Clause 27 - Automatic conditions of individual registration
Hunting Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
Thank you, Mrs. Roe. I knew that I should not be able to dwell on that for too long. I will start by discussing amendment No. 39, which differs from the two amendments that the hon. Member for West Lancashire spoke about. Amendment No. 39 is a positive suggestion whereas, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the other two amendments are wrecking amendments, as I will demonstrate.
The thinking behind amendment No. 39 relates to animal welfare, consideration of which has been so woefully absent from so much of the debate. The subjective nature of the matter means that we need dwell very carefully on the question of who is or is not competent to dispatch a fox at any stage of its life; towards the end of its life or when it is wounded. We need to ensure that we are clear about what we mean when we use that all-embracing word ''competent.'' That is why the Conservatives suggest that a hunt master, a representative of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or a police constable should be best placed to pronounce on that matter.
We have fallen into the habit of selecting from the Burns report, and why not? In paragraph 6.60 Burns says:
''We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective.''
The report goes on to talk about snaring. There is a genuine concern. We should decide who is or is not competent in this context.
I do not know how many members of the Committee have tried to shoot a fox, whether or not it is wounded. I have, and I can assure the Committee that with a shotgun it is sometimes very difficult. Achieving a clean kill of a fox on the move requires considerable skill and—dare I use the word—competence.
That is why I have argued at previous sittings that I like the idea of hunting with hounds rather than shooting foxes, because there is no middle way. If one chases a fox with hounds the fox will either escape, by giving the hounds the slip, or it will be caught and dispatched quickly. There is no such guarantee with shooting, particularly if one is not very competent. Therefore, the amendment has been advanced for animal welfare reasons in an attempt to ensure that wild mammals are not wounded by inaccurate shots or, indeed—equally important—by the use of the wrong shot.
The amendments tabled by Labour Members alter the nature of the Bill. They bring to mind the only similar piece of legislation, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar; the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, whereby dogs are allowed to be used only for the purposes of locating and flushing wild animals from covert in order that they may be shot.
I shall not rehearse some of the descriptions given earlier in our Committee sittings, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) quoted the wife of a master of foxhounds in Scotland as saying how horrified the hunting community in Scotland was increasingly becoming over the amount of wounded foxes that they were leading out.