|
Column Number: 001
Standing Committee F
Tuesday 21 January 2003
(Afternoon)
[Part I]
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 8
Tests for registration: utility and least suffering
Amendment proposed [16 January]: No. 185, in
clause 8, page 3, line 16, after 'birds', insert 'or wild birds'.—[Alun Michael.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment No. 18, in
clause 8, page 3, line 17, at end insert 'or ground nesting birds'.
Amendment No. 19, in
Amendment No. 20, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
( ) will contribute towards—
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) the rural economy;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 110, in
Amendment No. 111, in
Amendment No. 112, in
Amendment No. 113, in
clause 8, page 3, line 25, at end insert
'or
Column Number: 002
( ) will contribute towards—
( ) the sustainable management of the quarry species;
( ) the enjoyment of sport and recreation;
( ) the preservation of the landscape;
( ) vermin control;
( ) habitat protection;
( ) the sustainable development of the area (within the meaning of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992);
( ) the interests of avoiding or preventing the spread of disease; or
( ) is for the purposes of obtaining food for animal or human consumption.'.
Amendment No. 115, in
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): To refresh the memories of hon. Members—[Hon. Members: ''No!''] Perhaps Labour Members have not sufficiently refreshed themselves between sittings.
I was speaking to amendment No. 111. I am entirely within my rights to do that because the amendment relates to the social and cultural cohesion of an area. I was trying to educate, if not illuminate, Committee members about the importance of art and literature in hunting to date. That is reasonable because much literature on hunting has enabled people from both town and country better to understand the countryside. The Higginson collection of more than 4,000 books in the London library relates to hunting and the countryside, and the collection is as important as the Domesday book—in its own way—because it charts every parish and county in the United Kingdom. A link should be recognised.
I would not want to dwell on that and no doubt you would not allow me to, Mrs. Roe, so I shall move on to amendment No. 20, which refers to many things including
''the preservation of the landscape''.
The submission in chapter 7.5 of the Burns report, which is titled ''Habitat conservation in the interests of foxhunting'' says:
''historically, the landscape of many parts of lowland England, especially the Midlands, has been strongly influenced by the desire to establish and conserve good foxhunting country.''
That is still true. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said last week that many people still linger under the impression that the English countryside is not man-made, but natural. I must disabuse them of that.
Large tracts of the English, Scottish and Welsh landscape have been fashioned. Coverts and woods have been fashioned for shooting and lakes have been created for fishing. Rivers have been diverted, scrub has been cleared and heather moorland has been burned in the name of sport, utility, shooting, deer stalking and hunting—that is a fact. We must recognise that we have a unique landscape because of that before we finally submit to the Government's desire to concrete over most of England. Anyone who works in the tourist industry will say that the English
Column Number: 003
landscape is often the reason why people visit England. People certainly visit Devon—my part of the world—because of our unique landscape.
There is a balance to be struck and a trade off to be made in the debate on utility and conservation. Ending hunting with hounds, and especially the hunting of stags with hounds, will upset a delicate balance.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Government have a desire to concrete over the landscape, which I do not accept. Do I take it that he is against the building of roads in the United Kingdom, such as the Okehampton bypass?
Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman is kind to draw that to my attention. I am not against the building of roads in the country. I am pro the duelling of the A30 and the A303. I know much less about the Okehampton bypass, but he would not expect me to know much about it because it has nothing to do with my constituency.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the restoration of the landscape in Wales would lead to the end of the mass planting of conifers that has led to a lessening of biodiversity throughout upland Wales?
Mr. Swire: Yes. I would hazard a guess that were hunting or sporting activity to cease in large areas of the country, landowners—or land managers as we must learn to call them—would be obliged to find alternative ways of making their country pay and would be more tempted by the blandishments of planting conifers, which are unsightly though undoubtedly necessary in some cases.
The difference in the clause is that the Minister has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in the case of stag hunting and coursing. Why he has it in for stag hunting in particular, I cannot fathom. I believe that he has chosen the wrong target. In terms of utility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) was saying this morning, the case for the continuation of stag hunting is arguably easier to make than it is for any other form of hunting. I believe the ban reflects prejudice. Some hon. Members still believe that hounds chase a hapless stag, which is cornered, savaged and torn to bits by hounds. We know that that is not the case, and misconception and ignorance are behind the total ban.
Will we be any better off if there is a total ban? I refer to something that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said some time ago. He asked if the Minister would
''ensure that, before the Bill is enacted, a proper deer management and culling plan is in place on Exmoor to avoid the predictable mayhem that would ensue in the area''.—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 761.]
What has been put in place? Of course, the answer is nothing. Endless questions have been asked in the other place by Lord Mancroft and others, asking various Ministers what wildlife management programme was to be put in place in the event of a
Column Number: 004
total ban on stag hunting and the limitation of other forms of foxhunting and answer came there none.
We have often quoted Mr. Graham Sirl, the former head of the west country operations of the League Against Cruel Sports. It is worth quoting again something that he said about the importance of hunting to the deer population, with the caveat that he makes it clear that he has not changed his view on hunting with hounds. He still believes it to be unnecessary and that it involves cruelty to the deer being hunted. However, he goes on to say:
''I do now believe that hunting with hounds does play an integral part of the management system for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks. In some instances, hunting in general is a constitutive part of West Country rural community life. Those who don't acknowledge this to be true, or similarly choose to ignore same, are turning their backs on an argument they know is difficult to win.''
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in the middle of his powerful speech. He makes an extremely important point about utility. Can he explain to the Committee why he believes that Government Members should seek to ban stag hunting but not foxhunting?
Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. I do not understand why the Minister, if he believes in his twin criteria of cruelty and utility, is not prepared to let stag hunters and deer coursers take their chance with the tribunal and the registrar along with other aspiring hunters. That would be logical, but I suspect there are darker forces at play, and I think that the Bill is based largely on ignorance and prejudice.
The Exmoor national park authority, which is an independent body like the Dartmoor national park authority, so probably not open to lobbying, wrote to the Minister, arguing:
''No agreed alternative model to the current management regime yet exists for an appropriate mechanism for deer management that will maintain the current numbers, quality and visibility of wild red deer on Exmoor.''
That supports my point.
If the provisions are about utility and if the management of deer herds and animal welfare are at the forefront of the minds of Labour Members, they owe us and the wider community—especially those who partake in stag hunting with hounds or make their livelihood from that—some answers. Why is there no deer management programme to be put in place in the event of a ban? How will that imbalance be dealt with?
With your indulgence, Mrs. Roe, I shall read a piece that relates to some questions posed this morning by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on the varying discussions about the quantity and quality of deer on Exmoor over the years. The late Ted Hughes was a west countryman by adoption, poet laureate, a great fisherman and a lover of nature and the countryside. [Interruption.] Yes, he fished and shot—at least, I think that he shot—but he was a lover of nature. Those are not incompatible, as some hon. Members would suggest. He was a great fisherman rather than an angler. He wrote a very interesting article in that learned publication The Guardian some
Column Number: 005
time ago, which I am more than happy to make available to Committee members, should they wish to learn something. On the Exmoor deer, he said that
''after the War, when things eased off, with three Hunts fully operational the deer population soared away again, as it has continued to do ever since, right up to the 1995 census of 2,500 animals—far more than ever before in recorded history.''
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham has either lunched well or is bored by the late poet laureate or me, but I shall continue because this is important.
|
