| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether it is possible to shoot foxes with a shotgun?
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, yes, it is possible, but one would have to be very close—about 20 yards—to get a clean shot. To do that one would have to drive the fox. It would never happen if one was walking around in the bushes.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I want to congratulate all noble Lords on the fact that I am speaking, not in the nocturnal hours, but rather earlier than even I imagined. It is very difficult for any of your Lordships to say things that have not been said before. Most things have been said in previous debates and, given the speed at which we are moving through this debate, I think we all agree that we want to get to the vote and what we hope will be a decisive vote.
My noble friend Lord Whitty, in opening the debate, made the point that this was not an issue between the urban areas and the countryside. I have always lived in the countryside and I could not agree with him more. In our village, there is an interest in fox hunting, but there is also great interest in other rural subjects, particularly whether the post office will be kept open, the standard of the schools, the bus service and agriculture. Tourism is just as important. As stated by many speakers, we need to decide where we are going.
A debate on hunting with dogs always appears to concentrate on one issue—fox hunting. There is much more. It is about hare coursing and deer stalking; it is about pursuing mink as well as foxes. Often, those who support fox hunting say that it controls foxes, generally termed "pests". That is not correct. The foxes killed by hunts each year number between 20,000 and 25,000. That is only 6 per cent of the total killed. There are 50,000 to 60,000 killed on the roads, which is double the fox hunting figure. I have not heard anyone in this House suggest that the fact that foxes are killed on the road is a means of controlling them. I want to put that point in perspective.
I turn to hare coursing and deer stalking. I interrupted one of my noble friends when he was talking about the outlawing of pursuits such as bear
baiting, bull baiting and cock fighting. All the issues that have been raised today about interference with civic liberty were raised in connection with those pursuits. More recently, they have been raised in connection with otter hunting and badger baiting. The Bills passed relating to those activities affected people's enjoyment. There are restrictions, and rightly so, on what we do and on what we want to do. We must take into account the effect of our actions on others; in this case, on the animal being pursued. It is difficult to do that, which is one of the reasons why those in favour of hunting do not try to defend hare coursing. That is a spectator sport, although how people get pleasure from it I do not know. Nevertheless, that is what it is. In stag hunting, an animal is chased over a long period by hounds which are bred for stamina. The stag either falls exhausted or surrenders itself to the hounds. If it is lucky, it may be shot before they reach it.Those two issues are not debated, but I am told that people in various parts of the country may give up hare coursing and stag hunting in order to save fox hunting. That may or may not happen, but I must remind noble Lords that the issue goes far wider than fox hunting.
I cannot see how anyone arrives at the middle way. It is a licence for hunting or a licence for cruelty. That is my view of it and not everyone will agree with me. I know that there are those in the House who are in favour of hunting with hounds. I understand their position. I do not agree with it, but I understand it.
Equally, the House is always an extremely tolerant place and kind to all its Members. Noble Lords understand when people such as myself say that we are against it. However, I do not understand the so-called middle way—I say that it is a licence to hunt or to kill—which would introduce a huge bureaucracy but would not eliminate the cruelty; the chasing of animals by hounds. There is no middle way because a fox, deer or hare is killed at the end of the hunt. The cruelty is the chase, and the chase will remain. Some of my noble friends are attracted to the licensing of hunts. I ask them to bear in mind not only the bureaucracy which that will entail but also the chase, which many of us who are opposed to hunting with hounds see as the difficulty.
Finally—we have said almost everything that can be said on the subject—I want to deal with the House's position in relation to the elected House. The elected House has spoken decisively and similarly to the way it voted previously. When arguing for the reform of this Chamber, I have always been told that it is a reforming House. I have been told that we do not intend to challenge the other House but that we can ask it to think again. In this case, we are being set up. That is what I understand from the media and from what has been said. Perhaps not equal weight but certainly a great deal of weight will be placed on what this House decides as against what happened in the democratically elected Chamber.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. His Government have produced the plan. It is not this House or those of us who dream nostalgically of our long-past fox hunting days. The
Government have given this House the opportunity to debate the issue, so surely it is not for the noble Lord to complain about what his Government have done to it.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am most pleased that the noble Earl and I find ourselves on the same side. I am not saying that the Government have decided the matter—I know no more than the noble Earl knows about what the Government might decide. However, I am pointing out to the House the danger if it decides to go down a certain path and then has to face the other place whose Members must face the electorate. We do not have to do that. I have argued many times for changes to be made to this House. I believe that if noble Lords take that path they will bring democratic changes—many of which I would like to see—far quicker. I am pleased that the noble Earl agrees with me but we must not make too much of a habit of it.
This House is used to defending the indefensible. It often shows itself to be out of touch. When I first became a Member I was stopped by one far more experienced who said, "You will find that this House likes to discuss three subjects; agriculture, defence and other people's sex.". I would like to add another subject; hunting with hounds. That is fine. But I want to conclude by saying to your Lordships; please be extremely careful about going down the road on which you might be seen to challenge the other place, which is democratically elected. I believe that that is the way to disaster.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the bans on bear baiting and badger baiting are previous examples of legislation on animal welfare and cruelty? If so, is he aware that that legislation was in fact passed on public order grounds, because the sessions at which those activities took place were unruly and had nothing to do with welfare or cruelty?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in relation to legislation against badger baiting, which is relatively recent, that is certainly not the case. That was passed by both Houses. My point in drawing the comparison was that it would be far better if those who go fox hunting did not say that it was about pest control but admitted that it was about a sport they enjoy.
My second point was that other sports that have been outlawed have attracted speeches similar to those made here today. I am sure that the noble Lord does not want me to do, as several Members of the House of Commons did yesterday, and quote from people in 1800 making exactly the same speeches about interference with human liberty. I am amazed that we are even debating this so late as in this new century, but sooner or later hunting with dogs will come to an end. I am warning: do not get on a collision course with the elected House.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he accept that in my
relatively short experience of this place this House represents public opinion far more than does the other place?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend is quite entitled to believe that we do or do not represent public opinion. What we are not is an elected Chamber answerable to an electorate.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, made it into his earth by the skin of his teeth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, no doubt due to the failure of government transport policies, missed his earth by a long stop but will speak later.
I find myself as a British mammal—the only British mammal not on the list of the British Mammal Association; the human being is not there—speaking on behalf of mammals today. There are three sorts of mammals: the mammals of your Lordships' House and the mammals of another place, all of whom are in the hands of various control freaks. The mammals of another place live in fear of being chased out of their earth if they are not kind to all the minority groups that live in their constituencies, whether or not they believe what they say.
The mammals in your Lordships' House, to go back to when Tiberius outfoxed the Senate, are here—some 200 of them—with the support and on the decision of another type of mammal, which is known in French as the blaireau. When last I mentioned him, the Chief Whip gave me a rocket for speaking in a foreign language. I should therefore explain to your Lordships that a blaireau is an animal that wanders around the world, often up to no good, but is effectively a badger—Meles meles, as he is often known. It is on behalf of Meles meles, Vulpes vulpes and a few others, such as Rattus rattus, that I shall speak today.
Those are mammals of Celtic origin. The one that we are missing is of course the wild boar, the original symbol of the Celts, of whom I am proud to be one. We wiped out the wild boar some 270 years ago. My noble friend Lord Geddes still has the wild boar on his coat of arms but no longer hunts it. We wiped it out because it was what we in Norman French would call a nuisible. I apologise for using a foreign language, as does the Queen when she approves Bills, but a nuisible means a nuisance; it is vermin or something that does harm. The wild boar did harm, in that it ate crops and therefore threatened farmers' livelihoods. The wild boar had one great advantage, which was that we could eat it, and people are thinking of reintroducing it here.
I should explain that I have not hunted since I was 15 and gave it up with great pleasure. I had already become bow-legged and I now find myself bandy legged. I have not fired a shot in anger for many years. I have not fished. I suffer from the disadvantage that, by accident rather than design, I am now a fully qualified French peasant farmer, bound by certain rules and regulations that come to cause problems. I take as my texts today Aesop and La Fontaine.
As your Lordships will know, the figure of the fox, or Vulpes vulpes, is not just 100 years old, it goes back to Erasmus and many others. Erasmus said that a fox—meaning an old fox—can never be caught in a snare. We have not really discussed foxes. We can read of the Rattus rattus, which is in fact the more intelligent of the rats, the ship's rat that went ashore and destroyed the dodo in Madagascar. The common rat is not so common and, although there is meant to be one within 15 metres of everyone in London, the fox finds it difficult to catch the common rat. Ratting is vital to our society and rat catchers are some of the most skilled people that your Lordships may meet.
But now to the fox. There are three types of fox. First, we must consider for how long a fox lives. He lives on average for 18 months. Why are there three sorts of fox? During the first year, he is called a cub. In the second year, he is called a fox. In the third year, he is called an old fox.
He may well live—this is the rural fox—until four to five years. At four and a half years, his tail will go grey, but he is wise and we cannot trap him. He hunts never near his home. Like a crafty thief, he goes abroad so that no one can trace him. He is cunning and wise beyond all mammals. He is never inbred with other mammals. He is cheery and crafty and his life is short, mainly because of predators. The predator of the fox is not so much man as disease. Many of the young cubs, which are born around now, will die in the early autumn or the winter. Few foxes live to a ripe old age until we come to the question of the division between the town and the country.
The people in the town do not understand the country, and that is understandable; the people in the country, while they may from time to time feel envious of it, do not understand the town. But the fox—the Celtic fox in particular—knows which side his bread is buttered. If he moves into urban areas, his life expectancy rises to seven or perhaps 10 years. His predator in the urban area is not so much man but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, the motor car.
In the country, there is an average of 1.5 fox families per square kilometre—the British Mammal Society and others have moved to kilometres in this; in urban areas, that may rise to five or even 30. In the United Kingdom, we have a total fox population of about 220,000 before the spring births. That can rise to 600,000 before the autumn culls. Between about 15 and 20 per cent of Celtic foxes now live in urban areas, where they are well provided for. They do not fight with each other. Males passing by will conveniently turn their heads the other way, like Pharisees. They will squabble with cats but not fight with them—they will, of course, kill kittens. They like being fed and in general feed upon mice, worms, fruit and their friends, who feed them so much.
Foxes prefer gardens, of course; they do not like supermarkets, like many of us. They will go to eat to their pleasure in the garden of the person who feeds them—often with expensive dog food—and will then move to the neighbour's garden to remove the bits of
the food that they do not want to keep within them, which brings with it an enormous great smell. That is harmful and we could therefore say that they are nuisibles; they are vermin.Some of us are worried that the predator, which is often disease, is now at large again. In some urban areas, sarcoptic mange has substantially reduced the population during the past year. It can lead to scabies in humans. I am advised by those who know much more about the subject than I that it is transferable to dogs and that the mites that carry it then follow trails of carbon dioxide in order to attach themselves to other beasts—dogs. Then there is toxicara, which can lead to blindness in children. Those diseases are occurring. Your Lordships will have seen the difference between a really good looking, crafty fox, well-fed and moving at high speed and those which now cross Abbey Road—near where the Beatles used to cross—which are very mangy. The foxes on the estates of some of my former noble friends, such as the Duke of Westminster, are very healthy. The Belgravia fox lives in a rich area and many people feed him well.
I am not being light-hearted about this deliberately. Our worry is that it is fairly difficult to dispose of foxes. I return to my peasant farming environment. I do not hunt, but the hunters on the continent of Europe—I have consulted Italians and others because we thought that we might lead a peasants' revolt—are very passionate and see this as the thin end of the wedge. Foxes in northern France—the Pas-de-Calais and the Ardennes—are sick with rabies at the moment. To control them, we get some bright pilots from the RAF—or the equivalent, l'armée de l'air—and give them contraceptive pills, which they drop over fox country to stop the foxes reproducing. One cannot poison them, because one might also poison the dogs.
There are many hunting dogs in France and elsewhere on the Continent. I have said before that there was some enthusiasm about the prospect that there would be many good hunting dogs going cheap, if we got rid of hunting here. The dogs are used there, particularly at this time of the year, to cull foxes. When the shooting season has finished, they must get rid of the foxes. It is extraordinarily difficult to shoot them without packs of dogs. The areas of continental Europe are often divided into quartiles, in which all those with hunting licences—anyone with a gun must have a gun licence and a hunting licence—are dragooned by the mairie into bringing out their dogs, often 50 or 60 of them. They surround an area from which they flush out and shoot foxes and also retrieve those that may be wounded. Many foxes are wounded; it is extraordinarily difficult to shoot a fox. Your Lordships should try to work out how many times they have seen a fox within range when out walking in the country, compared with the number of times that one might see one within range when driving around urban areas.
I have a great regard for the fox. I have a great regard too for the badger and the wild boar. However, we must realise that they are vermin, and we should determine the harm that they do. The fox does an incredible amount of harm; we need not go back to the
fables to realise that. He is a trusty opponent of man. At the moment, I think that he is winning the argument. Tiberius once said that he had out-foxed the senate: at the moment, we are being out-foxed by the fox.3.52 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is always a hard act to follow.
I thought of starting by extolling libertarian principles and the value of our traditions, particularly those traditions that go with the grain of the natural order and have inspired so much magnificent prose, poetry and painting. However, it is plain that many people do not rank individual freedoms highly in their list of priorities. Many others are positively impatient with tradition—British tradition, at any rate—and their convictions are unlikely to be changed by five or six minutes of argument. I thought it wiser to concentrate on the accusations hurled at those who hunt by those who want to criminalise hunting and try to refute their allegations.
I was prompted to do so, above all, by an intervention made last Wednesday, 13th March, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—I am glad to see that he is in his place—in which he claimed, at col. 852 of the Official Report, that there would be,
- "a reduction in the reputation of this House"
The first accusation or slur made against those who hunt is that they take sadistic pleasure in watching from close quarters foxes being ripped apart. If those who hunt protest that that is nonsense, the answer is, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?". I, who do not hunt, say that it is nonsense, and I have spoken to many people about it. When it comes to the kill, most hunt followers, other than those whose job requires them to be right up at the front, rein in their horse, hang back and avert their gaze to the maximum extent consistent with not appearing wimpish. As in all cultures and civilisations over the past 4,000 or 5,000 years, death is the natural culmination of the chase. However, it is not something to be gloated over. The swift death of the quarry is what all sportsmen and sportswomen hope for.
Some who make a less extreme claim absolve those who hunt from sadism or gloating but maintain that they derive pleasure specifically from death. How much more is that the case with those who shoot? Unlike a hunt, a day's shooting is a disaster if no
animals are killed. Will shooting shortly be banned? There is also the claimed analogy with bear-baiting. Bear-baiting was not a rural sport; it was an urban entertainment. A present-day equivalent might be a striptease show. Bear-baiting was totally one-sided. There was no danger to the humans who participated and no uncertainty as to the outcome. The analogy is false.There is the challenge, "How would you like to be killed by a pack of dogs?". Of course, I would not like it, any more than I would like to be shot in the abdomen and left to die slowly or have a barbed hook shoved through the roof of my mouth into my nasal passage or be gassed or poisoned or lined up outside a slaughterhouse, waiting to be killed and with the smell of the blood and guts of those of my companions who had gone before me assailing my nostrils. However, those of an anthropomorphic inclination fail to realise that, although animals—including fish—certainly feel pain and instinctive fear, they do not have imagination. Above all, animals are not squeamish.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, hardly any wild animals die comfortably tucked up in bed. Given that most animals' deaths are uncomfortable, painful or both, their interest lies in having a death that is as quick as possible. In that respect, as many noble Lords have said, hunting comes out well, compared to shooting, poisoning or trapping.
We come to the next fallacy, the fallacy that shooting is quick and painless. It is understandable that a generation of people, of whom few have seen battle and few themselves shoot, should imagine that. They have been brought up on a diet of Hollywood films in which people are either grazed lightly on the arm by a bullet or shot dead instantaneously and painlessly without a drop of blood. I am afraid that the reality is somewhat different, and that applies to shooting with rifles as well as shotguns. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, explained that concisely.
What is left? There is the Ann Widdecombe argument, echoed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who advanced it with great courtesy and moderation, as one would expect. As I understand it, Miss Widdecombe concedes that the kill at a hunt is no more cruel than any other method of killing but maintains that the chase is cruel. How can one be so certain? As has been said, the Bateson report has been criticised from many professional quarters. I have seen quite a few foxes hunted in my time. Generally, they look unfussed and often trot off at a leisurely pace. In contrast, hares and rabbits being driven by beaters towards a line of guns look positively terrified. Should we ban shooting on that account?
If noble Lords do not trust me, as a layman, they should trust the experts. Some might choose to misinterpret Burns, but they cannot misinterpret the vets. Few of them hunt, but a decided majority supports hunting, not on libertarian grounds—that may have played a minor role—but on animal welfare grounds. What more need one say?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, as we are getting on in this debate, I do not wish to over-repeat some of the excellent points that have been made both in this debate and the previous one and both in this House and the other place. However, I think that they clearly show that the issue is not about the welfare of the fox. I also make no apology for coming back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, as it needs to be re-emphasised. Mr Course, previous director of the League Against Cruel Sports, and three of that organisation's directors had the moral integrity to become convinced during their period of office that the safest and most humane way of controlling foxes is by hunting. I think that their evidence is very telling. As the current arrangements have given us the healthiest and best fox population in Europe, it is difficult to argue that hunting needs to be abolished on welfare grounds.
This ancient and venerable sport lies at the heart of the social cohesion of deep rural areas. It is for many who work there the one activity that alleviates their hard-working lives. It is at the centre of their socialising, giving them a shared sense of purpose with their neighbours. It bonds the community. To deny it would be like saying to those who live in town, "You cannot play football". Its termination would be a travesty of justice and a wholly unnecessary end to a great tradition. It would also do away with one of the few occasions in this over-nannied world when one can be personally brave. Most of those who object to fox hunting have never done it and have never seen it. Their objection to fox hunting, sadly, is social resentment masquerading as animal welfare. The sad thing is that they do not know the harm that they would do.
I say all that by way of background because to ask Parliament to turn something of which some people disapprove into a criminal offence is a big and dangerous step for any government to take. It has huge political implications as to how government deals with other ethical issues in a free society. Unfortunately, we do not have a written constitution. The central point that I should like to make, really in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is that democracy is not in its simplest sense the enforcement of majority will. Democracy should be about the protection of minority rights. I remind the House of the famous words of the American President Jefferson:
- "All too will bear in mind the sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable, that the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".
Legislators in those days carefully thought about their actions within the framework of personal liberty. In 1859, John Stuart Mill, in his famous essay on liberty, said:
- "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant".
The real issue today is one of personal liberty and the degree to which the state should interfere in a free society where the rights of no fellow human beings are being endangered in any way. That is why the outcome of this debate should cause everyone, even the most ardent defenders of animal rights, deep misgivings over what the right to live in a free country really means. I hope that this House, whose task it is to take a reflective and balanced view, will do so, and in due course vote that this aged tradition shall continue in some middle way in this country, as it will continue in other free countries of the western world.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am afraid that I have a fistful of interests to declare. I am president of the Countryside Alliance; chairman of the Labour supporters' "Leave Country Sports Alone" campaign; a member of the all-party Middle Way Group; and a member of the RSPCA. I hunt every week, sometimes with foxhounds, but usually with the staghounds on Exmoor.
As a lawyer, I ask myself, what are we doing here? Leaving aside what is going on abroad, two weeks ago, our Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, urged a reduction in prison sentences as our prison system had reached danger level. Two days ago, our Home Secretary had to accept that serious crime had made it unsafe to walk on the streets of many of our towns and cities. Yet, last night in another place, and here in this House today, the Government have provided time for us to consider passing legislation to criminalise up to half a million of some of our most law abiding, deeply rooted, most responsible citizens, drawn primarily from the farming and the rural communities which are just recovering from their worst economic blow in modern times.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a powerful speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, after him, urged that this House should not seek to frustrate the wishes of the elected Chamber. But surely it is not the role of this House to stand by and watch an injustice being perpetrated. Nor is it our role here to sit back and watch bad law reach the statute book. When those of us who were appointed to this Chamber gave up our right to vote for our elected representatives, we did not take a vow that we would not object or raise our voices when legislation came before us. I for my part have no intention of doing so either today or later if, as I suspect, this matter returns here.
It is, I think, also our role to remind those in another place that love of liberty, and tolerance of the different views of others, particularly those which one may dislike, are the cornerstones of our particular brand of parliamentary democracy. If we knock them aside, the whole institution will be weakened. I accept that in a civilised society—which all of us here today will claim that we want—liberty cannot be paramount. Cruelty trumps liberty. If there were evidence that the activities we are discussing, when properly conducted, are cruel—and let us be clear what we mean by cruelty; it is the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering—then liberty and tolerance must give way.
The former Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw, set up the inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, so that we should know the answer. In this House, in our previous debate, the noble Lord spelt out in clear and unequivocal terms that his team did not find evidence of cruelty. My noble friend Lord Harrison cannot have been in his place when the noble Lord said that. Indeed, it was the Burns report which raised the possibility of a licensing system, which we are also discussing today and I shall be supporting. Such a suggestion could not possibly have been made had that inquiry found that there was inherent cruelty. Others have mentioned that the majority of vets have urged caution in relation to this legislation because, in their view, animal welfare will be harmed, not improved by it.
Despite all that evidence, supporters of a ban press on. If we are to pass criminal legislation based on cruelty, there must be some evidence of it. Saying something is cruel—as the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Harrison, and my noble friend Lady Gale did—does not make it so, any more than my saying that it is not cruel means that it is not. The test of cruelty surely must be an objective one for the courts, with findings based on evidence after an impartial and unemotional examination of the facts. The proper way to address the question of cruelty in hunting is not a blanket ban in the face of the evidence, but reform of the Protection of Animals Acts along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in the previous Session and adopted now by the middle way. It should be a criminal offence deliberately to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. I believe that properly conducted hunting passes that test, and the refusal of the supporters of a ban to support that approach makes me suspect that, in their heart of hearts, so do they.
Since the previous debate, I have changed my approach. I still believe that the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, which I helped to set up, is working well and effectively. However, I now believe that this damaging and divisive issue must be removed from the mainstream political agenda. In order to do that, there has to be public confidence in the way in which hunting is conducted and regulated, and both sides of this debate have to be willing to move from their hitherto entrenched positions. I do not know whether that can be achieved but I know that on the side from which I come there is a will to try, and we shall do so. Therefore, I shall vote against a ban, vote for hunting under licence and shall abstain from the third vote, on supervision.
I have been greatly encouraged—I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my comments—by the universal praise I have had from local hunts for their DEFRA officials at local level who have been handling the licensing and permit system since December. That shows that with co-operation and good will on both sides, a licensing system can be made to work well.
I understand that my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael is to make a statement shortly about the way forward. Contrary to his speech last night, there have been rumours that decisions already have been made. I hope that those rumours are wrong. I make it clear that any attempt to criminalise any of the present forms of hunting in the absence of evidence of cruelty would be wholly unacceptable and, indeed, an outrage to those who feel as I do.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle spoke about deer hunting, which is close to my heart. I have to say to the noble Lord—he is a good friend of mine—that if I could take him and show him, I could point out that almost everything he had to say on the subject was wrong. In my view, of all forms of hunting, that is the most defensible. The red deer herds on the Quantocks and Exmoor simply would not exist but for the protection which the local community and hunting provides for them. It is the local culture that one does not shoot the deer. That is why there is the strongest, healthiest herd in Great Britain and why recently the Exmoor National Park—I hope that the Government will listen to this even if they ignore every word I say—has expressed the deepest concerns, not just for the economy of that region but also for the welfare of that valuable deer herd, which, with a ban, would be gone in a short time.
It is significant that on the National Trust estate on Exmoor, where deer hunting stopped in 1997, today four times as many deer are now shot each year and the casualty rate has soared by 25 times. I fear that what we warned would happen is happening. My noble friend Lord Hoyle also said that no one supports coursing. I have not been many times, and I have enjoyed it. I have a lurcher and I go out around my farm. In some places, illegal hare coursing is a serious problem. Indeed, it is virtually unpoliceable. The police accept that they have to give it a low priority. Is it therefore to be suggested that the small number of regulated hare coursing meetings should be criminalised, despite the benefits which conservationists tell us they have, not only for the environment but also for the hare population? If so, I fear that we are about to set off down the "hand gun route", where the ban on those who were responsible target shooters has been followed by a massive increase in illegal hand guns on our streets. Gesture politics so often produces the opposite result from that which was intended.
Other Members from all sides of the House have said what I am about to say. I cannot overstate the sense of injustice and anger which this attack is generating on those most affected. The Minister must understand the emotions in the countryside, after all that has happened. I refer in particular to foot and mouth and to the way in which those whose jobs and homes depend on hunting, who volunteered and helped the Government in that crisis, feel betrayed. To throw a match on to that tinder would be divisive madness. This Government, whom I support, were not elected in order to divide our nation.
We look to the Minister here and his colleague in another place, who have been charged with dealing with this issue, for leadership because that is now
needed. If that means putting aside some of our personal prejudices and views, on my side I am prepared to try to do so. I hope that there is a willingness on his side. If there is, the matter will be resolved amicably. If not, I cannot begin to foresee the extent of the trouble that will result.4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She has said all that needs to be said, extraordinarily well. I shall speak for a short time. However, before I begin on my reasons for supporting the views of the noble Baroness, I must take issue with my noble friend Lord McNally. I disagree with his views but I do not defend to the death his right to voice them. It is curious that a man of his high intelligence and great ability should hold such views, which are not held by all Liberal Democrats. A bad Bill on this subject has just been passed by the Scottish Parliament. I am happy to tell my noble friend that only one Liberal Democrat voted for it.
Having listened to the debate, it is obvious that everyone agrees that foxes must be killed, so the issue comes down to the method of killing. The Burns committee clearly stated that the degree of cruelty caused by hounds is not as much as the distress caused by shooting. I shall not repeat the arguments. Hunts ensure a healthy population of foxes, which is controlled. If it was left to horrible commercial farmers such as myself, there would hardly be a fox left anywhere. Hunts almost certainly do a great deal of good.
There is not much more to be said—it has all been said—except that this House missed a great opportunity in the last debate to take up a splendid offer from the Government to reconsider. When we consider the speeches in the House of Commons yesterday, the hope of the Government being able to produce a compromise is small, but it is there. If this House votes sensibly this time against the ban and for the second option, there is a chance that a sensible solution will be arrived at. That is what we should aim for.
4.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I need to begin with an apology for not being present during the earlier part of this important debate, as it was simply not possible to alter a prior commitment in my cathedral. I am grateful to your Lordships for the opportunity to take part in the debate, which over the years has considerably exercised my mind and conscience.
For 12 years I lived on Exmoor in North Devon where hunting has been woven into the social fabric for many centuries. It was not difficult to understand the wrath of the farmer towards the fox when new-born lambs had been killed or maimed. Furthermore, I could appreciate that the meeting of the hunt brought a welcome diversion and excitement into what was otherwise a demanding pattern of living for many
people. But on a number of grounds I remained opposed to hunting, and still have deep reservations about stag hunting and hare coursing. Clearly, I need to have a session with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.My conversion to a different position, in support of the middle way, over fox hunting has been slow. Careful and rigorous regulation is essential. That has come through again and again during the debate. The regulation needs to include, in my view, among other factors, the prohibition of the digging out of the fox after it has gone to ground.
There are two moral obligations on humans towards animals that can be expressed in guiding principles. Maybe these have been rehearsed earlier and I missed them. First, human beings have a moral duty not to cause wanton cruelty to animals. Is hunting compatible with the consideration that humans arguably should give to animals? Recent scientific studies, albeit disputed, generally confirm that mammals perceive pain in ways analogous to human pain mechanisms. Individual foxes are frightened. The moments immediately preceding their death are very likely to be characterised by extreme physical distress. Invariably, however, the fox is killed by the lead hound and not torn apart by the other hounds until death. But a ban on fox hunting, as has come over again and again, is likely to substantially increase the number of foxes that would suffer.
A ban would quickly result in farmers and landowners wiping out the fox far more assiduously than is currently the case.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page