---

Lord Tordoff: I hesitate to intervene, but there seems to me to be a complete distinction between the two. I do not necessarily support the argument, but you can argue that fox hunting is getting rid of predatory creatures. Hare coursing seems to me monstrous. Here we have people letting hares loose and setting dogs on them in order to bet on the result. That is totally different from fox hunting. There is a complete distinction between the two.

Earl Peel: But does not the noble Lord agree with me that, rather than making judgments here, it would be far more sensible to allow the registrar to make that decision, which is exactly the purpose of having the system in the first place?

Lord Tordoff: I have to answer the noble Earl by saying that no, I do not agree with him. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I am not a great advocate of fox hunting, but I am totally
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1270
 
opposed to hare coursing because the idea of people betting on the killing of wild animals just for the fun of it is, in my view, monstrous.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: There is a fine line between private conversation and debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that Members can judge where the line is.

Lord Mancroft: I would love to have lots of private conversations, but I shall try to take the noble Baroness's advice this evening and not do that.

This has been an extraordinary and fascinating debate in many ways, and rather different from many debates that we have had about the subject during the past few years and months. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, when he said that this is not a debate about whether one is for or against coursing.

If coursing were as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, sincerely and passionately described it, I, too, would be dead against it. I am quite clear that it is not like that, but the noble Lord believes that it is, so his view is entirely understandable. I happen to believe that he is wrong, not because his conclusion is wrong but because the information that he has is wrong. For example, I can clarify for him that there are no points whatever in the death of a hare under the coursing club rules. That is a mistake. Lots of people get information that is mistaken. The noble Lord told us that in his absolutely best belief, I am sure of that, but I must tell him that that is a mistake—not a significant one, but there we go. But that is how these things happen.

There is a difficulty with the amendment, or with part of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, rightly told us that coursing should not really be in the Bill because of the definitions. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, is nodding and I agree with both noble Baronesses that it should not be. But it is and we are here to deal with what is in front of us today, not with what we would like to deal with.

As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, told us, we must find a compromise or a political solution to this problem that lies before the Committee this evening and send that solution—I hope that it will be the absolute solution—back to another place. As we all know, that may not be what we absolutely want—the perfect solution—but we must try to find one. For instance, I am quite clear in my mind that coursing is not cruel.

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I could never possibly shoot a hare. Like the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, I started in my schooldays as a beagler. I loved it, and I was pretty knackered too. I do not think that we caught many hares, but I am absolutely clear that shooting hares is, for me, a no-no. I could not do it; I think that it is terrible; and, yes, I hate the way that we wound so many when we shoot them. I have not shot one now for 30 years. How they scream is terrible. Fortunately, many people can do that rather better than I and it is a necessity.
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1271
 

Whether we like it or not, hares will go on being shot. Those who shoot them will do so to the best of their ability; most of them will not wound them; but there will be wounding. Whether today, yesterday or tomorrow, there will be 1,000 more wounded hares every year in this country than ever are caught coursing.

The other thing we have to face—I forget which noble Lord made the point but it is very important—is that the way in which the Bill is drafted, focusing on organised coursing events, means that in effect all this Bill will do is to ban the best regulated coursing in this country—about 5 per cent of it. That constitutes a minority of coursing. Some 95 per cent of the coursing in this country, which is unregulated, will continue. It is not caught by this Bill. It is not just a case of it continuing illegally; it is actually legal under this Bill, so it will continue. The reason is that those who drafted this Bill, after X years of studying the subject, clearly do not know anything about it. Coursing as it exists in most parts of the country will, for most parts of the year, continue legally.

The Bill will have not the slightest effect either on what is known as illegal coursing, but is more properly known as poaching. It cannot possibly do that. I refer to the excuse that has been given. It is a most ludicrous concept that if someone speeds in a motor car, the way to deal with speeding is to ban all driving. We have illegal coursing or poaching in this country because rural police forces are under-resourced. It is plain and simple: if you want to deal with it, give the police resources to do so. We do not do that and therefore it continues. Indeed, if this Bill were to go through in its present form, the problem would grow as it would create a further vacuum for that crime to increase. That is reality; there is nothing very controversial in that.

As I say, what we have to do is to find a solution through this very difficult area. There are two solutions on either side of the coin. The one is to go down what I call the route proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, which is to assume that this subject of coursing is such a bête noire to the House of Commons and to the Members there who have promoted this ridiculous Bill that we have to give it to them as the price of saving fox hunting, or saving tiddlywinks, or whatever it may be. We trade one principle for another. What a very unattractive idea. What an appalling thing for one House of Parliament to do with another—to trade in principles and to trade the way of life of a very small minority to save another minority. That is a very unattractive idea. I cannot imagine that in the cold light of dawn any of your Lordships would support such an idea.

The other solution is to try to find a principled way forward that we can all support in principle if not, possibly, in practice. I refer to a middle ground—not a middle way; that is the wrong term at the moment—a compromise; something that we can all sign up to. I quite like what the Government originally proposed,
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1272
 
which was a Bill based on evidence and principle. That is a nice way forward, which is why I have supported—and joined, as the fifth member of the gang of four—the attempt to move the measure forward in that way. If we have decided that the registration principle—which your Lordships overwhelmingly agreed earlier today—is the way forward, why would we now abandon it the wrong side of dinner, having spent so long deciding that it was the right way forward?

We should not here in this Chamber tonight make a judgment on coursing. We should place our judgment and our confidence in the registrar who we overwhelmingly decided this afternoon was the right man to decide these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the strongest point in that regard a few minutes ago when she said that the one point—the only point—in the Portcullis House hearings on which everyone agreed was that in principle all mammals should be treated the same. After all these years of Burns reports, Portcullis House hearings and consultations, only one single principle has been agreed by everyone and the first time an awkward subject comes up we abandon it. That cannot be a very clever idea. It cannot be the right thing to do.

We have a choice this evening. We either go for expediency and try to second guess the other place or we operate in a way that we know is right which is based on principle, and we trust the registrar. Many Members of the Committee do not have a natural affection for coursing. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is one of those who does not find it the most appealing way to spend his afternoons, but perhaps he could be prevailed on to trust the independent registrar who will be appointed and the independent tribunal that can be appealed to. If we do not trust independent registrars, tribunals to which people can appeal and the prescribed animal welfare groups that can give evidence, there is no point in our proceeding with the Bill at all, and we should chuck it out and tell the other place to do the same.

The choice is between expediency—having agreed with the process and decided to go along with it, to duck it and abandon it at the first opportunity—or sticking to what the Committee decided this afternoon. Although not everyone agrees with it, it is a principled way forward. We should stick to the principle and have faith in the registrar. Whether we like tiddlywinks, coursing or anything else, we should trust the process that the Committee overwhelmingly agreed to follow this afternoon.

---