|
Column Number: 1049
Standing Committee F
Thursday 13 February 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 7
Hare Coursing
Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
2.30 pm
Question again proposed.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
New clause 10—Hares—
'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares.'.
New clause 15—Hares (No. 2)—
'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of hares of any species.'.
Amendment No. 1, in
title, line 2, leave out 'To prohibit hare coursing.'.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Before lunch, I ticked off the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for attempting to make a fundamental change to the way of life in the countryside in a rather short and inadequate way. Since then I have been considering what we are discussing under the clause stand part debate. Four separate debates have been rather awkwardly elided into one. We are, of course, discussing the outright abolition of hare coursing, rather than whether or not it should be considered by the registrar or tribunal. That is the stand part debate itself. In relation to amendment No. 1, we are also considering whether hare coursing is the same as hare hunting and whether the two things should be differentiated in the long title. We are considering new clause 10, which would result in an outright ban on hare hunting—if it is different from hare coursing, which is a matter of some debate.
In relation to new clause 15, rather strangely, we are discussing whether the ban should relate to all species of hare. That is unnecessary. We are largely talking about the brown hare because the mountain hare is not currently hunted. The question is whether the word ''hare'' in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) covers all species of hare. I suppose an outright abolitionist could argue that it is worth tying up anything that could conceivably be thought of as a loophole.
I fear that this may take a little time because these are important matters that need to be considered properly. I will start by dealing with the new clauses and then go on to talk briefly about amendment No. 1. Finally, I will focus on the substantive debate and whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 deletes the words ''hare coursing'' from the long title. There was some
Column Number: 1050
discussion this morning about whether it was correct for the Minister to differentiate hare coursing and hunting. Opposition Members argue that that is an absurd distinction and that hare coursing is hunting, in the sense that it involves dogs chasing animals for the purposes of killing them. There is a distinction between the two things in the sense that hunting is done by smell and coursing by sight. However, it is quite wrong to differentiate the two things in the long title, hence amendment No. 1.
Without amendment No. 12, the Bill admits that hare coursing is a form of hunting. As a barrister—I am not a barrister—one would argue that the Bill is internally inconsistent. It acknowledges that hare coursing is hunting, but it also differentiates hare coursing and hunting in the long title. Leaving aside the rights, wrongs or indifferences of pursuing animals with hounds, there is definitely an inaccuracy in the drafting of the Bill.
The cruelty and/or utility of hare coursing should be considered by the registrar and the tribunal in precisely the same way as the cruelty and/or utility of hare hunting. It is not right to differentiate between the two. The definitions of utility and cruelty in the Bill are wildly inadequate. We have argued for some weeks that they are appalling and wrong, and that their principal purpose is to abolish any form of hunting with dogs. Even given that they are inadequate, it seems only sensible that the registrar and tribunal should have the right to consider hare coursing in the same way that they consider all other forms of hunting with dogs.
The long title and the Bill are entirely inconsistent, and amendment No. 1 seeks to put that right. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) acknowledged this morning that he has spotted the problem. He has asked for a better definition of ''hunting'' in clause 45, and we may return to that when we get to that clause. One way of solving the problem may be to define hunting more carefully.
The hon. Member for Worcester also spotted the problem, but his solution is not acceptable. He would ban hare hunting as well as hare coursing. In a rather inadequate way, that would at least solve the confusion in the Bill. However, there are some points to consider about his suggestion. To seek to justify in an extremely short speech the banning of an activity enjoyed by hundreds of people for hundreds of years, not because the hon. Gentleman believes it to be a bad thing, not because it has no utility or because it is cruel, but simply to correct an anomaly in the Bill is an extraordinary thing to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ban hare hunting, fine, that is his view. He should tell the Committee precisely why he thinks that hare hunting is a disgraceful activity. But to focus on a drafting inadequacy in a facetious, light-hearted way and to say, ''I have found a very clever way of correcting the drafting inadequacy—I will ban hare hunting to correct the draftsman's errors'', is wrong and belittles the concerns of hundreds of people in the countryside who are very worried about what will happen to their sport and pastime.
Column Number: 1051
The hon. Gentleman's approach to moving new clause 10 was wrong. Anyway, even if the new clause were accepted, it would not solve the drafting problem that I have highlighted. The long title would still separate hare coursing from hunting. Therefore, even by his terms, inadequate as they are, the new clause would not achieve what he said it would.
Whatever side of the argument one is on, I hope that the Committee will agree that amendment No. 1 makes a great deal of sense, approaching the matter purely from a technocrat's viewpoint, and that the words ''hare coursing'' should be deleted from the long title.
It might be sensible now to consider the substantive part of what is proposed by new clauses 10 and 15. In proposing his new clause, the hon. Member for Worcester did not seek to do that. This is the only time that the Committee will have an opportunity substantively to discuss hare hunting, as opposed to hare coursing. Therefore, it is reasonable that we should spend a certain amount of time considering the purpose of hare hunting—or beagling, as I prefer to call it—and whether it has utility or is cruel.
The new clauses would ban hare hunting outright. New clause 15 would add the unnecessary extra words ''of any species''. Mountain hares are found only in Scotland, to which the Bill does not refer. Therefore, such a change is not actually necessary, because there is only one species of hare in the vast bulk of England. There may be some mountain hares in Derbyshire, but that is the only exception to the rule. I will not spend an undue amount of time on new clause 15, which we believe to be unnecessary.
New clause 10 would simply ban the hunting of hares, which seems to us to be wrong. It seeks to single out a type of activity and implies that the proposer of the new clause knows for sure that, for one reason or another, hunting hare is by definition worse than hunting foxes or mink, or using dogs for any other purpose under registration. He is saying, unilaterally and single-handedly, that he knows that it is a bad thing that must be banned, that we must not allow the tribunal or the registrar the opportunity to consider it and that we must not allow evidence to be brought forward on whether the use of dogs for hare hunting in a particular place or particular circumstances has utility or leads to suffering. He wants to ban that discussion and dictate to the registrar that he may have no view on hare hunting.
Just as we argued on Tuesday on deer hunting, we believe that to be illogical and unnecessary. The way in which the cruelty and utility tests have been drafted probably means anyway that if a pack of beagles such as the Wick and District beagles, whose tie I have the honour to wear today, were to go before the registrar, it would be extraordinarily difficult for it to achieve registration under the Bill's terms.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): My hon. Friend said earlier that he preferred to call the practice beagling. Will he join me, however, in acknowledging that basset hounds also play an
Column Number: 1052
important role in hare hunting? One important player in my constituency is Leadon Vale basset hounds.
Mr. Gray: I take every opportunity to pay tribute to basset hounds, which fulfil a similar function. I have never actually been out with basset hounds. I would love to come. They always remind me of Clement Freud, so I can never take them all that seriously. Perhaps I might one day have the privilege of coming out with them, and I shall try to banish all thought of Clement Freud from my mind when I do.
The hon. Member for Worcester is seeking to ban hare hunting outright without allowing it to go before the registrar, but the truth is that there is no firm scientific evidence at all on the effect on a hare's welfare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds. It is true, as Lord Burns said, that death and insensibility would normally follow in a matter of seconds and that the experience, in his famous phrase, ''compromised the welfare'' of the hare. Well, indeed it does, but so would shooting, snaring, gassing or any other means of dealing with a hare. The hon. Member for Worcester quoted Lord Burns extensively in trying to justify his ban, but I have a direct quote from Lord Burns:
''There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a hare of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds during hunting.''
I refer again to the excellent Professor Bateson who, in his oft-quoted e-mail to Mr. Wise said:
''Only somebody who was scientifically illiterate could argue that evidence from a new area of research was 'incontrovertible'. I shall write to Michael to distance myself from that view.''
|
