| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Gray: In one moment, if I may. The radio beacon sends a signal to the terrier man on the surface. He digs straight down and shoots the fox where he finds it. Mr. Martlew: Foxes are not always tackled down in the earth. In the fells, where I come from, it is impossible to dig down because the ground is stone. Mr. Gray: If the ground were made of stone there would not be a hole. Mr. Martlew: Rubbish. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman says, ''rubbish'', but the fact that a fox has gone into a hole means that there is a hole. Stones may occasionally be piled together but, by and large, all foxes—whether they are in upland or lowland areas—dig their holes or go into holes created by badgers. We are not talking about caves in the stone because foxes generally go down animal-made holes.
7.45 pmMr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman does not know the fells very well because above a certain height there are not many badgers, which means that there are no setts for foxes to go in. Foxes go into crevices from which they cannot be dug out. The hon. Gentleman is showing his ignorance. Mr. Gray: I am not sure that we need to lower ourselves to talking about ''showing ignorance''. It should be possible to discuss the way one can use terriers in the uplands without reducing ourselves to that level. If a fox goes into a crevice in the stone, by definition a terrier can also go in and out of the crevice. It would be rare in the uplands or anywhere else for there to be a hole in the stone with no other exit. By and large, if one sends a terrier into a hole, the fox comes out the other side or one digs down to it. Frankly, there would be no purpose in a terrier man sending a terrier down a hole that had no other exit and where the stone was so hard that they could not dig. What would be the purpose of sending a terrier into such a hole? The only outcome would be an underground fight, which either the terrier or the fox would win. What would be the purpose of doing that? Some 99 per cent. of terrier work results in either the fox coming out of one or other of the holes and being shot, or its being dug down to. If there are occasions of the sort that the hon. Gentleman describes in which there is no exit and the hole is made of stone—as a geologist, I find it hard to imagine such a hole—they must be extraordinarily rare. Column Number: 804 Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he explain these two contradictions? In the past, he has claimed that hunting foxes with dogs is a method of managing the fox population to keep the young and the fit in place and to kill the old and the infirm, but a fox that is fit and cute enough to get out of the way underground is hunted by terriers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire and I know a former master of the Croome and West Warwickshire foxhounds, who acknowledged to me that terrier work is not acceptable to many people who participate in traditional hunting with dogs. Many traditional hunters instinctively dislike terrier work. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has made two bizarre points. In 30 years of hunting, I have never come across hunting people who do not like terrier work. He is, however, right to say that most hunting people prefer to kill a fox above ground. When one describes the bag, one says, ''I killed a brace above ground and another two underground.'' Killing foxes underground is not considered to be part of the chase. I have never heard anyone say that there is anything wrong with terrier work. Indeed, in hunting country terrier work is an incredibly important way to kill foxes. In most areas, stopping up is no longer practical or encouraged because there are so many holes. There is a strong chance that a fox will find a hole within a few hundred yards. If there were no digging or terrier work, there would be precious little hunting. Mr. Swire: Is it my hon. Friend's experience that when terrier work is involved in the middle of a hunt the field is encouraged to move away from where that work is taking place? Mr. Gray: That is always the case. The field is always withdrawn and is rarely near where the terrier work is being done. I feel that we are straying from the point and that the hon. Member for Worcester has sought to make me stray. We are dealing not with hunting, which will be registered, but with the exemption for terriers killing prey, which is a separate matter. Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? Mr. Gray: I am seeking to answer a previous point, but I shall happily do so in a moment. Although the hon. Member for Worcester may have points to make about whether hunting people like terrier work, they are not pertinent to the amendment. Rob Marris: I know from what the hon. Gentleman said that 46 per cent. of gamekeepers use their terriers for below-ground work. What do the majority do? What do the 54 per cent. do? Mr. Gray: The 54 per cent. do not necessarily have terriers or do the sort of job that requires killing vermin. They might work on different terrain or have a different job, in different circumstances. The fact that more than half—I think that the figure is of that order—of all gamekeepers require terriers for below-ground work is extremely significant. Shooting in this country would be very badly affected if all 2,000 gamekeepers had to apply to the registrar for Column Number: 805 registration to use dogs. That would have a devastating effect on the conservation of game and on rare ground-nesting birds, of which the fox is a major predator. Lord Burns acknowledged that when he said:
on hunting with dogs
He also said:
That implies that terrier work ought to be allowed. Professor David Macdonald, the distinguished researcher, said:
difficulties ''for orphaned cubs''. He continued:
I do not recall anyone at Portcullis House saying that they would necessarily and absolutely rule out the use of terriers. If we are to take the Bill seriously and to believe that the Labour party is, regrettably, keen to ban the use of hounds for the pursuit of foxes, and if we accept that the same number or a greater number of foxes will be killed in order to avoid the predation of lambs and ground-nesting birds, we have to realise that the only way that can reasonably happen is by allowing a sensible amount of terrier work. That is why it is important that terrier work is exempt under schedule 1, which is the purpose of amendment No. 205. Mr. Soames: I support my hon. Friend on this important amendment. If I may, I will detain the Minister and the Committee for a moment, because I want to go a little further than my hon. Friend on the importance of the use of terriers by keepers, and by moorland keepers in particular. The Minister comes from a Department where my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, left what I know the Minister will agree was a distinguished legacy. The Minister will be aware of the work done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Game Conservancy Trust and many others on the serious problem of the tragic level of grey partridge numbers. Numbers are now reaching crisis levels. There is a similar problem—although it is not as serious—with the red grouse. With grouse, it is imperative that the moorland keeper has the use of terriers to operate below ground. In a moorland setting, the fox lives in his earth or den, and where snaring and other methods are not suitable it is essential that the keeper is permitted to use a terrier below ground to deal with the fox problem. In such Column Number: 806 cases, that is the only way to get at the fox effectively. I am quite sure that the Game Conservancy Trust will have been in close touch with the Minister. I can provide information to him and his officials that will show the serious damage done to grouse due to fox predation.As the Minister knows, the grouse is an extremely important bird to the make-up and the economic survivability of the uplands, and to those who work there. It is important that the Minister clearly understands that for moorland keepers not to be able to use terriers underground would have a serious effect on the levels of the red grouse population. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a remarkable book entitled ''Grouse in Space and Time'', which features some of the most learned work ever undertaken on grouse. In that book, the Minister will be able to read about the effects of fox predation. Numbers of the wild grey partridge have fallen to a pathetically low level. The most significant numbers of wild grey partridges can be found in East Anglia. There are very few places where the grey partridge survives in any viable numbers. It survives purely because it is the will of the people who own the land over which the shooting takes place. Their keepers do a huge amount of work to make it possible for the grey partridge to survive. There is a tremendous problem with the levels of the grey partridge. I urge the Minister to accept that for keepers not to use terriers underground will be detrimental to the continued survival of such birds. Gamekeepers use terriers not only to locate but to bolt foxes from earths. It is essential that they are able to deal with the most formidable predator faced by the grouse and the grey partridge. Rare game birds are also at risk from Mr. Fox. To a certain extent, they can take their own chance. Any keeper worth his salt, in a situation where there are large numbers of rare birds, will ensure that there is a proper balance. He will make sure that there are not too many foxes, but where the hunt is welcome he will ensure that there is always a fox to be found. I shoot a great deal. It is always interesting for me to see estates where keepers have been instructed by the landowners to make absolutely sure that there are foxes present. A properly balanced, clean countryside will have a balance of wild animals present. That is part of a difficult but intricate network and web. To do away with the ability of keepers to use terriers underground would cause a desperately serious problem for two species: the red grouse and the wild grey partridge. I urge the Minister to take seriously the important nature of the amendment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 4 February 2003 |
