Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Alun Michael: That was a fascinating contribution to the Committee's discussion. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suggests that hunts are entirely virtuous in that they go out to seek old and vulnerable foxes. The issue is not the age of the fox but whether it is a pest. That is why clause 8 does not contain an element asking the hunt to check the age of a fox before they start chasing it. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to talk about the hon. Gentleman shooting himself in the foot in this Committee, but he seems to have done so. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the Minister give way? Alun Michael: In a moment, when I have dealt with the last intervention. The question is whether the animal is a pest rather than whether it is old or vulnerable. As far as Wandsworth is concerned, a population of 2,700 foxes is pretty healthy. That can in no way be ascribed to the activities of a hunt in that area. Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way? Column Number: 178 Alun Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the other foot. It looks like he wants to repeat his injuries. Mr. Gray: I have not shot myself in the foot. My point is that 2,717 foxes were indiscriminately culled. The 2,717 foxes included all foxes, whether or not they were pests. Wildlife Management Ltd. says that it is ''rightly confident in success on all occasions, due to the fact that we have an enviable 100 per cent. success rate in this field.'' In other words, it has removed every fox from the London borough of Wandsworth. It is not wildlife management or successful culling; it is obliterating them all, which is precisely what we have warned the Minister will happen if he abolishes foxhunting. Alun Michael: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants companies to be told that they have to encourage the fox population in order to go out to control them as pests. He has lost the thread of his own argument. Mr. Luff: I suspect that we will return to the utility test. In my view, every fox in mid-Worcestershire is a pest because of the threat that each and every fox poses to ground-nesting birds, and game birds in particular. Therefore, every single fox that is killed by whatever method is a pest. The Minister has not taken that issue on board. Alun Michael: I take on board the fact that the hon. Gentleman believes that every fox is a pest. I suspect that not all farmers would agree with him because there are other pests on which foxes feed. The existence of a fox population keeps down certain pests, and therefore I am not sure that he is right. Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister would like to make the point that any fox residing on the Westlands estate, Droitwich, which is in mid-Worcestershire, would not be a pest to ground-nesting birds. Alun Michael: I ought to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution before I allow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) to withdraw his previous remarks. Mr. Luff: Every rural fox. Alun Michael: If we are not careful, we shall be in danger of having a discussion on semi-rural foxes. Seriously, the Committee is starting to tease out the real issues that legislation needs to address. The real issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has sought to bring out in the amendment are what type of activity is useful, what the purpose of utility is, what the reason for undertaking certain activities is and why populations, groups of animals, or individual animals should be caught and killed or pursued. Those issues are at the heart of the Bill because without addressing necessity, we cannot go on to deal with cruelty. Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, then amended by the hon. Member for Worcester? Where there are large numbers of ground-nesting birds, what does the Minister think that the fox's staple diet will Column Number: 179 be? Accordingly, does he think that that fox is likely to be a pest? Further, can he tell the Committee what other things he thinks that a fox eats? Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point on the range of birds on which the fox may predate. The clause relates to the current definition, as defined in other legislation, which is limited to game birds. Biodiversity is also mentioned, in relation to where there are birds whose existence is endangered, so the provision is not quite as limited as it might appear, but that point has been raised in debate and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will return to it later. Mr. Soames: I am very glad that the Minister is considering such an urgent and vital point, which is of grave concern to gamekeepers. They will be pleased to hear that he is, at least, considering it seriously. Upon what other animals does the fox predate, to make him a pest? Alun Michael: The ones that would make the fox a pest are farm birds, lambs and the type of ground-nesting birds to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred. I am happy to accept that. Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the Minister for continuing on this matter and acknowledge that he will review it. Does he realise that in parts of Norfolk and elsewhere where there are rare ground-nesting birds, but no game birds, the fox is a very serious pest indeed? By far the best way of controlling the fox in that situation is to hunt him with hounds. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion about the best method of controlling foxes. I accept that there is a need to control them where they threaten a particular species. That is the point of clause 8(1)(h), which refers to an area's biodiversity. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, successive Governments have put measures in place to protect threatened bird life. We are introducing measures to encourage farmers in the protection—[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. There seems to be a sub-committee going on while the Minister is speaking. Can we please listen to the debate, which is very important? Alun Michael: I was referring to the fact that Governments have put measures in place, some of which have been there for some time, to encourage the return of farmland bird populations. The point is important and I take it on board. Andrew George (St. Ives): I wonder whether the debate is straying towards confusing a predator and a pest. There comes a point at which the level of predation on a particular vulnerable species is a matter of deep concern and becomes a matter for pest control. However, the argument that all foxes are pests is wrong. All foxes are predators. If we go back to the definition suggested by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, we might recognise that we are talking not about all foxes being pests but about all foxes being predators, and occasionally, they reach a level where pest control methods are clearly needed. Column Number: 180 Alun Michael: That was the point of the exchange between me and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the hon. Gentleman has put it more elegantly than I did and has made a valid point. The fact that the fox acts as a predator is sometimes not a problem. It is sometimes helpful to farmers. Sometimes, it leads to the fox being rightly regarded as a pest. The control of those pestiferous activities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test called them in moving the amendment, is the subject of the tests in clause 8(1). 2.45 pm The amendments substitute the words ''pest control'' for the word ''hunting'' at many points in the Bill. They do not affect the substance of the utility test in the change of wording. It can be argued, as my hon. Friend did, that to some extent it makes clearer the purpose and the nature of the test applied in clause 8(1). We have already begun to discuss the range of purposes for which hunting may take place. We shall come to the Opposition's thoughts on that when we debate the group of amendments headed by amendment No. 18. The Opposition want a much wider definition in clause 8(1), but, were their amendments to succeed, that matter could be dealt with in the fullness of time. I am not seeking to avoid the debate, which I look forward to when we reach that amendment. The advantage of the present wording is that it makes it clear that we are dealing with the issue of hunting and are seeking to eradicate the cruelty associated with hunting. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. That is why the wording in the draft amendment would make it clear that we are dealing with both hunting and the intentions of the Bill. The amendment would insert the words ''pest control'' in clause 8, page 3, line 12 after the second ''is'' and then add: ''For the purposes of subsection (1) hunting is pest control if and only if it is''. As my hon. Friend suggests, such explicit wording would be helpful to any layman reading the Bill. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. By tabling the amendment today, I hope that the Committee will be able to consider it on Thursday. I therefore invite my hon. Friend not to press the first amendment, although all the others can be considered then. I should be happy to give a more considered response about where it would be appropriate to change the wording. Whatever the activity is called, the Bill requires it to be tested to see whether using dogs is the least cruel way of achieving the objective. The key point of the Bill is to prevent unnecessary suffering related to hunting. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore accept my suggestion, which I believe meets the point that he made in his introductory remarks. The Chairman: Minister, I remind you that, if you wish to speak to the other amendments, they are grouped with amendment No. 131, even if the hon. Column Number: 181 Member for Southampton, Test withdraws it later. If you wish to speak to them, now is the moment to do it.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 14 January 2003