Clause 8 - Tests for registration: utility and
Hunting Bill
8:55 am
Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
When we divide on amendment No. 20, I may vote for it because I doubt that Mr. Stevenson will also call amendment No. 110 for a Division. The other things that we want to add to the utility test are unique to hunting, and losing hunting would mean that they could not be replaced. Even in my constituency, which is not a remote rural area, the social activity around hunting is considerable. In remote rural areas, it is greater still. That social
activity would be lost for ever and wildlife would suffer irrevocably if hunting were banned. Hunting has unique features, which would be lost for ever if it were banned. We could find a way to deal with the jobs problem, which is a weak argument. There is a difference between my hon. Friends and me, but it is not excessive.
We have talked a lot about control. Many facts and figures on wildlife management, the role of hunting in controlling foxes and the level of predation caused by foxes have been bandied around. The Minister has claimed that losses are minimal, and some Government Members have claimed that control is not required. If only 2 per cent. of lambs are lost to fox predation at present, which would be significant for some farmers, it is a tribute to the network of control activities in place in the countryside at present. That figure is a product of the current system of control. The fact that losses are relatively low—on some marginal farms 2 per cent. would be quite a lot and on some upland farms the figure is a great deal higher—is a tribute to what is being achieved at present.
The Burns report states:
''foxes kill a substantial number of game birds, both wild and hand-reared. Hand-reared pheasants are particularly vulnerable when they are released from their rearing pens. In the absence of fox control a substantial number of birds would be lost before the start of the shooting season.''
On 18 October 2001, which is after the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the Farmers Union of Wales stated in a latter to the Federation of Welsh Packs:
''All counties in Wales have reported an increase in fox numbers and predation since the hunting authorities commenced their voluntary ban on 22 February 2001 . . . The Union's County Branches are receiving an increasing number of calls from farmers concerned at the effects of a protracted ban on fox control during the autumn period.''
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food submission to the Burns inquiry stated that
''approximately 75,000 foxes are killed each year by all forms of hunting that involve the use of dogs . . . If there was any reduction in fox control using dogs, this would have to be compensated by an increase in other methods of control to ensure no increase in local fox numbers.''
The National Farmers Union told the Burns inquiry:
''We have concluded that any further reduction in the range of techniques available would seriously compromise farmers' ability to control agricultural pests effectively and would jeopardise effective management of farm holdings.''
The National Gamekeepers Organisation told the Burns inquiry:
''The Committee should also remember, when it is looking for evidence of damage to man's interests by pests, that it is doing so in a country where these pest species are already controlled.''
The Country Land and Business Association's submission said that
''There is no doubt that the existence of hunting for the purpose of control rather than eradication means that the health population of foxes remains by virtue of the fact that it is a selective method of control.''
In July 2001, the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament said:
''The Committee concluded that there was overwhelming evidence of the need to control both the total fox population and individual animals which are known to be taking stock.''
There is considerable evidence that hunting has utility in terms of the control of foxes. The definition in the Bill will reduce significantly the ability of hunting to play that part, and probably end it in many parts of the country.
Let us consider the question of sustainable management of the quarry species, which the amendments would include in the utility test. Lord Burns told the House of Lords:
''If hunting were subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other means. The number of deaths is not likely to be reduced by banning hunting.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 532.]
The Burns report concluded that
''Farmers (and landowners) are at the heart of this activity. As a group, they are clearly in favour of hunting.''
It also stated that
''some farmers tolerate foxes because of their own support for hunting.''
Graham Sirl, formerly head of the west country operations for the League Against Cruel Sports wrote to the local newspaper in 2001. He said:
''Over the years, and many meetings with landowners and others, I have come to the conclusion that in the event of a total hunt ban, the deer population will be decimated. This view is shared by many, including some who remain independent on the hunting issue . . . Greater protection is needed for the quarry species, therefore prior to, or following a ban, amendments must be made to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1986. Failure to bring in such protection will inevitably lead to an increase in activities such as fox, deer and hare drives. This will be nothing short of unmanaged, indiscriminate slaughter.''