| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman see the validity of the fact that the report, which I believe was conducted with nine hounds from the Border Counties mink hounds, showed that the hounds were specific to mink and that otters and livestock in the area were not disturbed? Column Number: 829 Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I shall return to that subject in a moment. If people such as John Newton, the chairman of the Masters of Mink Hounds Association is right, the principles of utility and cruelty should be applied not only to rats and rabbits but to mink. It is difficult to see why they would not be, given that comparability. The MESH trials have been thoroughly covered by the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, so I shall not repeat the evidence, but I ask hon. Members to think about the factual element of what he said. What I found most persuasive about the findings of the MESH trials was the fact that a Government-sponsored trial came to an objective conclusion that mink are best controlled by dogs. The report confirmed that dogs provide invaluable assistance in deciding whether an area has been cleared of mink. Mink hounds were 100 per cent. accurate in a controlled test set by the Central Science Laboratory. The test found that dogs had little or no effect on local livestock, and those trialled by MESH had no interest in the local otter population. One criticism that has been made is that otters would suffer if dogs were used, but the MESH report seems to show that that is not the case. The conclusions of the MESH report were that dogs had superior ability and speed to humans in locating the mink, for reasons we have heard, were reliable indicators of the presence of mink and were much more economical in financial and time terms than trapping, that properly trained mink posed no threat to otters and that it was not against Scottish law to use dogs if they were not used to kill the mink. The Icelandic Government also use dogs. The crucial point is that the Icelandic Government seem to have come, on economic grounds, to the conclusion suggested by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—that the most economic way to dispose of mink involves the use of dogs. In Iceland, 80–85 per cent. of mink control involves using dogs to locate the mink. It also has a licensing system. Secondly, some mink are trap shy. That is a clearly determined fact in Iceland. If some mink cannot be caught by traps, dogs are an essential element in mink control. Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I could not give way to him because of time constraints when he last asked me in a previous sitting. To wind the hon. Gentleman back about half a paragraph, he mentioned a licensing system in Iceland. Could he expand a little on that, as part of our debate relates to whether mink should be exempt or included in the registration system? Lembit Öpik: To be exact, Iceland used only licensed dogs and handlers. I am not au fait with the details. My main point is to show that it is more sensible, on the basis of the Icelandic Government's experience and research sponsored by the British Government, to use dogs. I shall try to find that information for the hon. Gentleman, but I apologise that I cannot go any further now. Perhaps other hon. Members can elucidate. Column Number: 830 Many other points could be made about the MESH project, but the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I have already covered it in some detail. I do not want to waste the Committee's time by going through more detail because objective analysis from Iceland and the MESH project backs up the use of dogs. Paul Holmes (Chesterfield): My hon. Friend has often quoted the Burns inquiry and said that we should respect its research and findings. Will he therefore comment on page 106 of the Burns report, which states
Page 105 states
9.30 amThe Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a speech. His hon. Friend has got the point. Lembit Öpik: I shall briefly answer those questions. If I do not cover them adequately, my hon. Friend may want to make a speech. The simplest answer is that the MESH trials, which were supported by the Government and the SSPCA, objectively indicated that the use of the dogs was desirable. Mr. Gray: To answer the question of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the reason why few mink are killed by hounds in the UK, is because there are only 20 mink hound packs. In other words, each pack covers 20 foxhound areas—for example, there is only one mink hound pack in the south-west. One small pack of dogs ends up trying to cover an enormous area; if there were more packs, more mink would be killed. Lembit Öpik: The Burns report does not contradict our arguments because mink are often a severe, localised problem. People say that not many foxes are killed with dogs, but in mid-Wales, for example, dogs kill 60 or 70 per cent. of foxes. In the same way, dogs are used to control a high proportion of mink in some areas. Mr. Foster: If mink are a significant local problem, why are there only 20 mink hunts? Lembit Öpik: Some would say that one of the problems is that there are not enough mink hunts, but there is no doubt that mink cause a disproportionate problem in some areas. [Hon. Members: ''Why aren't there more hunts?''] The hunts are working in areas where mink are the biggest problem. I am not sure why there would be a question about the efficiency of the method. We are talking about whether trapping or using dogs is the most efficient method. Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals often says that mink hunting is inefficient, but the mink hound packs in England and Wales offer a unique, cost-free, call-out service and will respond to anyone who is experiencing damage to domestic stock or wildlife caused by mink. Column Number: 831 I am unwilling to repeat points that have already been made for the record, but I remind hon. Members of this comparison. In one season, on 47 hunting days the Border Counties mink hounds killed 97 mink, which was 67 per cent. of those that it found. Huntsmen, hunt staff and gamekeepers trapped another 20 mink in land drains and other locations where the mink had gone to ground. A total of 117 mink were therefore disposed of in 47 days at no cost. The Hebridean mink project, which is under the guidance of the Central Science Laboratory and DEFRA, has been conducted over a five-year period at a total cost of £1.65 million of European, public and other funding. In the first 11 months, a co-ordinator, two foremen and nine trappers in full-time employment using 2,024 traps over 35,450 trap nights caught 124 mink at a cost of nearly £400,000. The Border Counties mink hounds caught 117 mink in 47 days at no cost. The debate is about not whether there should be more or fewer mink hunts, but what is the most efficient way of hunting mink. Furthermore, if hon. Members want to challenge what I said, they must explain why, if it is a more efficient system, they want to get rid of it, given that the facts are objective. Paul Holmes: On efficiency, my hon. Friend quoted a study that suggests a reasonable degree of efficiency, but will he comment on the Burns inquiry which states on page 105 that
Lembit Öpik: If my hon. Friend wants to challenge the figures, he must refer to the example I gave from the Burns inquiry. He made a non-comparative statement. Mr. Luff: The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) says from a sedentary position that the hon. Gentleman is resiling from Burns. The fact is that Burns admitted that the evidence in many areas was incomplete and it is clear that further evidence—[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. Any hon. Member may refer to documents that are pertinent to the amendment. Mr. Luff: It is clear that further evidence has emerged. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire agrees that the Committee should be open-minded enough to listen to fresh evidence. Lembit Öpik: I do not know how to respond to non-comparative comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire is right. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the Middle Way Group does not have an enormous membership base or huge resources and is not beholden to one group or another. It does not have to go to its paymasters and say, ''We said the right thing, so can we carry on?'' One of the frustrations in this Committee, Mr. Stevenson, is that when Labour Members who support a ban on hunting with dogs hear something they do not like, they make a lot of noise instead of listening to Column Number: 832 the merits of the argument. I do not much care one way or the other about mink hunting, but—The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is discourteous to interrupt as some hon. Members are while the hon. Gentleman is making his speech. Lembit Öpik: I was going to say that I do not care much one way or the other about mink hunting, but Baroness Golding, who is well informed and well versed on the matter, cannot be a member of the Committee, for obvious reasons, so I took it upon myself to understand the information that caused her to take such a strong view. If I did not agree with her, I would not be making these points. I am not an expert on the basis of having read various information, but I have read enough to be persuaded that the Government-sponsored report, the experience of mink control in Iceland and, on top of everything else, comparative figures such as those I quoted on mink hunting mitigate in favour of exempting mink hunting. Hon. Members want to intervene and I am happy to hear what they have to say, but I ask them to exercise a self-denying ordinance and to intervene only with a new point and one to which I have tried to respond.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 6 February 2003 |
