Hunting Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): I have a brief point to make, which I hope the Minister might address. Leaving aside the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), on which I entirely agree, the Minister is inviting the Committee to embrace a procedural nightmare. I have a specific question on the effects on rats and rabbiting: given that rats and rabbits are exempt under schedule 1, if terriers went underground in pursuit of rats or rabbits, would that be exempt hunting if the new clause were allowed? I am not a lawyer and I do not know the answer. I am worried, and look for reassurance on that point. Mr. Michael Foster (Worcester): In winding up the debate on the new clause, which I want to put to a vote, I pay tribute to some of the contributions, which have led to a well-informed exchange that lacked some of the knockabout point scoring that has gone on in Committee. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire must listen to what has been said, not what he thinks has been said or what the people who write his speeches thought that I was going to say. He reiterated his claim that the killing of foxes by dogs is done to maintain the health of the fox population, but I do not see how he can justify that argument and say that terrier work deals with sick, lame, infirm or even mange-ridden foxes. I cannot see how that works. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that I was quoting him, but I have made no such comments today. I have not referred to the health of the fox population, and he is knocking back things that I did not say. Column Number: 1141 Mr. Foster: When the record is published, it will be clear that the hon. Gentleman used the expression ''the health of the population being maintained by terrier work''. If he cannot remember what he said, there is no hope for us in Committee. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is rather confused, and I do not recall my hon. Friend making those comments. Perhaps he is confusing my hon. Friend's comments with mine on the fact that there would be diseased, injured or mange-ridden cubs and foxes that go to ground. He obviously did not listen carefully enough and got us confused. 2.45 pm Mr. Foster: I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) because, as the contributions were being made, I took it on myself to make a list of some of the questions that needed replies. The point in question is under the heading North Wiltshire, which comes before Mid-Sussex in the order of the contributions made by Opposition Members. I will come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle shortly, because his was an interesting contribution. The debate strayed and some time was spent on orphaned fox cubs. That is a difficult issue for all people who are interested in animal welfare matters and take them seriously. If the mother is killed, the problem for orphaned fox cubs is really in the first four weeks of their lives, which is when they rely on her for food. Some people argue that a terrier should go underground and dispatch an orphaned cub—we must take that to mean a cub under four weeks, because that is when it relies on the mother's milk—and save it unnecessary suffering. There are problems with that argument—it is not as straightforward as some would have us believe. Sometimes, the terrier going underground will not get a fight or an aggressive response from the cub because it is too young. The terrier may well not engage in the activity for which it was sent down. The cub may well escape into a part of the earth that is too small for the terrier, so that it cannot reach the cub. We must take that concern seriously—despite the sniggers that I can hear from the back of the Room. After four weeks, when the cubs can come above ground, they can easily be disposed of. They will be young, naïve cubs and it will be easy to shoot them. Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman justifies his argument by saying that we cannot use terriers on cubs because cubs can run into some parts of the earth that are too small for terriers. Frankly, he is clutching at straws. On most occasions, when a terrier is put down to chase cubs in that way, the cubs are bolted into waiting guns or a net. That is what terriers are used for. The hon. Gentleman should try chucking stones on to a fox earth or chucking soil into the hole; the fox nearly always comes out the other end. The argument that cubs could find their way down to a hole in the back end of nowhere and sit there shivering is pretty weak. Column Number: 1142 Mr. Foster: I was pointing out that the problem of orphaned cubs is not clear cut. It is not a matter of sending the terrier down to deal with them and the problem going away. There are far more important considerations to be taken into account. Gregory Barker: I am particularly intrigued by the suggestion that one waits until the cubs are four weeks old and then returns to dispatch them. [Hon. Members: '' He did not say that.''] That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Perhaps he will tell me exactly what he did say. What happens to cubs that need to be killed when they are one week old? Mr. Foster: I despair, Mrs. Roe because I thought that I was addressing all the Committee and not just Labour Members. I said that at four weeks, when the cubs can come above ground, they are easy to dispose of. I did not say that one should wait four weeks and then say, ''Oh well, the foxes can be killed at exactly four weeks. We can time it by when they were born. '' We would not know when they were born. That is utter nonsense. Opposition Members have got to listen and pay a little more attention to what is going on in Committee. Lembit Öpik: I heard the mild criticism of hon. Members. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman will now deal with what happens, in his scenario, to cubs between nought and four weeks old. What happens to them underground without terriers, according to his proposal? Mr. Foster: Again, I thought that I had said this—it is a bit déjà vu-ish. I thought I had said that there was an argument that a terrier could be used, but it is not a black-and-white or straightforward argument because the terrier might not kill the cub or the cub might simply move away. The matter is not clear cut, so there is no straightforward answer to dealing with the cub, or with cubs that are orphaned when the mother is run over by a car. When people spot a dead vixen on the road, I do not think that they will, out of the goodness of their hearts, go out with a terrier saying, ''We must do our good deed and dispatch the orphaned cubs''. That is not the real world. Mr. Gray: We are making progress. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that the matter is not clear and that there are circumstances in which terrier work might be useful and others in which it might not; it is all difficult and not black and white. Does he accept that his new clause is black and white? It bans everything, irrespective of whether there is utility in it or not. Would it not be more sensible to withdraw it and propose a less black-and-white solution? Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman may not remember saying it, but I think that the words he used were ''All terrier work is the same''. The new clause treats all terrier work the same, so I have done what follows on logically from what he said. Lembit Öpik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to intervene on a number of occasions. He will understand that this question is of seminal importance to thousands of people in the country. Let me make sure, for the benefit of every RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports member, that I Column Number: 1143 understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is willing to ban a method that pretty reliably kills fox cubs from nought to four weeks—it is nonsense that a terrier will step over such cubs—and to allow the cubs to starve to death. He is willing to compromise the welfare of cubs between nought and four weeks in the interests of banning terrier work. If he is banning the use of terriers to kill cubs, he has a moral obligation to provide an alternative and to explain it before we vote on the new clause. Mr. Foster: It would be a moral obligation if I were seeking the Committee's approval to deal with every orphaned fox cub in the country, however it had been orphaned. Animal welfare organisations will tell you, Mrs. Roe, and members of the Committee that they have concerns about the animal welfare implications for orphaned cubs, but there is no straightforward and clear-cut answer to the problem. Sending a terrier to dispatch cubs is not as clear cut as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested when he spoke to an earlier amendment that he tabled. That is why it is such a difficult subject. I cannot overstate the fact that, with new clause 11, I hope that I am dealing with a range of what I believe to be abuses of animals. A small proportion—fox cubs from nought to four weeks—could be dealt with by terrier work, but they are only a small part of the problem. New clause 11 deals with a greater wrong rather than with a small right. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen before in the Committee, to some extent Opposition Members are playing catch-up, raising arguments that they should have raised in much greater detail on schedule 1. New clause 11 is about registration. The exceptions that we are talking about could be dealt with under schedule 1. Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend is right. Members of the Committee have been free to table amendments to the new clause for many weeks. Indeed, there will be opportunities on Report or even in the House of Lords to deal with the matter. Mr. Luff: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how we could amend a new clause? Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Member for Worcester says that we should have amended his new clause. Is there any procedure in the Committee whereby we could have amended a new clause before it was tabled—or now, perhaps?

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 25 February 2003