Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Luff: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I must repeat something that I said earlier in the Committee's proceedings. The hunting fraternity did itself no service by claiming that it was entirely a pest control service. It created that impression early in the debate about the future of foxhunting and that particular claim has come back to haunt it. The claim was false because hunters misunderstood their role in the countryside. If they had defined themselves more accurately, we would not have the level of misunderstanding that is demonstrated by Government Members today. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the need to test utility as wildlife management. I was out shooting in the Christmas holidays on land hunted by the Warwickshire hunt and we drove pheasants back into a wood that was owned by that hunt. It turns out that the wood is kept, as a management practice, for the purpose of keeping cover for foxes. It is also a perfect reserve for nightingales; indeed, it is one of the best reserves for nightingales in the country. Were hunting to be banned, the reserve would be managed in a completely different manner and the nightingales would disappear. The term ''wildlife management'' has to be thoroughly and properly incorporated in the Bill. Wildlife management should mean suppressing a population level to an acceptable degree; it should Column Number: 005 not mean killing as many individuals as possible, which is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) conceded that his phrase ''pest control'' was intended to mean. Wildlife management must mean maintaining the population at a certain appropriate level for the countryside in question and efficiency cannot be measured in terms of the numbers culled. In some cases, hunting with dogs can result in a low figure, yet can still be the best method. During the hearings at Portcullis house in September, there was significant agreement among all parties that the motive behind an action was, in the main, irrelevant and that the suffering of the animal was paramount. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with including recreation and amenity in the definition of utility, as the amendments would do. I shall talk about that at greater length later. The protection of game birds is seen as a relevant reason to justify utility and yet game birds are shot primarily for recreation—although when I shoot birds, I also eat them. The Bill also allows for the use of birds of prey to hunt wild mammals for sport. Those are hypocritical elements that the Minister has completely failed to justify and they highlight the danger of the Bill leading to other legislation. That is why we are right to want the amendments to be agreed. Dr. Wise has written an interesting paper that is widely available. He states: ''The Government's presumption that it is wrong to take the lives of wild animals for recreation or entertainment is inconsistent with its declared commitment not to interfere with other field sports.'' That is why including recreation is so important. The paper continues: ''Hunters have a vested interest in maintaining a healthy population of quarry species in their habitat, and selectively kill''— this is something that Labour members of the Committee have not properly understood yet— ''weak and damaged animals as well as providing a self-financing wildlife management system. It is also impossible to legislate as to where recreation begins and ends. A gamekeeper controlling foxes with a terrier will, quite reasonably, obtain pleasure from a job of work well done. The recreational benefit of hunting to its followers finances the job of management thus enabling the 'control' benefit to be free to farmers. And unsurprisingly the ratio of 'sport' to 'work' will vary not only from region to region, but also according to a range of other factors like weather and time of year.'' Labour members of the Committee sometimes define hunting in a narrow straitjacket and one cannot do that. It has different roles and purposes in different parts of the country. The test of utility is too narrowly drawn. The Burns report found that hunting often provides an economic contribution. That is a subject on which the Middle Way Group is somewhat distant from the Countryside Alliance—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) is showing that he has not listened to what the Middle Way Group has been arguing for the past five years. That does not surprise me in the slightest. Stanley Kubrick's last film was ''Eyes Wide Shut''; as far as Labour are concerned, it should be ''Ears Wide Closed''. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to what we have been saying, he would understand that there are important points of distinction; they will come out again in the clause Column Number: 006 stand part debate, so perhaps he would like to hang around and listen. The economic contribution is a dangerous argument. Some things in the countryside are uniquely done by hunting and those are the things that the Middle Way Group wants to add to the test of utility. Frankly, there are some things that could be done by other means. We do not believe that hunting is cruel, if practised in accordance with the codes of conduct. It has not always been practised in that way and that is one of the areas that the Middle Way Group has highlighted as a problem. It is difficult to argue that jobs justify everything. I often say that bringing back capital punishment in public would generate an awful lot of jobs—people would queue up to buy tickets—but I am not sure that it would be an honourable way to create employment. It is difficult for the hunting lobby to put the economic test forward because if hunting is cruel one cannot justify the jobs it creates, and if it is not cruel the economic test does not matter. Amendment No. 110 differs in one important respect from amendment No. 20. It misses out the economic argument, which is a weak justification for hunting in the countryside. That is not to show a lack of concern for those people—many of my friends will lose their jobs if hunting is banned. I am concerned about them, but we do not need to use that argument to justify hunting. Jobs associated with hunting are not unique and there are plenty of other sources of employment in the countryside. Along with the other matters in amendments Nos. 110 to 113, social value and cultural cohesion are unique issues associated with hunting. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): I take on board what my hon. Friend says and am inclined to agree with him. For the record, however, does he agree that if hunting were replaced by drag hunting many jobs, which would not be re-created, would disappear and the ancillary jobs would disappear for ever? Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is right. In an emotional sense, I would mourn the loss of those jobs. However, I repeat that job creation is not a justification for an activity that is inherently right or wrong. If an activity is wrong, one should not use job creation to justify it, if it is right, job creation is an added benefit. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. If what he says is true, it would equally apply to cultural and social cohesion, which are topics addressed by one of his amendments. Surely the point about hunting is that social and cultural cohesion, job creation and pest control are holistic. Mr. Luff: When we divide on amendment No. 20, I may vote for it because I doubt that Mr. Stevenson will also call amendment No. 110 for a Division. The other things that we want to add to the utility test are unique to hunting, and losing hunting would mean that they could not be replaced. Even in my constituency, which is not a remote rural area, the social activity around hunting is considerable. In remote rural areas, it is greater still. That social Column Number: 007 activity would be lost for ever and wildlife would suffer irrevocably if hunting were banned. Hunting has unique features, which would be lost for ever if it were banned. We could find a way to deal with the jobs problem, which is a weak argument. There is a difference between my hon. Friends and me, but it is not excessive. We have talked a lot about control. Many facts and figures on wildlife management, the role of hunting in controlling foxes and the level of predation caused by foxes have been bandied around. The Minister has claimed that losses are minimal, and some Government Members have claimed that control is not required. If only 2 per cent. of lambs are lost to fox predation at present, which would be significant for some farmers, it is a tribute to the network of control activities in place in the countryside at present. That figure is a product of the current system of control. The fact that losses are relatively low—on some marginal farms 2 per cent. would be quite a lot and on some upland farms the figure is a great deal higher—is a tribute to what is being achieved at present. The Burns report states: ''foxes kill a substantial number of game birds, both wild and hand-reared. Hand-reared pheasants are particularly vulnerable when they are released from their rearing pens. In the absence of fox control a substantial number of birds would be lost before the start of the shooting season.'' On 18 October 2001, which is after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the Farmers Union of Wales stated in a latter to the Federation of Welsh Packs: ''All counties in Wales have reported an increase in fox numbers and predation since the hunting authorities commenced their voluntary ban on 22 February 2001 . . . The Union's County Branches are receiving an increasing number of calls from farmers concerned at the effects of a protracted ban on fox control during the autumn period.'' The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food submission to the Burns inquiry stated that ''approximately 75,000 foxes are killed each year by all forms of hunting that involve the use of dogs . . . If there was any reduction in fox control using dogs, this would have to be compensated by an increase in other methods of control to ensure no increase in local fox numbers.'' The National Farmers Union told the Burns inquiry: ''We have concluded that any further reduction in the range of techniques available would seriously compromise farmers' ability to control agricultural pests effectively and would jeopardise effective management of farm holdings.'' The National Gamekeepers Organisation told the Burns inquiry: ''The Committee should also remember, when it is looking for evidence of damage to man's interests by pests, that it is doing so in a country where these pest species are already controlled.'' 9.15 am The Country Land and Business Association's submission said that ''There is no doubt that the existence of hunting for the purpose of control rather than eradication means that the health population of foxes remains by virtue of the fact that it is a selective method of control.'' Column Number: 008 In July 2001, the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament said: ''The Committee concluded that there was overwhelming evidence of the need to control both the total fox population and individual animals which are known to be taking stock.'' There is considerable evidence that hunting has utility in terms of the control of foxes. The definition in the Bill will reduce significantly the ability of hunting to play that part, and probably end it in many parts of the country. Let us consider the question of sustainable management of the quarry species, which the amendments would include in the utility test. Lord Burns told the House of Lords: ''If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means. The number of deaths is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 532.] The Burns report concluded that ''Farmers (and landowners) are at the heart of this activity. As a group, they are clearly in favour of hunting.'' It also stated that ''some farmers tolerate foxes because of their own support for hunting.'' Graham Sirl, formerly head of the west country operations for the League Against Cruel Sports wrote to the local newspaper in 2001. He said: ''Over the years, and many meetings with landowners and others, I have come to the conclusion that in the event of a total hunt ban, the deer population will be decimated. This view is shared by many, including some who remain independent on the hunting issue . . . Greater protection is needed for the quarry species, therefore prior to, or following a ban, amendments must be made to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1986. Failure to bring in such protection will inevitably lead to an increase in activities such as fox, deer and hare drives. This will be nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter.''

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 21 January 2003