[Continuation from column 548]
Hunting Bill
8:45 pm
Mr John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon, Conservative)
I shall take away some abiding impressions from this Committee—for example, I shall never think of water voles or lurchers in quite the same way again—and two important ones. The first is that there are some people serving on this Committee, very few, and I do not include myself among them, who really know what they are talking about. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme talk about the countryside, and the issues that they know about and understand, one realises how misconceived are some of the subsidiary provisions of the Bill. The second is that, leaving aside the issue of fox hunting, clause 3 shows how irrational are some of the subsidiary provisions of the Bill.
Hon. Members who voted for the Bill thought that they were voting to ban organised hunting, not voting for a moral distinction between a rat, a mink and a rabbit, which is what the Bill creates. It is nonsense to do that. I do not know what it is that allows a moral distinction to be created between which kind of animal can be killed by a dog, and which kind of animal can be flushed out by a dog, to be shot. Under this paragraph as it stands, it is all right for a dog to kill a rat, or rodent—which includes a few other species as well—but not to kill a rabbit. It is all right for a dog to flush out a rabbit, which is then shot, or as we have said before, in the case of a small animal, to allow a bird of prey to pick it up and drop it. In the case of mink—which for some reason has attracted the attentions of the Government, or Deadline 2000, or whoever is responsible for this nonsense—we are not allowed to flush them out and shoot them. Where are the moral distinctions?
The Bill attempts to draw distinctions between the kind of animals that can be killed in different ways, and the different methods that can be used to kill particular animals. There is no logic, no morality to those distinctions. That brings me back to the people who know what they are talking about in this debate. One realises that the balance of nature in the countryside has been managed for hundreds of years by people who live in the countryside, and who understand it. It may be that standards about cruelty to animals change over time. All, except one, of the Labour Members on this Committee recognise that our only responsibility is to make sure that unnecessary cruelty to animals does not occur. I wholly agree with that. If we begin to interfere in the management of the countryside, and the delicate balance of nature that occurs there, we cannot know where it will end.
Mink are not a natural species to this country, they escaped from captivity in the 1950s and have now overrun the place and are destroying water voles. When we begin to interfere, we do not know what the consequences will be. We have seen this in two other areas recently, where we became sentimental about badgers, so we made them a protected species. Badgers are now rampant over the countryside, they do enormous damage to fields and banks and hedgerows. They cause danger, as fields can collapse under tractors or people riding horses. They also probably spread tuberculosis. Now the time has come to control them again. Perhaps we should have left management of badgers to the people who understood the countryside, who never would have eliminated badgers as a species, but would have kept them at manageable proportions.
We have seen the same with the protection of birds of prey, to the point now where birds of prey have overrun large areas of Scottish moorland and are doing immense damage to the young grouse population on those hillsides. Grouse-shooting is a big industry in Scotland that attracts wealthy people paying enormous sums of money. We should be careful when we interfere in the balance of nature and the management of the countryside. Let us ban hunting, if that is what the House wants to do. I do not want that and shall fight it all the way, but I understand the issues. However, why all the subsidiaries? Why is a mink treated differently from a rat or a rabbit?
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex seems to have had the same briefing note as me, as I was going to say much of what he said. Rabbits and mink are quite clearly pests. They need to be controlled and need various methods of controlling them. Killing them with dogs is one of those methods. It is difficult to shoot a mink, which is a small animal. The most efficient way of killing a mink is with a dog. Why are we not prepared to allow that to be done to rabbits? Rabbits are a pest; they eat crops and multiply at enormous numbers. Every farmer has tried to control the rabbits on their land, and yet we are prohibiting them from using one of the methods of control that they have hitherto used. Farmers say that they want all those methods available to them.
Why are we drawing those distinctions? It makes no moral sense. I suggest to the Minister that it makes no practical sense, and to pre-empt his customary excuse, which is to say that that is nothing to do with him but concerns Deadline 2000, let me say that the Minister and his Department will be responsible for the administration of the Bill. If the Bill produces a complete nonsense in the countryside, with ridiculous prosecutions, or elimination of the population of water voles, or rabbits running riot, it will be the Minister and his Department who will have to answer for that and do something about it. It is in the interests of the Minister, his Department, the country, and particularly of the countryside to address the issues now, and not simply to resist every amendment that the Opposition comes up with.