expect him to answer intelligently, although I realise that it is a forlorn aspiration that he should respond intelligently to anything. My point, to which the Minister plainly was not listening, was that if he acknowledges that two is too few, and even if 40 is the wrong number, it would be perfectly reasonable for him, as a Minister of the Crown, to say that we have made an interesting point and that he will ask his officials to examine it. He could consider the matter, take further evidence and come back to it on Report, but he will not do that.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend accept that Ministers are normally prepared to defend their proposals in such situations? I can remember many occasions on which the Opposition pressed me as a Minister to explain a particular point. The Minister has been asked politely why he has chosen the figure of two, but he has said only that he has chosen two because he has chosen two. That is surely not a satisfactory position for him to take, and—

The Chairman: Order. That is far too long an intervention.

Mr. Gray: I agree that that is not a satisfactory response. To pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I well remember when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment and I was his special adviser. I heard him saying on many occasions in this Room that hon. Members had made interesting and useful points, which he intended to take away and ask for further advice on, and that he might or might not come back to them on Report.

In reality, we rarely came back to them on Report because officials nearly always advanced a powerful argument for why something was as it was in the first place, but I do not ever recall my right hon. Friend simply dismissing the Opposition and saying—

The Chairman: Order. I hesitate to intervene because we have had a long, long day, but I must say two things. First, I urge the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendment. Secondly, I have no intention of resurrecting the debate that we had before the break. I should make that clear.

Mr. Gray: Quite right, Mr. Stevenson. I agree with you entirely. [Interruption.] The Minister is now sniggering from a sedentary position, but it was he who raised the matter; I merely answered his point.

A further point on amendment No. 296, which we have not covered sufficiently, concerns falconry. The Minister dismissed it rather airily, but it is worth thinking about further. Falconers use dogs to seek quarry such as grouse, hares, pheasants and rabbits and flush them from cover. The training of young dogs often occurs without a hawk so that the falconer can concentrate on the dogs. For example, two mature cocker spaniels will be run with a third, immature cocker to encourage energy and enthusiasm and to demonstrate how to flush quarry from cover and obey

Column Number: 801

the falconer's commands. Three or more dogs will often be—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has now said six or eight times from a sedentary position that I have said that already. I have often been told that the truer something is, the more it is worth repeating.

Mr. Luff: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying, which is marvellous; the Minister is already convinced by it and has said that he will re-examine the matter.

The Chairman: Order. All hon. Members have shown during our Committee sittings that they are only too enthusiastic to intervene. They do not need to be encouraged or invited to do so, so I implore hon. Members to bear that in mind. It would help enormously.

Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. I shall not encourage hon. Members at all; they are dreadful when one encourages them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has informed me that the Minister has already undertaken to look into the matter. I fear that I was not listening as carefully as I should have been. If that is the case, I apologise. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 205, in

    schedule 1, page 21, line 31, leave out subparagraph (5).

Having had a relatively light-hearted interruption to our sitting, we turn to what the Opposition believe to be an extremely important matter; the deletion of the paragraph referred to in the amendment. The amendment would exempt the use of dogs below ground to flush out animals, which is not allowed under the exemptions in the Bill. The amendment would therefore correct a key inconsistency. Dogs are allowed to flush a fox from cover of all kinds. We had an interesting discussion on that a moment ago. They can flush a fox from woods, long grass or hollow trees. We have been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use a dog for flushing from all kinds of areas, but we will not be able to use a dog to flush from a drain underground.

One interesting question that might be discussed at greater length is what is meant by underground. If there is a bridge over a river and a fox is under the bridge, is that underground? It is certainly under the road, but above what would otherwise be known as the ground. Or are we simply talking about rabbit holes, badger setts and that kind of thing, which are truly underground? In the case of anything below the surface of the ground, there is no reason—using the justification of animal welfare—necessarily to ban the use of dogs underground.

The National Gamekeepers Organisation, an excellent organisation, is worried about some of the inadvertent effects of the Bill. I shall quote in full what it says, as it is important:

Column Number: 802

    ''This crucial amendment allows for the use of terriers underground to flush foxes out for the purpose of pest control. It is especially vital for correct and safe management of the fox population. Forty six per cent. of gamekeepers use terriers in controlling foxes. The practice is invaluable where lamping and snaring are problematic. It is absolutely essential to the correct management of Britain's fox population.''

In parentheses, Wales is a particularly good example, as about 33 per cent. of all foxes killed in the Welsh uplands are killed using terriers going to guns. The National Gamekeepers Organisation goes on to say:

    ''If terrier work is not allowed to be 'exempt hunting', then half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to 'register' in order to use terriers. This would mean 2,000 applications, every one contested no doubt by opponents of field sports; no guarantee that the Registrar or the Tribunal would accept such applications; publication of the names of gamekeepers (a godsend to those intent on stealing firearms); and the unprecedented presence of animal welfare bodies on private land when terriers were being used. All this for the continuation of a necessary pest control activity that the Government is pledged to support.''

The gamekeepers make a good point.

Let us imagine that, as a result of the Bill, the use of hounds for the pursuit of foxes in particular is outlawed and not a single pack of foxhounds is left in the United Kingdom. By what means will we kill foxes? No doubt some members of the Committee would say, ''Let's not kill them at all. Let's leave them.'' Certainly some hon. Members suffer from anthropomorphism, saying ''Let them go into an old folks' home and die a quiet death ultimately''. However, there is no realism in that. No one who knows anything about the countryside or who gave evidence to Burns or at the Portcullis house hearings would argue that case.

Everybody has agreed that the same number of foxes, or more, would be killed after the abolition of fox hunting, primarily by the use of terriers. That was acknowledged in Scotland, where the use of terriers underground was allowed to continue, for the good reason that that would be the primary method of dealing with foxes after hunting was banned. Gamekeepers in Britain today kill between 70,000 and 80,000 of foxes a year, a large percentage as a result of terrier work. That would stop if gamekeepers were not allowed to continue.

The reason is simple. Fox numbers have been the major factor in the decline of red grouse, partridge and all kinds of game birds. There is a serious depredation on game birds by foxes. That is why the Minister amended the utility definitions to include the words ''wild birds'', which is the same as ground-nesting birds. He acknowledges the depredations by foxes; he acknowledges that we must kill foxes if we are to avoid those depredations. By far the most satisfactory means of doing so, if we are not to use hounds, is by using terriers to locate the foxes and/or bolt them from underground.

Labour Members may not understand fully how that happens. We often hear propaganda that describes the terriers meeting a cornered fox underground and a terrible battle ensuing. The terriers are often injured and the fox is injured. The propaganda says: ''It is all awful and there is blood everywhere. Isn't that ghastly? How would you like to be down a hole, cornered by a terrier?'' That merely

Column Number: 803

shows that those who think in that way—I see that hon. Members agree with me—do not know how terriers work.

The terrier is put down a hole and, nine times out of 10, the fox comes out of another hole into the waiting guns, which then shoot it. On occasions the fox may go into a dead end, and the terrier controls it there. As soon as that happens, the terrier man digs straight down. He knows where they are by means of radio beacons round the terriers' necks.

 
Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 4 February 2003