Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Rob Marris: Can the hon. Gentleman define for the Committee the phrase ''indigenous peoples'' as it is used in that context? Gregory Barker: I think it means people who are local to and who have grown up in a particular area. That definition is not controversial, and it would apply to people in my part of East Sussex who have nurtured and tended the local countryside for generations, and rightly see themselves not only as the owners of or workers on a piece of local countryside, but as its guardians. They have an inter-generational responsibility to the landscape that they love. Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Does my hon. Friend also accept that plenty of people have moved into East Sussex in particular, and that they have exactly the same desires as those who have lived there for many years? Although I accept the genesis of his argument in relation to indigenous people, it stands up just as well for those who have moved into an area. The only thing that concerns me about his speech is that he seems to be surprised at the way in which those who want hunting to be banned—the majority of Labour Members—are conducting this debate. Is he not aware that this is a wholly choreographed exercise and that those on the other side of the argument do not want the utility test to be implemented? They want the Bill to be amended, either in Committee or on Report, in such a way that the utility test is simply a device for banning hunting. That is the long and the short of it. 3 pm Gregory Barker: My hon. and learned Friend has a point, but for the purposes of this exercise, I intend to proceed properly and to take in good faith what the Minister is proposing. Nevertheless, what I have said demonstrates how Labour Members will loftily articulate aims and objectives that they would readily apply to indigenous people and local communities overseas, yet refuse point blank, because of their own prejudice and bigotry, to employ here on our own doorstep. The United Nations sustainable development programme recognises ''that traditional and direct dependence on renewable resources and ecosystems, including sustainable harvesting, continues to be essential to the cultural, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people and their communities'' Another of its objectives is the ''involvement of indigenous people and their communities at the national and local levels in resource management and conservation strategies and other relevant programmes established to support and review sustainable development strategies''. Column Number: 010 Mr. Soames: I am very interested in the points that my hon. Friend is pursuing, and he is right to refer to the United Nations. However, the Labour party wants to ban hunting completely, and that would bring to an end an entire social and cultural way of life for hundreds of thousands of people. That is not just a United Nations matter, but applies in this country. Labour Members laughed when my hon. Friend referred to ''tribal springs'', but if the relationship between people and the deer on Exmoor is broken by the Government, that will be a tragedy. The matter goes much further than just the United Nations. It affects the cultural and social life of hundreds and thousands of people. Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and as I develop my argument he will discover that it is something I hold very dear. It is worth showing by way of contrast the posture that the Government strike when it comes to their international obligations and issues of sustainable development and the reality of how they persecute local communities with a direct role in species management here in England and Wales. On Second Reading, the Minister said: ''I have spent time meeting a variety of groups''— on Exmoor ''to understand the situation, and I know something of the distinct local culture on Exmoor.'' He continued: ''it is clear that there is an unusual culture in respect of the deer herd. Even some of those who strongly oppose deer hunting acknowledge that powerful cultural attachment''.—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 574.] He acknowledges the strong cultural identity and the Government acknowledge their responsibilities under the United Nations protocols, but they then cast them aside, making a complete mockery of all the evidence-based hearings that have taken place. In many areas, the social life surrounding hunting activities is a critical feature of people's lives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said. The Burns inquiry concluded in its final report: ''We do not underestimate the importance, for those who take part, of the opportunities for social interaction provided by hunting.'' It also stated: ''Organised hunting is therefore an intricate and complex social activity which is intimately linked to other features of rural life and which rests on a foundation of overlapping mutual interests, with the farmer/landowner at the hub.'' In its submission to the consultation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2002, the Exmoor national park authority noted: ''Exmoor National Park Authority is concerned that a ban on hunting of deer with hounds would represent a very significant change in the management of the wild deer herd on Exmoor which, as the earlier sections of the evidence explain, might adversely affect the future sustainability of the herd, and by extension a much valued aspect of Exmoor's cultural heritage. It would also have a serious impact on the social and economic well being of its rural communities. In this way it could put the National Park Authority's own statutory purposes and duties at risk.'' Column Number: 011 Dr. Garry Marvin of the university of Surrey, Roehampton stated in his report, ''A study of the social and cultural importance of mounted fox hunting in the Scottish Borders'': ''Without the actual hunting of foxes in the traditional manner on horseback and with a pack of hounds hunts would cease to exist and with this cessation would come the collapse of an entire social and cultural world.'' One does not have to accept such an Armageddon scenario to realise that there would be a very real and profound effect on the social and cultural fabric of community life. Hunting has a profound utilitarian purpose. If it were banned, the utilitarian impact would go, whatever the degree or scale one chose to assign to it. It is a nonsense that it is not recognised in clause 8. Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. Would he care to tell the Committee who sponsored Dr. Marvin's study? Gregory Barker: I do not have the information to hand, but I am willing to drop the hon. Gentleman a note or let the Committee know who it was. Amendment No. 111 would ensure that utility is defined properly to include social and cultural considerations. That is not only in line with the definition of utility in the hunting hearings in September 2002 and in the Burns inquiry but reflects the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Bill fails to include social and cultural dimensions in the criteria for utility. It directly contradicts the scope of the Government's consultation, and in seeking to ban deer hunting and coursing, it is contrary to principle 22 of the Rio declaration. I genuinely would like to know how the Minister reconciles the Bill with our binding international treaty obligations. The loss of community and social activity will create conditions of social isolation and exclusion that would apply in many hunting communities but especially on Exmoor where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton reminded us, the symbiotic relationship between community and hunt is culturally, economically and socially unique. Hunting is loosely constructed around a club system, but all are free to participate. It is not restricted to any social group. Those in hunt supporters' clubs are just as important as those who follow hounds. In short, hunting provides opportunities to everyone to participate, irrespective of means. Hunting provides the social glue in many communities because it provides a valid purpose over a wide-flung area for socialising. Hunts organise a constant round of social activities, including charity functions, which are a dependable feature of country life around which many people's lives are entirely structured. The culture of the hunting community involves people from widely differing income brackets, social backgrounds and ages. Both women and men are represented in large numbers. More than just a country pursuit, in an increasingly insecure and Column Number: 012 perilous world, hunting gives participants a strong sense of belonging through shared activity. It is not simply the activity of hunting itself that provides a social focus for communities. Examples of events organised by hunts include dinners, discos, young supporters' parties, hedge-laying competitions, quiz nights and point-to-points—all at a time when the countryside is conspicuously under-served with the social venues and leisure activities that are prevalent in urban areas. Let us consider the impact on biodiversity. The Game Conservancy Trust's July 2002 report—''Habitat management undertaken in support of fox hunting in England and Wales'', by J. A. Ewald and N. Kingdon—says: ''The area of woodlands managed for foxhunting in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares. This is based on information submitted by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selection of 235 woodlands.'' To put that figure in context, the report says that it represents an area that is ''roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries of National Nature Reserves in England and Wales.'' That is a very significant national asset indeed. The types of active management undertaken for foxhunting include ride maintenance. I do not know the experience of other hon. Members, but in my county the budget for maintaining bridle paths is constantly under threat. People who use the countryside for equestrian leisure activities find fewer and fewer public rights of way that are cleared and maintained regularly. Rather than depending on the local authority or the state for such clearing and maintenance, people increasingly depend on the hunt. As well as ride maintenance, there is coppicing, with brash laying or brash piling; canopy tree removal; maintenance of hedges, shrubs and fences on woodland perimeters; planting of coverts; and some clear felling. The costs associated with woodland management and other activities carried out by the hunts have been tabulated. In total, hunts spent at least £1.4 million on such management. That included 5,425 days of voluntary labour. If hunting were banned, or regulated to death, roughly 84 per cent. of that expenditure would end, as would the management.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 21 January 2003