Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Rob Marris: Can I try to cut the Gordian knot? New clause 11 deals with registration. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, with which my hon. Friend will remember I expressed some sympathy, related to exempt hunting under paragraph 7 of schedule 1. Therefore, orphans come under exempt hunting, rather than under registration, so there is no contradiction and not necessarily a procedural problem. Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a clear case for animal welfare being the only issue that we should consider in the Committee: we should certainly not consider prejudice, class hatred or any of the other nonsense referred to in the past. I tabled new clause 11 and seek the approval of members of the Committee for it on animal welfare grounds alone. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman proposed the abolition of all terrier work with roughly the same insouciance and lightweight argument as he used when he successfully proposed the abolition of all hare hunting. He seems to base his argument primarily on two things. First, he says that, under exempt hunting in schedule 1, the Minister has excluded the use of dogs underground, which somehow creates an inconsistency in the Bill. Secondly, he went to lengths to quote one or two extreme examples of what he described as fighting underground, saying how awful that was. He quoted an extreme and bizarre newspaper called ''Earth Dog—Running Dog'', which nobody in the countryside or involved in pest control using hounds or terriers would allow to grace their coffee tables. It is not a magazine that any of us would read. It is a disgraceful magazine. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Labour Members find that terribly funny. It is an extreme and extraordinary newspaper. For the hon. Gentleman to quote it and pray it in aid, without tackling any of the other issues involved in the abolition of terrier work, seems to demonstrate a lightweight approach to the issue. As we discovered the week before last, the hon. Gentleman knew that he had the support of his hon. Friends. He clearly took the view that there was no necessity to advance the real arguments, because he knew that, after a few quiet words, they would vote for the abolition of hare hunting. I suspect that he received the same indications this week with regard to terrier work underground. It will be interesting to see whether, after the Minister's humiliation in seeing his Bill wrecked by the hon. Gentleman's amendment, he will this week have Column Number: 1105 the courage of his convictions and vote for his own Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said memorably the week before last, in his 25 years in this place he had never seen a Minister fail to vote for his own Bill. However, this Minister committed that humiliating little crime the week before last, as he saw his Bill being wrecked by his own Back Benchers. It will be interesting to see whether this week he is ready to stand up for his Bill as printed and to resist his hon. Friend's new clause and, equally, whether his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whip will do so too. The Minister wants to intervene. I presume that he will tell me that he intends to resist the amendment. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not presume. I am going to suggest that he does not believe his own spinning. I have seen the reports in the papers. He sought to portray what I did as a climb-down or a failure to defend the Bill. It was no such thing. I made quite clear the reasons for my neutrality on the new clause last time, and I am quite content for what I actually said, rather than what the hon. Gentleman has managed to persuade journalists of, to stand in the record. 9.30 am Mr. Gray: What stands in the record is that when the hon. Member for Worcester moved a new clause to ban hare hunting, the Minister abstained rather than voting in favour of his Bill, while the PPS and the Whip voted against it. [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. I think that the point has been made. Can we get back to the new clauses? Mr. Gray: I am most grateful, Mr. Stevenson. We shall watch what the Minister does today and see whether he abstains on this new clause or whether he votes against his own Bill. That would be perfectly in character. We have heard from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) that he intends to table amendments on Report to ban hunting altogether. It will be most interesting to see whether the Minister supports those. That point is in order because the hon. Member for Worcester has been telling us that he is not moving new clause 12 because he intends to move amendments on the Floor of the House to deal with foxhunting. Will the Minister, at that stage, stand up for his Bill? Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): What does this have to do with new clause 12? Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read new clause 12, which is on foxhunting and has not been moved. It is legitimate for us to talk to it. The Chairman: Order. I should like to get this straight, for my benefit and for that of hon. Members. We are debating new clauses 11 and 12. Whether there is a vote on those depends on the outcome of the Committee's considerations. Mr. Gray: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Stevenson. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) will also be grateful for it. If there is a move to ban foxhunting on Report, along the lines of new clause 12, or if there is a vote on Column Number: 1106 new clause 12 this afternoon—although the hon. Member for Worcester has said that he will probably not move it—will the Minister stand up for his own Bill or cave in to his Back Benchers? [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister says, rather crossly, ''Don't be so juvenile''. If new clause 12 is moved this afternoon, or if a similar clause is moved on Report to ban foxhunting, will he stand up for his Bill as drafted or cave in to his Back Benchers who are trying to wreck it? Will the Minister's humiliation become even more public than it is already, or will he bravely stand up for the Bill as it lies before the Committee today? The Minister might like to intervene to tell me which he intends to do. Alun Michael: The Minister would like to intervene to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that being a representative of one's party on the Front Bench is an honourable occupation, which should add to and illuminate a Committee's considerations. I find his juvenile contribution slightly embarrassing. The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire anticipated that I would rise to my feet again. He is entitled to ask the Minister what his attitude is to a new clause that we are debating. The point has been made and I think that we can now move on to the other arguments that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to make. Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson; you are right. The fact that a Minister of the Crown gets to his feet to launch personal abuse at an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman seems to indicate the nature of the beast. We are dealing with an extraordinarily important new clause. The Labour party thinks that it can ban anything that it likes overnight without discussing it with us. That seems to be what the hon. Member for Worcester wants to do on terrier work. Surely to goodness, Labour Members should be ready to listen to some of the sensible arguments being advanced on behalf of the countryside, rather than responding in the insulting way that the Minister has just attempted. Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Gray: If it is all right with the hon. Gentleman, I should like to move on to the meat of terrier work. There is much to be discussed. I hope that he will forgive me. The hon. Member for Worcester talked about the use of terrier work only in the sport of organised foxhunting. He did not once mention a gamekeeper. He mentioned the National Gamekeepers Organisation at one stage, but he did not talk about the use of terriers in the straightforward pest control of foxes. Does he not realise that if foxhunting and the chasing of foxes above ground were banned, the use of terriers underground for pest control purposes would be significantly more important than it is now? Right now, it is an enormously important industry. A large number of foxes are killed using terriers underground, but if no foxes are killed above ground by fox hounds, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of terriers underground will become even more important? The National Pest Technicians Association has written to the Minister expressing its concerns about Column Number: 1107 the potential implications of the Bill for its members. We are not talking about the Beaufort hunt. The association states that its members increasingly use more natural and environmentally friendly methods, which most certainly include dogs. It says that it could not carry out its work were it not for the use of dogs. The hon. Gentleman did not mention pest control or gamekeepers when he moved the new clause. All he talked about was the use of terriers in support of organised hunting, which seems a narrow approach to moving the draconian new clause. Does he realise that if all terrier work underground were banned, the sport of shooting in England would be significantly affected? The sport of shooting could not continue unless there was some method of controlling foxes. Most gamekeepers use dogs to control foxes so that they can carry on shooting. The hon. Gentleman and his party keep saying that they are strong supporters of game shooting. The hon. Gentleman should realise that if the new clause is carried, it will have a devastating effect on the game industry in the United Kingdom today. Some 10 million pheasants a year are shot by organised shoots. That is a significant industry in the countryside, and pest control using dogs is an absolutely essential tool in that industry. The new clause would wreck it.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 25 February 2003