Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Garnier: I know. Let me finish my insult. On second thoughts, it does not need to be said. Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman was making a serious point. He inadvertently referred to elephant hunts in the west country. I am sure that was not what he intended. Mr. Garnier: I was saying that there is not an equivalent to stag hunts in Africa in relation to elephants. I think the Minister understands the point I was making. There are now populations of tuskless elephants in Africa because the eradication of the elephant population has led to a generation of unevolved elephants that have lost the ability to grow tusks. Although there is not an exact parallel—I am certainly no animal scientist—it is worth making the point that in the event of the wrong type or number of hinds and other red deer being shot, we may end up with a herd not only diminished in number but changed in its very nature. Dr. Whitehead: I do not know the science of elephant genetics especially well, but the emergence of tuskless elephants may have had something to do with the fact that poachers chose the elephants with particularly fine tusks, so they were eliminated from the gene pool; those without particularly fine tusks continued to breed. 2.45 pm Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I fear that in future those with access to the current hunting land in the west country will, for commercial reasons, choose the biggest beasts because they have the most body weight and therefore the highest meat-sale value. They may go for the royals, or even the Column Number: 953 imperials with the yet bigger heads. We will be shooting for the pot—the commercially exploitable meat value of the beast—and for the trophy, the head, rather than looking at the best way to control the herd as a whole. At the moment, the hunts look for the oldest, sickest and weakest and those that do not bring quality and added value to the existing herd when they breed. That is what we want. As I and other hon. Members have pointed out, if hunting is not allowed and the sense of communal ownership has been lost, when the herd comes on to someone's land, the landowner, to prevent the deer from eating valuable pasture, will not only shoot as many as possible but aim at the outset for those that will provide the greatest commercial return. That is why I have mentioned the heaviest beasts and those with the finest heads. Once those are lost from the breeding stock, the herd will become smaller, physically less interesting and much less reflective of the herd that has sprung up since the reintroduction of hunting in 1855. Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument with interest. He is arguing that shooters consider the commercial value rather than the conservation value. Given that 85 per cent. of the deer herd is now killed by shooting, is there any evidence that that happens now? Mr. Garnier: I do not know. Mr. Flook: Perhaps I can help my hon. and learned Friend to answer that question. The figure is not 85 per cent.; 70 per cent. are shot, 15 per cent. are taken by the hunt because they are injured or sick and 15 per cent. are hunted. Mr. Hall: That does not answer the question. Mr. Garnier: Parliamentary life is full of disappointments. If I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, no doubt he will do the research, or he will invite the Minister to provide the evidence that I cannot give him or evidence to build up the converse case and the negative point. I am relaying to the Committee the concerns of a particular landowner who happens to be personally interested in the local economy, the maintenance of the strongest possible deer herd on his and neighbouring land and, therefore, the maintenance of stag hunting. He has not been convinced that anything that the Government have come up with to replace stag hunting in the control of that pest has been adequately advanced. There are many other ways of controlling a pest, which we have been through, such as shooting, gassing and trapping. However, we are talking about a large beast, which can be almost the size of a Friesian cow. It would clearly be inappropriate and unfeasible to trap or gas it. I can think of only two ways of dealing with that pest: shooting by rifle and hunting. Both methods should be allowed to continue in parallel, performing a complementary role. If one relies only on shooting, it will lead to the adverse consequences that my hon. Friends and I have outlined. I suspect that the Minister appreciates that those consequences may well follow. Column Number: 954 The questions that I have been asking on behalf of the Porlock landowner are from someone who is not wholly unknown to me. It so happens that the owner of the land, Mr. Mark Blathwayt, is my cousin. I do not make a secret of it, but it is better that I make the blood relationship between myself and the person concerned clear to the Committee so that others do not say, ''You didn't tell us about this.'' I have no financial interest in Porlock nor any interest other than joining my cousin, his fellow landowners and his fellow residents in the west country in wanting a red deer herd preserved and extended into the depths of this century, without the damage that will happen if we do not put in place a proper management arrangement, including well regulated and well managed contingents of traditional stag hunting. That seems vital, and it would be a pity if clause 6 stood part of the Bill. Whether it is for the reasons put forward, I think, by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—[Interruption.] It is very difficult to tell the difference from this distance between two very distinguished Members of Parliament who have Edwardian beards and similar glasses. [Hon. Members: ''Put your glasses on.''] I am long-sighted. I am being diverted, but it is entirely my own fault. I am sure that they are both wonderful MPs in their own ways. The hon. Member for Sherwood and I, although we have entirely different views on the ends of the Bill, agree that clause 6 should not stand part. When we were discussing clause 8, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) indicated that he was dissatisfied with it. I cannot remember whether he voted against it. [Hon. Members: ''He did.''] If he did, let us hope that he is consistent this afternoon and votes against this clause, along with the hon. Member for Sherwood. Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): On the question of elephants losing their tusks, may I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that rhinoceroses in east Africa are routinely de-horned to stop poachers killing them? Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Banks: I had better press on. Mr. Garnier: It was something about de-horning. Mr. Banks: I was just pointing out that de-horning is carried out to prevent poaching. I apologise to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire for missing the end of his fascinating and erudite speech this morning. He would be quite wrong to think that I left because I find him one of the most irritating and tedious people on the planet. I heard him say something as I left. I went to see Baroness Amos on behalf of a group of my constituents, whose husbands and sons are incarcerated in Egypt. I wanted to offer that apology. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I wholeheartedly accept the hon. Gentleman's most gracious apology. Mr. Banks: In that spirit, I shall quickly move on. I heard the hon. Gentleman talk this morning about the need for pest control in relation to deer. That point Column Number: 955 has been raised by both sides. The concept of pest control is very interesting. Not just in the west country, but throughout this country and all over the world, human beings have so encroached on the territory of animals that it has naturally become over-crowded. Consequently, to deal with a problem that human beings have created, we always say that animals are pests, that there are too many of them and that they need to be culled. It is said that seals and cormorants eat too much fish. We all know the basic reason for that: human beings are the most evil, vile species, and they are so selfish and stupid that they are prepared to create an imbalance in nature which they then have to deal with. The price is always the animals. Mr. Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a deer herd, wherever it is, needs regularly to be culled to prevent disease and improve quality? Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, in the end, I do. Before I get there, I want to make the point that one often hears that a species has become a pest and that there are too many of a certain animal, but that is because so much of their normal territory has been taken away. Nature normally keeps things in balance. The only species on the planet that alters and distorts the balance of nature is ourselves. That is why I do not have much time for the hon. Gentleman as a member of that species, or even for myself—I am not singling the hon. Gentleman out for any unique or peculiar insult. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who is going to visit the LACS sanctuary, which I hope he enjoys, made a comparison between the cessation of deer hunting on Exmoor and the cessation of football in the east end. For a number of West Ham supporters, football has already ended in the east end. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would probably have a more enjoyable time looking at deer in the west country than he would watching West Ham at the moment. I hasten to add that I say that with great sympathy for the citizens of the east end and my constituents who support West Ham. I do not support West Ham, but I feel for them. I know how important it is to them that West Ham stays in the premiership. I do not see any comparison between the people who watch and enjoy football, whether on television or at the ground, and those who participate and enjoy the strange ritual of hunting deer.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 11 February 2003