Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): I am listening carefully to this geography lesson. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many geysers and volcanoes there are on North Uist? Mr. Gray: Although we are discussing nothing to do with the wicked matters of sport, hunting and men in red coats, but a Government study of the best method of controlling a pest, the hon. Gentleman still thinks to reduce the level of the debate by mentioning geysers. That really says more about Labour Members than it does about the Government study under discussion. Mr. Soames: May I help my hon. Friend before he suffers further anxiety? I fish in Iceland, and can assure him that the difficulties there are due to a very small population and a wide disparity of rivers. However, the Icelandic river boards are impeccably run by people who will not allow mink because of the damage that they do to the fisheries, which are of extreme commercial importance to Iceland. They therefore use whatever method is acceptable to hunt mink, which is mainly with dogs. Mr. Gray: As someone who knows Iceland, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He is quite right. On the advice of the Icelandic Government, the British Government, who produced the report, have now been persuaded that dogs are the most reliable locators of scent in the western isles. That is what it says in the report. Column Number: 826 Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Gray: I am keen to get into the meat of what the Government report says, if that is all right with my hon. Friend. It says: ''The trials carried out in the Western Isles showed that dogs are very reliable locators of scent. And furthermore because scent is generally accepted as a more accurate indicator than faeces for identifying the active presence of a mink rather than its past presence, it must be assumed that their use to locate mink would substantially enhance the current trapping programme in the Western Isles.'' 9.15 am That is from a Government report. It continues: ''it must be assumed that their use to locate mink would substantially enhance the current trapping programme in the Western Isles.'' It also states: ''The trials demonstrated that dogs would be able to cover ground significantly faster while actively scenting''— while they are scenting they move at speeds of 3 mph to 6 mph— ''than a man looking for faeces by eyesight (1–3 mph) in the terrain found in the Western Isles.'' That is from a Government report. I hope that the Minister will cite it in his reply. It goes on to say: ''Furthermore, their efficiency would increase proportionately to the numbers used together should they be encouraged to spread out in parallel while covering the ground.'' In other words, a number of dogs would find mink more efficiently. The report says: ''The trials show that dogs can be trained to be 'scent-specific' (e.g. ignore otter and feral ferret scent) and are capable of identifying the presence of mink from two to three day old scent or older . . . As in the case at Loch Leosaid at''— Here my Gaelic fails me. Mr. Swire: Ahmuinnsuidhe. Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. ''As in the case at Loch Leosaid at Ahmuinnsuidhe, dogs proved themselves useful indicators that mink were not present when it was thought that they were.'' The report was extensive, Government funded, and produced by a Government organisation. Its executive recommendation was as follows: ''Due to the importance of stopping mink from crossing the Sound of Barra, we would recommend that a programme to use dogs to locate mink (for subsequent removal by existing methods) be put in place in South Uist as soon as practical. We furthermore believe that any undue delay will increase the risk that mink may cross (especially in early Spring and late Summer), at which point lasting damage could be likely to be done to the project . . . Plans should be immediately drawn up for the integration of dogs into the existing trapping programme in the Western Isles.'' I have gone on at some length about the MESH report, but for good reason. It is a Government report that is at the drafting stage. The Government have concluded that dogs are the best way of sorting out the mink problem in the Western Isles. [Interruption.] The Whip, the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), shakes his head and says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. If he does not believe that it is, it will be most interesting to hear the Minister argue against a Government-funded study in his reply. It will be most illuminating if he does. Column Number: 827 Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): For clarification, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the MESH programme is Government funded? Is he confusing the MESH project and the Hebridean mink project, which is Government funded? Mr. Gray: The Hebridean mink project and the MESH project are the same. I read out the title a moment ago, and I mentioned those who support it: the RSPB and so forth. If the hon. Gentleman has definitive evidence from any study and can quote scientific evidence that dogs have no usefulness in the trapping and killing of mink, I would be most interested to hear it. Lord Burns said, ''We don't know about mink. We need more scientific evidence''. The Government-funded MESH project, which is funded by the Central Science Laboratory—a DEFRA agency—is conducting the scientific research for which Lord Burns called. Its conclusions are that dogs are an important way of controlling mink in the Outer Hebrides. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, as I understand it, the MESH project was conducted with the approval of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Mr. Gray: The SSPCA, which also concluded that dogs underground are an essential part of pest control, is a more useful organisation that its English equivalent. It concluded that MESH was a useful study and said that dogs would be useful in controlling mink. On a more substantive point, when we considered the last hunting legislation before the previous general election, we had a substantial debate on mink. One of the Minister's closest colleagues—now a member of the other place—was one of the more distinguished participants in the debate. She persuaded the Committee and the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to table an amendment to the Bill on Report that would have allowed the use of dogs to hunt mink. The previous Bill, which was more draconian than this one, would have allowed the use of dogs for mink hunting. This is a scientific matter. We are not dealing with hunting or something to which Labour Members might object on class, practice or fun grounds. We are talking about pest control and the best method of sorting out a real pest. Everyone agrees that mink are a huge pest. We ought to indulge in a careful, scientific discussion of the available evidence. As I said, if the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) can point to scientific evidence that shows that dogs are not useful in the pursuit of mink, I will listen carefully and consider any scientific exercise he describes. However, scientists appear to agree that mink are a dreadful pest and that using dogs to locate them is by far the best way of eradicating them. Among other things, they can then be flushed out underground to waiting guns. That is the evidence that the Government-funded study presents. If the Minister can prove otherwise, I will be happy to withdraw the amendments. On this occasion, we are talking not about us against them, but about all of us together, as a Committee, finding the best way of dealing with an Column Number: 828 appalling pest. The Conservatives believe that there is great utility in the use of dogs to control and/or eradicate mink and I hope that the Committee will support amendments Nos. 212 and 207. Lembit Öpik: I add my voice to the arguments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). There are two crucial things to remember about mink hunting. First, the Government sponsored the MESH report on mink. Secondly, as I understand it, the SSPCA, the Scottish equivalent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sanctioned the inquiry. I am sure that hon. Members would not question the effectiveness or commitment of the SSPCA to animal welfare. Indeed, if they did, it would throw into question the credibility and cohesion of the entire animal welfare lobby. On the assumption that the SSPCA has the approval and respect of hon. Members from all parties, it is important to emphasise that it was sympathetic to the research and supportive of the outcomes. I do not want to put words into the mouth of the SSPCA or trick people into thinking that it said something that it did not. However, hon. Members have already heard the quotations made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire in relation to that organisation and the findings of the research. Taking a step back from mink, we should remember that the Minister has, on a number of occasions, referred to the grounds on which ratting and rabbiting are exempt. He stated that ratting is necessary and that the alternatives of poisoning and trapping raise ''considerable issues about the suffering not only of the quarry species, but of other species that may be inadvertently poisoned or trapped.'' He continued: ''It follows that the activity of ratting passes both tests.'' That relates to utility. He went on: ''That is why it is shown as an exception in the Bill. It is very straightforward.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 2003; c. 138.] That is fair enough, but exactly the same argument could be used for mink hunting, especially now that the Committee has agreed Government amendment No. 185, which adds wild birds to clause 8 on page 3, line 16. The biodiversity issues concerning a number of species threatened by mink in England, Wales and, as we have just heard, the Hebrides are well established. There is not really a debate about the damage that mink do. In a similar way to ratting, mink hunting can account for any mink, but it is particularly useful in accounting for trap-shy mink, which cannot realistically be accounted for by any other method. A 60 or 70 lb hound can kill a 2 lb mink as fast and possibly faster than a terrier can kill a rat or rabbit. There is a direct comparability with activities that the Bill allows.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 6 February 2003