| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The chairman of the commissioners is Sir Ronald Waterhouse. Only one of the seven members of the commission which conducts the affairs of ISAH is a nominee from the Hunting Committee of the
Countryside Alliance. The other six members have no connection with any hunting body whatever, either pro or anti, and they are the people who take the decisions. The members provide the money, but the commission is independent.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am obliged for that intervention and I apologise to the Committee for forgetting that the chairman is Sir Ronald Waterhouse. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the other members are drawn from bodies such as the NFU--
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I believe that I am right in saying that the other members of the commission are drawn from the NFU and the vets--
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. An appointments committee was set up consisting of Sir Ronald Waterhouse and a representative of the National Farmers' Union, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Country Landowners' Association. They in turn nominated the commissioners who comprise a number of distinguished professors, a distinguished Queen's Counsel and a prominent farmer. Indeed, I believe that all Members of the Committee have received a note from the current chairman setting them out.
Therefore, the commission was nominated by those bodies, but the commissioners are wholly independent of any connection with hunting, save for the one single representative.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I accept what she says but I still put it to the Committee that all the members are from the hunting fraternity--
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: No; members of ISAH are all from the hunting fraternity and that is a fact.
We have been told that the seven commissioners are nominated by three bodies; that is, bodies representing farming, the veterinary profession and country landowners. Even though they may have appointed professors and others of independent minds, I do not believe that that framework will satisfy a sceptical public when compared with an independent hunting authority appointed by the Home Secretary, the majority of the members of which must be entirely independent.
I understand those who would prefer the self-supervision option having concern about whether the Home Secretary will be impartial and fair in the appointment of members of the hunting authority. However, I believe that the right place to deal with that issue--I believe that it can be dealt with--is when the detail of the chosen option is entered into. I can see amendments being made to the schedule put forward
in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, which could go a long way to satisfying any unease on the part of the hunting fraternity about the independence of the hunting authority.However, any such unease is but as nothing compared with the level of suspicion and uncertainty on the part of millions of our fellow countrymen as regards a self-supervision alternative. For that reason above all others, I believe that those who want to see hunting survive should tonight make it emphatically clear that they are willing to accept that which they may not want in their heart of hearts; that is, an independent statutory hunting authority. I believe that that would satisfy all but the closed-minded among the public.
Lord Davies of Coity: Like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I shall not address the technical elements of the Bill but the principles of the matter before us. When I spoke at the Second Reading, I addressed, as others did, the questions of culture, control and cruelty. Many other speakers dealt with the question of job losses as well as what would happen to hounds and horses if hunting was banned. Indeed, I believe that no aspect relating to hunting was left unexplored by the 60 speakers who felt that the banning of hunting was unnecessary and unjustified.
As indicated on 12th March, I have no personal interest whatever in hunting, fishing or shooting. However, throughout I have been concerned that those who have been campaigning for hunting to be banned have not, in my view, been able to present logical and coherent arguments in support of their position. Of course, I hasten to add that a great deal of emotion has certainly been generated, particularly on behalf of foxes, but in my view the emotive statements expressed do not conform to reality.
During the Second Reading, fewer than 10 speakers spoke in favour of a ban on hunting. But despite being challenged none of them seriously addressed the fact that the fox population needs to be controlled; neither did they address the cruelty of the alternative methods which would need to be employed to a greater extent if hunting was banned.
Like many other Members of the Committee, I recently received a communication from those who want to ban hunting. It stated:
- "The debate is not about the countryside, it is about cruelty".
However, if those who support a ban on hunting are concerned solely with cruelty that arises from a sporting activity, there is a clear inconsistency in their arguments. When it is put to them that cruelty to creatures arises from other sporting activities, there is complete silence. Why should that be? When a fish is on the end of a line, often for a very long time, with a hook in its mouth or throat and fights to get free and is landed completely exhausted, the hook is removed and it is returned to the water to suffer the same fate time and time again. Is that not every bit as cruel as hunting? Why are those who call for a ban on hunting so silent about fishing?
Birds are bred for shooting. Beaters drive them into the air and they are shot, and often they are only wounded. Dogs are sent to recover them and carry them back between their jaws. Is that not cruelty arising from a sporting activity? But those who call for a ban on hunting are once again silent. Why? It seems to me that there can be only two explanations. One is that the killing of creatures by way of a hunt is regarded by those who wish to ban the sport as giving rise to a unique level of cruelty. But that stance cannot be justified. The second explanation is that cruelty to creatures arising from hunting is not regarded as giving rise to a unique level of cruelty, but the belief is that all cruelty arising from sporting activities should be banned. If that is the case, the silence is unworthy and the justification for a ban on hunting even more unacceptable. It would appear that a stepping-stone strategy is being employed, with hunting banned today, fishing banned tomorrow and shooting the day after. For all these reasons, I believe that those who call for a ban on hunting have not made out their case, even though many of them claim to have held the same view all their lives. Therefore, I believe that the House should reject the call for a ban on hunting.
Finally, I wish to address the way that I believe this House should vote on the options before it. As already indicated, I shall vote against a ban on hunting and self-regulation. I shall vote in favour of statutory regulation and the continuation of hunting under licence, because I believe that in the circumstances, given the strength of opinion in the other place, that is the only way to prevent hunting from being banned. Should this House vote overwhelmingly for self-regulation, the polarisation of views will work to the advantage of those in the other place who have voted by a very large majority to ban hunting. They will claim, quite correctly, that this unelected House is displaying an intransigence beyond its authority. It will turn into a battle of strength on the constitutional position as much as on hunting itself. On the other hand, if this House demonstrates its magnanimity, acknowledges the authority of the other place and is prepared to compromise, our opponents will be disarmed and our supporters in the other place, the foremost of whom is my right honourable friend Jack Straw, will be reinforced in their support for the prime objective, of which we must not lose sight; namely, to retain hunting. Failure to follow the course that I propose may very well result in the coming to pass of the very thing that we fear most: a ban on hunting.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I should like to begin by declaring my interest as chairman of St Martin's Magazines which publishes Hunting and Country Illustrated and also my membership of, and great support for, the Countryside Alliance. I pay great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her presidency of the Countryside Alliance and to its chairman, John Jackson. They do a wonderful job in defending not only field sports but also the interests of rural people and the rural economy. That makes it all the more difficult for me to say that I do not believe I can support the option of self-supervision put forward by the Countryside Alliance. All things being equal, I would much prefer to have hunting self-supervised, but at the moment all things are not equal.
In the other place an enormous majority voted against hunting. Sadly, the Government have given time to discuss a ban on fox hunting at a time when the countryside is in flames. Piles of animals are rotting in fields and are being incinerated, the rural economy is falling apart and yet we are talking about the welfare of foxes. It does not make sense. But we must recognise that that is what is happening.
The majority in the other place is a hard fact that we must recognise. If at the end of this evening's debate the Bill which is sent back to the other place puts in place independent supervision, how will that play in the other place? I believe that we already have the answer to that. A Bill providing for self-supervision will be treated with the same disdain and ignorance as before and dismissed. How will it play with the public and the press? I suggest that we also know the answer to that. Until the middle way was introduced, every opinion poll, however fallible it might be, indicated that the country was against hunting.
I should like to thank the all-party group of MPs, none of whom hunts--I believe that Llin Golding fishes--for the enormous amount of time and trouble that it has taken to defend hunting. It deserves the thanks of all of us who support hunting for bringing forward those ideas. The fact is that until its ideas were put forward hunting appeared to be extremely unpopular. If we send out a message from this House this evening that we shall not listen to the proposals for a middle way and the voices of reason, if that is what we believe they are, but simply press ahead with self-supervision, it could be very dangerous. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said, how will it play with the Ministers and MPs who have supported hunting and come out in favour of the middle way? Will they switch their opinions to support self-supervision? I do not know the answer to that, but I know where I would put my money. I do not believe that they would do that.
To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, the crucial question that we must ask ourselves is not whether self-supervision would be fair. It would be fair. I am convinced of that because of the people in charge of it--for example, Sir Ronald Waterhouse--and all the trouble that has been taken to put in place the ISAH, which is up and running. I hope that the fact
that it exists will be used later when we come to amend the Bill. The crucial question is not whether it is fair but whether it will be seen to be fair. Will a vote for self-supervision be acceptable or will it be seen as the last stand of the last ditchers? There is a danger that that will happen.If in reality self-supervision is a political non-starter--I believe that that is the case--we should give serious consideration to supporting the middle way. That option is by no means perfect. Even those who propose it accept that. But we have been promised recommittal and, therefore, will have the opportunity to amend the middle way to make it workable. I believe that it has serious flaws: it is far too bureaucratic and prescriptive. And I believe that the enforcement provisions, which are also far too harsh, have been lifted straight out of the option to ban hunting. I do not believe that it will be remotely acceptable. We shall have the chance to alter it.
The middle way proposals are not unreasonable. They are not that frightening. No reputable hunt should be too frightened of licensing if it is satisfied that its activities are not cruel. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said at Second Reading, those of us who hunt do not believe that we are doing something cruel. If hunts are properly run, and most of them are, they will have nothing to fear from licensing.
Licensing is not state controlled as has often been depicted. Pubs, drivers, banks and casinos are licensed. Does anyone suggest that those are all state controlled? Of course they do not. Licensing will give hunting the right to continue under responsible hands. All Members of the Committee who want hunting to continue must give that matter very serious consideration.
The composition of the hunting authority appears to be fairly reasonable. There is to be a representative from an animal welfare group and one each from a hunting group, from farmers, from landowners and from veterinary interests. I qualify that statement by saying that it is out of the question that the RSPCA should be the representative of the animal welfare group. It should hang its head in shame at the waste of its members' money in sponsoring anti-hunting advertisements and propaganda.
A vote against the middle way would send quite the wrong message to the Government and to the country at large. The message would be that supporters of the ISAH are reactionary dinosaurs. That is not the case, but that is how it would be seen and how it would be spun by those who are against hunting. The extremists in the other place must be absolutely praying that we vote down the middle way tonight.
The middle way is supported by the NFU. I remind Members of the Committee that without farmers there would not be any hunting at all. It is supported by the Home Secretary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and a number of MPs. If we send a clear message today, more Members of the other place might come out and support the middle way. That is why I really believe that it is the only option left to us.
It would also be a kick in the teeth to those people who over the years have been brave enough to come out in support of hunting and have been threatened with violence. It would be a terrible way to treat them, to say, "No, thank you very much. We are not interested in what you are saying. We don't need your support. We'll go on our own merry way". As I asked previously: will they stick with the hunting supporters after that? I do not know; I rather doubt it.
Regulation of hunting by a public authority with a balance of interested parties answerable to Parliament could prove acceptable to everyone except the most rabid of extremists. I hope that Members of the Committee will vote for the middle way tonight.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may deal as briefly as I can with the three options before the Committee.
So far as concerns the first option--the ban--my objections, which I previously expressed at Second Reading, are both in principle and practical. Those who support a ban do so, as I have understood the debate both today and on the earlier occasion, essentially for two reasons: first, they say that hunting is cruel. Simply saying so, however strongly the speaker holds the belief and however eloquent and passionate the speech--we have heard a number tonight and on earlier occasions--does not make it so.
The inquiry, of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, set up by the Home Secretary to inform this debate, found that the evidence of cruelty is not there. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, told us that the inquiry did not find cruelty; nor do the four veterinary surgeons who go out hunting regularly with my local pack; and nor did that inquiry find that alternative methods of killing caused less suffering.
Secondly, opponents of hunting say that it is morally wrong to use a form of killing as a sport. It does not matter tuppence to the animal which is killed whether its killer enjoyed what it did, or whether it wore absurd clothes; what matters surely is that it is skilful and efficient. But, they say, it is for the good of our society and to send a message to the next generation.
However, the morality behind option one, the ban, is both selective and profoundly hypocritical. It is apparently morally wrong to kill foxes, deer and hares unless it is done without enjoyment, for pest control or meat. Yet, it remains perfectly acceptable to kill rabbits and rats with as many dogs as one can muster and to shoot foxes, deer and hares, not to mention birds and killing fish, and to take as much pleasure as one wishes in so doing.
Once Parliament goes down the path of outlawing activities because of what some imagine is going on in the minds and thoughts of others, we set off down a slippery path towards a society in which I and others who care for freedom would have no wish to live.
Those are my objections in principle to option one. There are also practical objections which others have spelt out. There is no comprehensive workable definition of the offence of hunting contained
anywhere in the proposed Bill. It would be a nightmare for the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts. The powers that it gives beggar belief--arrest without warrant; stop and search, and, whatever has been said, as the Bill is presently drafted the onus to prove that one comes within one of the exceptions rests on the accused; forfeiture and destruction of animals and a life ban on keeping a dog. It is ironic that the RSPCA, which is currently unable to find homes for tens of thousands of unwanted, neglected and cruelly treated animals, which it destroys each year, should be promoting legislation to remove much loved, well-cared-for animals from responsible owners and to kill them.The provisions of option one do nothing for animal welfare. They are an undisguised attack on people. It is all the more ironic that those who would be primarily affected are those in the farming community. Whatever views Members of the Committee hold on the merits and demerits of hunting, a vote for option one is to deliver a kick in the teeth to part of our nation which needs our support now as never before. Furthermore, it will be seen by them as just that.
Several Members of the Committee have addressed the merits of options two or three. In particular, my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have urged Members of the Committee to think how such a vote would play, spin or look, and whether a vote for independent supervision would be acceptable. I may be accused, probably rightly, of being politically naive, but I always mistrust suggestions that one votes according to the way one thinks the vote will be received. The right course for each one of us is to look at the options in the Bill and to vote for the one which we honestly believe offers the right course.
Whatever noble Lords' views on the merits or demerits of options two and three, it would not be right for Members of the Committee to reject both those options. There is a widespread desire to find a resolution to the issue which allows all those who truly care about the countryside to devote their energies to the massive task of securing some future and regeneration for it and to avoid further damaging and divisive fights such as this. Such a resolution must in part involve, as other Members of the Committee have said, reassuring public opinion that hunting is conducted according to proper codes and rules; that complaints and breaches are properly, independently and publicly scrutinised and dealt with; and ensuring that the concerns highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, are properly addressed.
I support option two. I could barely do otherwise, having played a small part in setting up the independent supervisory authority. It is not the status quo. Indeed, it involves a significant change to current animal welfare legislation. The change centres around the recently formed independent supervisory authority, of which others have spoken. That authority not only has the power to review and revise the codes of practice of all those member hunting organisations but also oversees and controls the
disciplinary procedures of those organisations and makes recommendations for improvements and changes where necessary.A major change to the law proposed in option two is that those who do not operate under the control of ISAH will lose their exemption from prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act. Therefore, anyone who is not supervised by ISAH and does not subscribe to its codes and who goes hunting or coursing would not in a subsequent prosecution be able to claim any exemption under the law. It has other benefits. It is self-financing. It will not cost the Exchequer one penny. Unlike the middle way--option three--it is fully operational now and, unlike the middle way, it has a disciplinary procedure that is already in place. It is not overly bureaucratic and examination will show--I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will examine it when he has a chance to look at the documents that were sent out--that its independence is unchallengeable.
I shall support option two and I commend it to the Committee. But I should like to make the following point about the middle way option. I, too, pay tribute to those in another place who have stuck out their necks to raise this issue and widen the debate. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to Ms Kate Hoey and Mrs Llin Golding on my side of the House who at considerable personal risk have stood up to threats, intimidation and abuse for their views. My concerns about the middle way are as follows. As they themselves accept, it has as yet been only in a draft form in the sense that it has had no scrutiny in another place. I am concerned that it creates yet another government quango, with still more bureaucracy, complexity and expense. I am concerned also that in the present draft Bill licensing is treated in a way that does not foresee many of the potential difficulties. It is perfectly possible to devise an excellent licensing system for the existing organised hunts. But they are in a sense the tip of the iceberg because there are tens of thousands of people who use their dogs either for pest control or sport but who are not part of any of the recognised groups that would be registered. At some stage, that problem may have to be grappled with.
Whichever of the two options the Committee chooses--assuming that it votes against option one--I have no doubt that there will be a considerable degree of good will from all sides of the Committee and from all those who wish to see a resolution of this issue. There may be those who think that a licensing system is necessary. I believe that they would be better advised to vote for option two and then seek to put the teeth that they require into that option at later stages in Committee, if we have them. If the Committee supports independent supervision--option two--I shall not vote against option three, the middle way; I shall abstain. However, if the Committee rejects option two--independent supervision--it is essential that it should not rule out all forms of regulation and I, together with others, will do my best to ensure that
option three is put into a workable form for return to the other place. But it is surely the first vote in the Committee that is by far the most important.
It is not often that this House is called upon to defend the freedom of our people against prejudice. I hope that that is what we are about to do today.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page