| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Hunting with Dogs: Ban
11.38 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move to resolve, That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons in Session 2000–01 [Bill 2]. (Ban)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House for explaining this slightly unusual procedure. I begin my remarks by formally moving the first Motion, but, as was explained, I shall refer to all three.
The House will be aware that similar Motions were debated and voted on in another place yesterday. A clear preference was established by that House. That debate fulfils our manifesto commitment that there would be an early opportunity to vote on the future of hunting with dogs. It also fulfils the announcement in the Queen's Speech after the election. This House is now to be given the same opportunity to express our view.
These debates are an important step towards fulfilling the second part of our manifesto promise, which is to enable there to be a conclusion on this issue. So today's debate is the next step towards a conclusion. It is not an invitation to opt for deadlock or for delay.
Hunting with dogs is contentious, and the issue needs to be resolved. There is obviously no right time for everyone to try to resolve it; yet the future of hunting is an important issue for many who want to see an end to what they perceive as cruelty, and for those who want matters to remain as they are.
There have been a good few legislative attempts to deal with hunting, mainly through Private Members' Bills, and last year the Government introduced the Hunting Bill. That Bill was an attempt to enable each of the—broadly speaking—three main lobbying groups to set out their preferred solution before Parliament, with the Government remaining neutral. It was a matter for a free vote on all sides in both Houses.
It was hoped—I say hoped rather than expected—that the three main groups would come together behind one option, but that did not happen. Rather than coming together, views had polarised between the Houses by the time the Bill fell in your Lordships' House.
I also remind your Lordships of the report on hunting, which the Government commissioned in 2000. Those of your Lordships who have been involved in the hunting debate, whatever their personal views on hunting, have been united in their admiration for the quality of the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which sets out the facts surrounding the hunting that takes place now and the consequences of a ban. I am sure there will be many references to it today.
We have already accepted the format of the Motions that we are debating in our consideration of the programme Motion. A vote on these alternative Motions provides—in relative terms at least—a straightforward method of taking the views of both Houses in as close as we can get to a clear and unambiguous manner, at a point during the Session that does not take too much time out of the busy programme faced by both Houses.
The options contained in the Hunting Bill 2000 form the basis of the options in the Motions before us today. The first option has been described as a ban or prohibition on hunting with dogs. The second is hunting under licence or regulation, which has also been described as the middle way. The third option is supervision, which has been described as self-regulation and is the nearest of the three Motions to the status quo.
My ministerial colleague in another place, Alun Michael, has held discussions at some length and in some detail with all the interest groups, all of whom have considered refinements to the detail of their options as originally drafted. Things have therefore moved on. In particular, the option proposed by Deadline 2000—the first of the options—was amended during its consideration in Standing Committee and on Report in another place before the Bill arrived in your Lordships' House. However, referring to the three options as set out at the time of introduction of the last Bill in the other place is probably the simplest way of defining the basic choices that your Lordships are being asked to vote on.
I am well aware from the long list of speakers that all interest groups are represented in your Lordships' House. Anyone speaking in the debate can explain the nuances of the latest thinking on their preferred option—or any others.
I remind your Lordships that the Government have remained neutral on the question. No Whip has been imposed on these Benches for the votes that will come at the conclusion of today's debate. I understand from the usual channels that that is also the position of the Official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats. I understand from the media and other sources that there are some unusual channels operating around the debate, but they have nothing to do with the Government, the Whips or the political parties in this House. This is a genuinely free vote. It is therefore essentially a parliamentary issue rather than a government one. We certainly respect that fact.
Some of your Lordships may be interested in my own position. This is a free vote for Ministers as well. The way I voted on the issue in the last Session is on
the record. For those who have not checked, I will give you a clue. I am a bit old fashioned about these matters. If an issue has both been long-standing Labour Party policy and been voted for overwhelmingly by the democratically elected House, I tend to support it. Unless in the next umpteen hours or so I hear something new in this debate—that is a possibility, albeit remote—I intend to stick to that position. In any case, my role today is not as an advocate of any position, but I thought that I should make my position clear for the record. My role today is as a humble facilitator to your Lordships to make your own decision.My colleague Alun Michael gave an assurance in debate in the other place yesterday that the points made by your Lordships in today's debate will be given careful consideration. I shall ensure that all points, particularly new ones, are made known to my ministerial colleagues when they are deciding how to take things forward. Alun Michael has also said that once the votes have taken place today, he will make a Statement—which will, of course, be repeated in your Lordships' House—outlining the way forward. All I can say at the moment is that this will be before the Easter Recess.
The purpose of the Motions before the House is to give all your Lordships the opportunity to consider the issue, to make their views clear and then to vote. We all recognise that hunting is an emotive issue on which principled and deeply felt opinions are held among all groups and are likely to be expressed in this House as elsewhere. I have said clearly that this is not a party issue. All parties in this House and elsewhere have the full spectrum of opinions represented in their ranks. Although this will be a passionate debate, it will be genuinely and personally passionate, not a contrived party passionate debate.
However, there is another division, which I hope that we shall manage to avoid—the tendency to treat this as an issue between town and country. Whatever else the opinion polls are held to show, the division of opinion in rural areas is no more than a few percentage points different from that in urban areas. There are hundreds of thousands of people in rural areas who passionately oppose hunting with hounds, just as there are many in urban areas who oppose a ban. That is also my personal experience of people who live in town and country. Passions run deep on all sides, not just in the drawing rooms of Hampstead, but also in the market towns and villages of our countryside. It is hugely misleading and a disservice to the interests of the countryside to represent this issue as an attack by the town on the countryside.
Country dwellers of all persuasions also say—and here I have considerable sympathy with them—that this is not the most important issue facing the countryside. That is why I and my colleagues in DEFRA are spending all the other days of this Session and of this year trying to tackle the basic problems of our rural communities and the sustainability of agriculture and the rural economy.
However, today we are dealing with hunting, which is an issue that needs to be resolved. This debate is a step towards resolving it. It is not a cause for deadlock, but a path towards resolution. The debate in the other place yesterday was interesting, particularly for those who are fascinated by this subject. We shall see how the debate develops in this House. The Government—in particular my ministerial colleague Alun Michael and I—will listen to what is said today. I am confident that in one way or another it will illuminate the way forward.
I look forward to the debate. I beg to move the first Motion.
Moved to resolve, That this House considers that the hunting of wild mammals with dogs should be prohibited in accordance with provision similar to Schedule 3 to the Hunting Bill as introduced in the Commons in Session 2000–01 [Bill 2]. (Ban)—(Lord Whitty.)
11.48 a.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I say first from this Dispatch Box that today will be a free vote for us. I must then declare my interests: a family farm, an early career in poultry management and, in days when time and agility allowed, hunting with the Quorn. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has expressed his personal view. It shows, I suggest, not much compromise.
My remarks will focus on the issue of hunting with hounds as it is popularly perceived—that is to say, fox hunting. I do not propose to argue the nuances between that and stag hunting or hare coursing, or even coarse fishing. Noble Lords on all sides of the debate may wish to do so, but so far as I am concerned we are dealing with a fundamental principle that can be adequately explained by reference to fox hunting alone. I do not decry the subsidiary arguments, but I shall focus on the Motions before us.
It is incredible that we are again debating the question of hunting with dogs when the countryside is in crisis. Time given to this Bill has resulted in the abandonment of the criminal justice Bill and the extradition Bill. Farm incomes are at an all-time low; meat is still being imported illegally. France still refuses to take British beef and the Government remain unwilling to hold a public inquiry into the crippling foot and mouth outbreak. Does that not show clearly how out of touch the Government are with the concerns of people in the countryside?
Today we are being asked to vote on three schedules to the Hunting Bill which were considered last year. Government thinking has not progressed much in that time. I believe that there are four essential issues which need addressing—animal welfare, liberty, law enforcement and rural communities.
As regards animal welfare, I say to those who are so vocal in their opposition to hunting with hounds that banning hunting will not mean that fewer foxes are killed. Alternative forms of killing by shooting, trapping or poisoning are more abhorrent. None of them is painless; indeed, they will cause additional
suffering. Is it not ridiculous that the Scottish Bill bans hunting but allows a regime where foxes are driven towards guns?Vets are experts on animal welfare. Their views were sought in an NOP poll last autumn. In a survey of 1,000 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 520 were running rural practices, 380 urban practices and 100 a mix of the two. Out of those, 63 per cent of rural vets opposed a total ban, but so did more than half the number of urban vets. More vets of both types felt that a ban would increase the suffering of foxes rather than decrease it.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns—the Minister paid tribute to the noble Lord and his committee—in this House on 12th March last year stated that his inquiry concluded that if in upland areas dogs could not be used at least to flush out foxes from cover, their welfare would be adversely affected. He repeated that once the fox was caught, insensibility and death would normally follow in seconds.
Hunting disperses foxes to fresh pasture; it tends to cull the old and the sick and thereby reduce the risk of pockets of disease affecting foxes, livestock and other wild animals. Hunts provide a valuable service in taking fallen stock from farms. Indeed, this last year they helped with the culling of animals caught up in the foot and mouth outbreak.
I turn now to liberty. Hunting has been legal in this country for centuries and is currently open to anyone and everyone, as was reflected by Clarissa Dickson Wright's programme. As with football, bingo and coarse fishing—the latter the chosen hobby of Tony Banks—hunting is not everyone's choice.
But we live in a country that strives to tolerate its minorities. In recent years enormous efforts have gone into reducing prejudice and disallowing discrimination in all aspects of our daily lives. I cannot understand how a government who embrace inclusion and political correctness so loudly appear to be prepared to spend precious time on what is, when all is said and done, an attempt by a vocal minority to remove freedom of action from another minority of people of whom they do not approve.
The Government should be addressing real problems of rural resource, let alone running the nation generally. On grounds of liberty and freedom of choice for the individual, I shall oppose a ban.
Law enforcement is a serious issue. The Home Secretary tells us of daily increases in the number of police recruits and of increases in the number of inmates in our prisons and of car thefts. Parish councils complain of the lack of police presence in rural areas and newspapers stress the fear of crime which keeps people prisoners in their own homes after dark.
I have a postbag filled with letters from people and organisations explaining carefully, clearly, and, in many cases, despairingly, why a total ban will be bad law. Hard cases make bad law. A submission from the public order sub-committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers expresses "significant concerns" at the practical difficulties of enforcing a total ban.
I have a letter from a police inspector, retired after some 30 years in rural Derbyshire, alerting me to the potential impact of a total ban on hunting on relationships between the police and the community in rural areas—a particularly significant consideration in current circumstances. Is it, I ask myself, sensible to divert valuable police time to enforce a ban on hunting when they are under so much pressure from violent crime?
We have all heard of the growing tide of complaints from village to village about the lack of police presence, rising numbers of burglaries, serious traffic violations and drug-related crimes. What will happen in the event of a total ban and the only time the police show up is when local riders decide to go across country to give their horses or dogs some exercise? And indeed the reverse. What will happen if they do not show up?
We are adding to the statue book a measure which will be unenforceable. The noble Lord, Lord Donoghue, is in his place. He said—in different circumstances—that there is a particular concern with this Government in arguing in favour of banning things.
I turn to rural communities. Since foot and mouth has started to wane, I have had the opportunity of visiting companies, farms and rural businesses. I have had countless meetings with trade associations, charities and countryside organisations. There have been interviews on radio and television. I am utterly convinced that rural communities need every possible assistance to maintain a viable livelihood, as, indeed, the noble Lord has just acknowledged.
This is not the time—there never was a time—to drive a wedge between town and country, but I fear that if we support a ban we will do exactly that. It is wrong to criminalise an activity against the advice of the Burns inquiry which found neither the practices to be intrinsically cruel nor damaging to the national interest. Now is not the time for the Government to encourage bigots to destroy Britain's rural economies.
I find myself having to advance a view that may be antipathetic to some Members. I find it utterly extraordinary that the Prime Minister no less, against a background of the serious issues which require his dedicated attention, should feel comfortable to vote for one thing and perhaps mean another. Is this the underlying premise on which the third way was based?
To an extent it may be excusable because this is free-vote territory. Your Lordships are being offered two other options. The whole issue of hunting is as much about personal liberty as anything else. I cannot help but feel that the Government have failed to grasp that, perhaps even to the extent of putting spin and party political considerations ahead of the national interest. It is of course a free vote, but I am proud to say that I shall be opposing those who support a ban on hunting. I desperately hope that all noble Lords appreciate what is at stake here.
11.59 a.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, running through my mind as I prepared for this debate was a comment apparently attributed to the chairman of a meeting in America who said that everything that could be said on the issue has been said but, unfortunately, not everyone has said it. I suspect that we could have our votes at 12 noon without too many changes of mind.
I should make it clear that I do not speak for my party on this issue. As with the Labour Party, there is a Liberal Democrat Party conference decision in favour of a total ban but we too are operating a free vote. As always with the Liberal Democrats, we will during the course of the day provide the House with a rich diversity of experience and opinion.
It is incumbent on me to say that I will vote, as I did last time, for the first option and against the other two. I am in favour of a total ban. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that this is not a town versus country issue. I was brought up on the cusp between seaside and countryside, in rural Fylde—close to Cumbria and the Lake District. I remember singing with gusto "Do yea ken John Peel?" in my primary school. During the half-term break, I took a holiday on Exmoor and saw what an excellent opportunity it provides for holidays. I came to realise how deeply held are the feelings about hunting on all sides in such an area and I respect the passion of the debate.
I put four questions to myself—and the House will be delighted that I have brief answers to all of them. First, do I believe that hunting with dogs is cruel? I do. Therefore, I do not think that there is a middle way between having hunting and banning hunting, which is why I shall vote as I said.
Secondly, should there be a separation between sport and pest control? I think so. I see the glamour, attraction and pageantry of the hunt. I am interested in knowing why that side of hunting could not be carried on by drag hunting as an alternative, not necessarily tied to pest control.
Individual freedom was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I know that strong views on that subject are held by no less a person than my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, which I am sure will influence his vote today. However, our history has been of Parliament legislating against certain aspects of individual freedom. I am sure that banning bear baiting, dogfighting or cockfighting impeded individual freedom and probably cost some jobs—but Parliament's decision was accepted. Each age makes its own decisions on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
I put to myself also the question asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in our last debate. I answered rather rudely, for which I apologise. The noble Lord questioned whether we were are the top of a slippery slope and suggested that we might next see legislation on shooting or fishing. I do not know what a future generation will decide. The question before us now concerns a ban on hunting. The Labour Party manifesto made it clear that there was no proposal to bring forward legislation on any other activity.
I accept that there are many more issues before the country than a ban on hunting. But the fact that this matter keeps returning cannot be laid only at the door of those who want hunting banned. We must reach a decision as part of a parliamentary process. We may do so on the basis of lobbying, which is quite legitimate, protests, marches and demonstrations, but ultimately it must be Parliament that makes the decision.
I am much impressed by another place coming to a clear and settled view. Four times since 1997 it has been asked its view on hunting and each time it has made the same decision. One remembers Henry Ford saying of the Model T,
- "You can have any colour so long as it's black".
I understand that there may be a majority in this House for the middle way, which will leave an interesting constitutional position. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly said that yesterday and today Parliament was fulfilling the first tranche of the Labour Party's commitment to allow Parliament to debate the issue. The second tranche is to allow Parliament to reach a conclusion. I am not aware of any Labour Party manifesto since 1918 that included the caveat that a proposal would be implemented subject to the veto of the House of Lords. Much of what the Labour Party has promised comes with a determination to defy this House to get its will.
Our procedures give the Government a clear way forward. In light of last night's vote in another place, the Government should bring forward a Bill based on the first option before us today. It might be sensible of the Government to offer a pre-legislative scrutiny committee—as with the Office of Communications Bill—to allow outside interests to put their views. Then the Bill should go through Parliament in the normal way. If your Lordships' House, in its wisdom, reaches a different view from another place, the Government should invoke the Parliament Act.
The clear and settled view of another place cannot be thwarted by this unelected House, the threat of extra parliamentary action or anything else. That would be a constitutional outrage. If such a veto were proposed in respect of any other issue, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, would be down here like a shot, threatening us, with that clinical smile of his, with an "Emasculation of Peers Bill". Why should this one issue be reserved for a veto by the House of Lords?
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the Prime Minister should come clean. It is time to stop the spin. The Government asked for the opinion of both Houses. Honourable Members of another place who voted yesterday have to get themselves re-elected. Knowing how difficult it is to get into another place and how easy it is to get out, I respect honourable Members who have to test their views with their electorates in a general election. An unelected House should be wary of throwing its weight about—and against the clear views of an elected Chamber.
I hope that the Government see it as their clear duty to bring forward a Bill, so that no more time is wasted, which should be subjected to the proper parliamentary process. This House should, as is its right, revise and advise—but in the end, I have no doubt that our constitution and democracy demands that the rights and opinions of the democratically elected House of Commons should prevail.
12.9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the Minister said, this is not the most important issue facing the countryside—I agree with that—but it involves important principles. He pointed out that probably the majority do not feel strongly about it. That is certainly true. However, an important minority on both sides care passionately. Therefore, our debate and vote today matter.
I should begin by declaring some non-financial interests; I have no financial interests. I am a trustee of or associated with two charities related to animals and animal welfare: the International League for the Protection of Horses and Animals in War. I am involved in various horse-racing activities. I grew up in the countryside. I have never hunted and I do not anticipate doing so. I have a dog and a shotgun licence but these are reserved for domestic pest control, mainly against magpies, rats and journalists!
I do not propose to re-examine all the arguments on this complex issue with which the House is now familiar. Anyway, like my old noble friend Lord McNally, I suspect that few remain still to be converted by the pros and cons of various forms of pest control. Therefore, I wish to focus, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, so excellently did, on a few central issues of concern to the main parties represented here.
I address my noble friends on the Labour Benches who I know are genuinely concerned about animal welfare. As has been stated, I ask them not to be deceived by the false argument that any ban, or the ban that is proposed, protects foxes or other mammals from suffering. Nor is it the case in this debate that one side is against cruelty to animals and the other side is for allowing cruelty. Through my observation over many years I believe that virtually everyone here abhors cruelty to animals. I certainly do. In the previous Session I introduced a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and to create a new criminal offence of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. If the Government do not include that provision in their new legislation, I shall reintroduce that Bill.
However, nothing we do, certainly not the ban, will prevent animals suffering and dying in the wild. Foxes, which are major inflicters of suffering on other animals, as my ducks discovered, as do thousands of lambs, will always have to be controlled. The excellent report of the independent Burns inquiry concluded that no method of fox control avoided suffering. It did not conclude that hunting is cruel and did not support a ban on hunting with dogs. That was an independent
view. Indeed, a ban in some ways increases animal suffering because, of course, it would lead to unregulated killing by shooting, poisoning or setting traps in which wounded animals die slowly and painfully. It would also result in hundreds of beautiful hounds having to be put down.In my view, the best way on offer to limit animal suffering is through the middle way licensing option because it has the welfare of animals at its heart. It advocates the amendment to the 1996 Act which I proposed to ban deliberate and unnecessary cruelty. The proposed statutory hunting authority would issue codes of conduct forbidding cruel practices and would license or withdraw licences accordingly; unlicensed hunting would be a criminal offence. As has been mentioned, chief police officers have announced their support for it as the only enforceable and therefore practical method. The majority of country vets affirm that it is the best approach for animal welfare.
I introduce what is for me an unaccustomed political dimension. I suggest to my noble friends on my Benches, speaking as a former Minister for farming, that the last thing our Government need at this time is to initiate fresh hostilities towards the countryside, which has enough problems. They certainly should not wish to impose unemployment on the countryside. Burns estimated that 10,000 to 13,000 jobs are directly or indirectly related to hunting. I always assumed that we were against unemployment. I add, having read yesterday's debate in the Commons, that I am still not totally convinced that those from West Ham in east London are necessarily best placed to judge what is in the best interests of the countryside.
I need not remind Liberal Democrats opposite, and also my own side, of that party's—I refer to the new party of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—great tradition of defending liberty. That has been a central theme in its proud history. The proposed ban would infringe the liberties of many country people. That may be what made Adolf Hitler an early supporter of banning hunting. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that throughout history we have infringed liberties. I say to the noble Lord that such an infringement of liberty could be justified only if it was clearly in the public interest. I also say to the noble Lord that the matter we are discussing is not like bear-baiting which was purely about cruelty and betting on cruelty. This matter is quite different. No such case for an infringement of liberty has been made anywhere, not in the Commons yesterday, in this House or outside.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page