| Hunting Bill
|
|
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that there are many so-called terrier men who are not members of Column Number: 1101 the National Working Terrier Federation, which has a strict code of practice? Terriers are used underground and the entrances are then blocked, which leaves the fox and the terrier to fight it off below ground, with no way out. That is very much against the code of practice of the National Working Terrier Federation.Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is right. As I said, where there are codes of practice, clearly such activities will be better enforced than they are when unofficial terrier work is conducted. In paragraph 6.52, Lord Burns made it clear that one of his concerns was the protracted nature of the process and the fact that the fox was prevented from escaping from the hole. The practices associated with hunting gave me concern from the moment I considered the issues. I went on a fox hunt and found that, to enable lowland hunting to continue, holes are stopped up to prevent the fox from escaping down them. There are some strange anomalies in the practices. To return to terrier work below ground, the unofficial terrier men give me real concern. One of their magazines, Earth Dog—Running Dog, gives some examples of the enthusiasm with which such people conduct their activities. A 1995 article in the magazine stated:
That provides clear evidence of dogs and foxes engaging in some form of battle. In March 1996, an article stated:
A year later, in 1997, an article about a 30-hour dig to get to a fox stated:
the terrier—
That provides clear evidence of adverse impacts on animal welfare—to use Burns's terminology. Mr. Gray: To some degree, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I daresay that in almost any practice in the countryside it would be possible to find malpractices of one sort or another. Some of the things he describes—30 hours of digging—sound like real malpractices to me. However, does he agree that—leaving aside those extremes, because he cannot justify his argument using extremes—those who conform to the National Working Terrier Federation's code of conduct would not condone any of the things he described? Most of the 50,000 foxes every year by using terriers are killed under the code of conduct. Mr. Foster: I agree that it is difficult to make a case based only on extremes of evidence, but that has not stopped the hon. Member for North Wiltshire in Committee. My point concerns not the descriptions of battles between foxes and dogs, but the fact that those descriptions are published and relished. Having an article published in Earth Dog—Running Dog is like an award or code of honour. People are proud of having Column Number: 1102 had a 30-hour dig in which good old Turk copped it in the line of duty. Terrier work is objectionable and it concerns me.
9.15 amIn February 2000, the RSPCA was involved in a landmark legal case in which the practice of terrier work, which involves a dog being forced into a hole, was recognised by the High Court. Individuals were found to be ill-treating their dogs by sending them underground to combat foxes. The offence occurred in July 1998, and in 2000 the High Court found two individuals from Teesside guilty of ill-treating their dogs under section 1A of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The High Court rejected the defendants' right of appeal, awarded costs to the RSPCA and said that the practice was bad for a dog's welfare. Rather than waiting for the odd prosecution to take place along the lines that I have highlighted, we can put the matter right in Committee by putting that the practice should not be continued on the face of the Bill. I want to make the Bill consistent. Schedule 1 hints at the adverse animal welfare implications of terrier work but does not ban all of it. Perversely, it bans the more humane side of terrier work. We need to make the Bill tight by using belt and braces to stop the activity completely. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): The hon. Gentleman says that he seeks consistency in animal welfare. Why does he not mention shooting, which is how the vast majority of foxes die? If shooting increases, injuries and wounding are also likely to increase. Why is he unconcerned by the horrific, grisly injuries caused by shotguns or similar firearms? He has referred to those injuries but is unconcerned by them. Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I am unconcerned. The Bill is about hunting wild mammals with dogs and does not concern shooting. If it considered the shooting of foxes we would debate the matter. Of course, the high levels of wounding to which he has alluded concern me and DEFRA rightly provides guidance on the appropriate calibre of weapon to deal with foxes. Burns said that lamping with a rifle is the most humane way to deal with foxes, but it is wrong to say that I am unconcerned by wounding rates. The hon. Gentleman mentioned orphaned cubs being left underground, which merits further consideration. We should consider whether it is more humane to let the cubs starve underground or whether terriers should be used. That is a genuine concern of mine and of the hon. Gentleman. I understand that he may raise it on Report so that we can look at further ways in which orphaned cubs can be dealt with. Mr. Gray: I am puzzled. The hon. Gentleman seems to believe that there may be some utility in using terriers for orphaned cubs underground, but if the new clause becomes part of the Bill that will be illegal. Mr. Foster: As I told the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, an amendment that dealt tightly with orphaned cubs would demand serious consideration. I am concerned by the principle of sending a dog underground to protect game birds, which will be shot Column Number: 1103 later. One cannot justify killing orphaned cubs in that way because, by definition, they are not a threat to game birds. If they could hunt game birds, they would not be reliant upon their mothers. The hon. Gentleman's amendment has faults, but there is some merit in looking at it further.Mr. Luff: I shall try to be brief. This is an important procedural point. As the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals acknowledged, in Scotland orphaned cubs are a real welfare problem. That is why Scottish legislation accepts the use of terriers. The problem is procedural. If the new clause does not concern that qualification, I doubt whether we shall succeed in amending it in the time available on Report. The Government would then be faced with Parliament enacting a Bill that does not include this safeguard. If the House of Lords includes it, it will not be good enough to use the Parliament Act—if the Government use it. There is a real danger in pursuing the new clause. The hon. Gentleman could end up not allowing that particular safeguard to be part of the legislation. Mr. Foster: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the procedures on Report and the amendments that might be made. We need to look at the genuine animal welfare issue and not reverse what the Committee has done. The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) assumed that the House of Lords would block the Bill and frustrate the will of the House of Commons, rather than improve the Bill, which would be preferable. Mr. Foster: My right hon. Friend makes a strong point about the Parliamentary process. Mr. Luff: This debate is in danger of getting out of order. The assumption that I made was that the House of Commons would not listen to sensible amendments made in the House of Lords. The House of Commons will be the problem. The Chairman: Order. Let us get back to the new clauses. Mr. Foster: I shall try, but I am being led astray by the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. There are concerns that need to be addressed. Perhaps the House of Lords is the appropriate place to see how they can be dealt with. If they cannot be dealt with then we must accept that. However, this new clause must first be put in place. We have set down a marker that, in principle, the practice of sending a terrier underground to kill or flush out foxes, which will be shot later, should not be allowed to continue. Gregory Barker: On the welfare of cubs when the vixen has been shot, is the hon. Gentleman saying that effectively he washes his hands of their welfare in pursuit of his principle, leaving it for others to intercede? Is he washing his hands of the welfare of the cubs because they do not fit with his overall prejudice? Column Number: 1104 Mr. Foster: I was trying to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for raising an issue that is a dilemma for us. By expressing some sympathy with that view, I have been accused of being prejudiced in my overall view on animal welfare. I do not ignore the impact on cubs, but there is a school of thought that there will always be orphaned cubs because mothers can be killed in a road accident or shot, or for many other reasons. It is possible that we do not know about it and that orphaned cubs are left to starve. Where we can dispatch them as humanely as possible, we must consider doing so. However, the number of foxes that have been killed through terrier work is so great that the Bill must stop the practice.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 25 February 2003 |
