rose to call attention to the development of alternatives to fox hunting in the light of the Hunting Act 2004; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, today's debate on the alternatives to fox hunting is timely in the wake of the general 2004 legislation outlawing the hunting of mammals with dogs and timely as an opportunity for Parliament to review the legislation and assess its effects on the countryside. The main burden of the debate that I wish to develop today is to advance the legitimate alternatives to fox hunting which I regard to be the true middle way, a middle way that I define as the elimination of the mindless, cruel and demeaning pursuit and killing of a mammal for the purposes of fun while at the same time retaining the pomp, pride and panoply of a tradition in rural Britain that many still wish to celebrate in the form of organised hunts—hunts which bind and bound these close communities.

What, then, are the advantages of turning to drag hunting, line hunting and hunting with bloodhounds? Are the disadvantages of these alternatives really as bad as some try to make out? Indeed are such so-called disadvantages capable of being overcome or modified in much the same way as the shooting of pigeons for sport 100 years ago was transmuted into the flourishing sport of clay pigeon shooting today—a non-cruel field sport?

First, drag hunting is a cheaper sport to follow than fox hunting. This is confirmed by an article in the January 2005 edition of the Horse and Hound entitled "All about drag hunting" where the annual subscription for fox hunting is estimated to be £1,000 per person per year, in contrast to an average levy of £360 per annum to join a drag hunt. Coupled with other incidental expenses and on-costs not included here, such as the purchase of appropriate dress, this is a significant fact in view of the opportunities offered to increase recruitment and, just as importantly, to broaden the social mix of those who participate in hunting. Having an entry price of one-third of fox hunting offers enormous opportunities to build and sustain drag hunts in rural Britain and may also help to ward off the frequent criticism that hunts are class-based, closed and claustrophobic.

Secondly, we were told before the ban that certain dire consequences would ensue. One was that the hunt would no longer provide a fallen stock service to farmers. This had simply not been true before the ban of the north-east Cheshire drag hunt which has been providing such a service since 1958. Nor is it true now, after the ban. Alan Hayes, hunt master for the Monmouthshire Hunt says that it has been operating a successful drag hunt by creating a scent for hounds to follow in the form of a sock soaked in pungent odour. But in addition to this trail hunting the Monmouthshire still,

"provides a fallen stock collection service for farmers as well as a fox control service by using two dogs to flush a fox to guns".

Indeed I wonder whether your Lordships know of any such fallen stock services which have been withdrawn in the wake of the ban. The same is true of point-to-points. I have seen no evidence that these are disappearing. Indeed, before this debate started I was approached by the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, who tells me that he attended the north Shropshire point-to-point and it is flourishing.

A third fear was the withdrawal of permission by farmers for the hunt to traverse their property. Has anyone evidence that this is happening because of the ban? It certainly does not square with any common understanding of how things work in life and in the countryside. Why would groups such as hunters and farmers who share common interests want to take revenge on each other where there is every reason for them to collaborate for their mutual benefit? Incidentally, the Burns report indicated that many farmers would happily accept payment from hunts for access to their property if the ban were to be introduced. That surely fits in with the modern concept of farmers being stewards of the land for the benefit of others as well as generating income for themselves. All those fears touted by the shrill Countryside Alliance have been unrealised. People can adopt and change, provided they have the leadership to encourage and so prompt them.

It is said that drag hunting is conducted at a faster rate than fox hunting, often involving more difficult jumps and requiring skills that would exclude certain groups including, say, children. The drag is thought to be too predictable and lacking the mystery with which fox hunting is magically invested; that it is run more infrequently throughout the year and during the week; that it covers a wider territory than is natural to the fox hunt; that it requires different personal skills, attitudes and aptitudes and so attracts a different audience and following from fox hunting.

I believe that all those objections are either superficial or capable of useful modification. The crucial difference is that in fox hunting the fox dictates the course of events—no fox, no pursuit, no kill and no hunt and everyone is then able to enjoy the mystery and allure of a fruitless day spent in the countryside to their heart's content. In the case of the drag hunt, or the line hunt, a man dictates the course of events. That crucial difference permits an adaptability and a flexibility that can be shaped to satisfy a much wider range of interests and tastes than is currently the case with fox hunting. The pace and duration of the hunt can be fast and furious, with enthusiasts having but a few hours to pursue their favourite hobby, or it can be slow and measured to suit those who savour hunting like a good wine. Yes, those longueurs of afternoons when the fox's trail has been lost can be artificially recreated in drag hunting, if needed, to satisfy those of a slower turn of mind and limb.

And because the pace and duration can be organised by man—by the masters of the hunt—so too can the difficulty of the course and the number and precipitousness of the jumps, thus providing sport for all grades of riders, old, young, expert and novice. That, in turn, will help the development of the sport and to recruit newcomers. The course can be chosen or adapted for younger or more experienced hounds and, of course, for different types of hounds, including bloodhounds. Let us remind ourselves that hounds are adaptable and can be retrained, as they always have been. Rides can be adapted for the different needs, skills and experiences of the horses ridden by the hunters. In that way, hunting becomes a more inclusive sport, more democratic, broadening its narrowing base—doubtless that is something that would have pleased Karl Marx's friend Friedrich Engels, who used to ride in my neighbouring Cheshire Hunt.

Finally, hunts can be adapted to suit the needs of those who follow on foot. Their needs are normally ignored as they are expected simply to tag along during a normal fox hunt. But no sport should ignore its spectators, its fan base. After all, the origins of drag hunting were not necessarily to cater for those wishing to avoid the mindless chase and slaughter of an innocent mammal; the origin was promoted by market innovation, offering a package that catered for a separate set of needs from those provided by the traditional fox hunt.

On the so-called mystery attached to fox hunting—its vaunted unpredictability—I make these points. First, those devising the drag hunt can introduce sudden and unexpected changes in the course of the run. Secondly, because drag hunts typically range over a wider area of the 60 per cent of land in Britain that is currently hunted than do individual fox hunts, drag hunt masters can lay more interesting and varied trails than is the case with fox hunting and can cover terrain that is not normally covered by the fox or the foxhound. Thirdly, do hunters decry other activities, such as point-to-point, because they are not unpredictable? Of course, they do not. Indeed, not everyone welcomes mystery and unpredictability. Some people prefer the predictable and the regular. When it comes to running over railway lines and main roads, the drag hunt can be designed to avoid such unpredictability and that is a good job too in view of the compensation and the saving of lives of people, hounds and horses. Hunt havoc, which is still an unacceptable reality in rural Britain today, can be minimised, along with the abhorrent invasion of rural people's gardens, the disruption of their privacy and sometimes the disgraceful killing of domestic pets. That is an unpredictable mystery we can all do without. Another advantage of the drag hunt—the man-made unpredictability of the route—can lead to a predictable finish, either back at the start or at a rendezvous point, pleasing not only those participating, but also followers and those associated with the hunt.

Drag hunting and its related alternatives widen the scope of possibilities that the modern hunter might want to embrace. Such new thinking is happening now, but a voice from an unexpected quarter is the philosopher AC Grayling, who suggests that drag hunting and blood hounding could be conducted competitively with, he suggests, the Quorn, the North Cotswold and the Wynnstay hunts competing to see which can most quickly find the scent of the drag. Fresh revenues might be brought into the sport by televising drag hunting competitions. It could even become an Olympic sport—after all, John Whetton, the former Olympic runner, now runs regularly for a drag hunt. Not only would that generate money, create fun, introduce an element of showcasing equestrian, equine and canine skills, but it would also serve hunting's main and legitimate purpose of bringing together like-minded people in fellowship. What is required is not to spend time ignominiously in a bolt-hole waiting for the return of full-blooded fox hunting but for the hunting community to recognise what holds it together—each other—and then to think and act positively within the wider prospering rural communities that exist today. Indeed, we find not only increasing numbers of drag hunts, but increasing participation in the hunts themselves.

A General Election has intervened and I hope people recognise that no animal welfare legislation about bear baiting or cock fighting has seen the return of those events. Any promise to repeal the legislation should be matched by saying how that will be achieved. We should hear from the Opposition about that. Since the ban has come about, there have been conversions to drag hunts, including, for instance, the Royal Artillery Hunt in Wiltshire. Another, perhaps wider, group of hunts has gone over to drag hunting, albeit reluctantly, intending to stay within the law. Vicky Atkinson, the joint master of the Vale of Lune Hunt, noted the increased interest in her pack and declared in the Westmorland Gazette that,

"most people come for the spectacle . . . It's different than it used to be . . . but it's still good to go out in the countryside, ride horses and follow the pack of hounds and just generally enjoy the day".

There have been some questions about the legislation, which is robust, but there have been some exemptions. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the use of a bird of prey. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle reports Mark Shotton of the South Durham Hunt as stating:

"We also use an eagle and that has been a godsend to us, because it covers us legally".

Will the Minister respond to that and assure us that that is not an acceptable exemption?

I shall end my speech, but I say to the hunting community that after the ban, if it thinks imaginatively and sticks together as a group, it will find that life is not such a drag. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. It is right that we look at the consequences of the Act during the 12 months since it came into force. I am pleased that he has examined the different aspects of that and that drag hunting is becoming more widespread. He also dealt with the possibility of the dire consequences of a ban on hunting that had been predicted, and its effect on the countryside, particularly in relation to jobs. It was said at the time that there might be 16,000 to 20,000 jobs at risk—I believe that was the Countryside Alliance's figure. We always disputed that because it seemed to be exaggerated; the Burns report clearly spelt out that there could be 700 direct jobs and anywhere between 6,000 and 7,000 indirect jobs affected by the ban over a period. We know that those dire consequences have not taken place.

The effect on the countryside and on jobs has not happened for several reasons. First, as I said, the claims were greatly exaggerated. Let us consider that in agriculture some 9,000 jobs per annum are going anyway; those are being replaced and the countryside is still thriving because the hunts are still in place, redundancies have not happened and, as my noble friend said, other activities are replacing traditional hunting and drag hunting is coming to the fore. I hope that all of us can unite—I agreed with the Countryside Alliance on other matters and I said that to my noble friend who was connected with it. We have had a joint campaign on public services, bus services, school closures and, particularly, on the current threat to post offices. Many post offices are being closed and their businesses might be taken away from them if the card system is removed. That is for another day—at the moment we are discussing the economic effects of the ban on hunting which have not been seen and are not there.

Also untrue was the claim that fox hunting was a method of pest control. I have always disputed that and I estimated that, at most, some 4 to 6 per cent of foxes were killed by hunting. If we relied on hunts to control foxes in my area we would be overrun by them, but other means are used, particularly shooting. As we saw during the foot and mouth outbreak, it makes little difference whether hunting is going on or not. Having said that, I am not quite as optimistic as my noble friend about what is actually happening in the countryside. I believe that there might be a lot of hunting, much of which is illegal. I am not the only one who believes that. The League Against Cruel Sports has estimated that probably 40 per cent of hunts are flouting the law in one way or another at different times.

An article in the Sunday Times on 12 February claimed that, in the week before the Hunting Act was passed, reporters went out with a hunt in Wales and killed four foxes using a full pack of 18 dogs. The article also referred to the BBC's "The Last Tally Ho" programme, broadcast that Sunday night, about the Vale of White Horse hunt in Gloucestershire. One huntsman with the hunt said:

"We hunted foxes all day and I don't care who knows about it. We were very lucky. We got away with a proper day's hunting".

He claimed that the hunt continued to do this.

So there we have it—an open admission from a hunt. The hunt that the Sunday Times went with was anonymous; this one was actually named in the programme. We cannot think that all hunting has ceased. As I say, it is taking place, and we need to examine how far the Act is being flouted. The League Against Cruel Sports has made 40 complaints to the police about 30 different hunts, but no action has been taken so far. This is something that we need to examine in the future.

There have also been breaches of the Act in relation to mink hunting. There have been reports of packs of hounds having been seen in rivers. The claim is that they are hunting rats, although that seems extremely unlikely as rats go to ground and seek shelter very quickly. There have also been reports of hare coursing, as well as hunting with beagles. The claim is that they are not hare coursing, but are after rabbits. Then there are the stag hunts. It seems that at least three of the stag hunts are using two hounds. It is legal to do so to bring out the stag, but instead of the stag being dispatched when it comes out, it is chased by another two hounds. The chase goes on for hours until the stag is exhausted, and it is either dispensed with or left. It appears that there is also cub culling, although this is far more difficult to witness and to prove, because cub hunting usually takes place early in the morning or later in the evening. That is another breach of the Act.

My noble friend also referred to birds of prey, which have featured in allegations about cub hunting. One side of a copse is taken with an eagle owl or a golden eagle, and then there is a chase from the other side. Again, we need to look at that to see if the law is being breached.

While I am satisfied, as my noble friend Lord Harrison has explained eloquently in his usual way, that a lot of hunts are complying with the law, I must ask the Minister to address aspects of the legislation and perhaps promise to investigate. Could legislation, which seems to be needed, be enacted to give police access to land and to investigate offences where there is reason to believe that an offence has taken place? I believe that needs to be strengthened. I hope that my noble friend will say what can be done about that.

In addition, can breaches of the Hunting Act be recorded so that we will all be made aware of what is happening? I cited the League Against Cruel Sports, but it is obvious that a lot more reports are being made to the police, some of which are not about breaches of the Hunting Act at all. They are about something that none of us has been opposed to. I certainly would not be opposed to people going to the countryside to exercise horses or being in drag hunts, and so on. Nevertheless, there are those issues, so perhaps my noble friend could have a look at them.

A lot of terrier work with hunts seems to be taking place, as it was before. The terrier men still seem to be there. While we know that, legally, if game are in danger they can be put under ground, it seems to be far more than that. Will my noble friend review the code of conduct on that? What information can he offer us? I mentioned what seems to be the illegal use of birds of prey. I know that many falconers are very concerned about the way in which they are being used by hunts in what may be a breach of the law. Will the Minister look at that to see whether, under the exemption in paragraph 6 of the schedule, that loophole could be closed? What reports have been received from police forces throughout the country in relation to hunting and hunting activities? I look forward to a lot more information on that.

I agree with my noble friend that good progress has been made. Time is passing and drag hunting will become more prevalent. It was never the intention of this side that we should spoil people having the pleasure of exercising horses in that way. It will be a feature of the countryside for a long time to come. Having said that, there are many breaches of the Act: indeed, a pro-hunting Member of the other place boasted to me that he is hunting and killing more foxes than he did before. That is why these matters need to be looked at. I look forward to my noble friend saying what is being done.

My Lords, the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for providing this opportunity to revisit and reflect on the outcome of the legislation. The House is well aware that whenever I spoke in the tumultuous and passionate debates that we had, it was always from the standpoint that I could not tolerate the training of dogs to tear live animals apart, either for the protection of property or for sport.

I was always conscious that people on the other side of this Chamber and of the argument were sincere and honest when they said that a ban would have a serious impact on their communities. I always accepted that. It could be that there have been serious consequences. In a useful introduction, my noble friend Lord Harrison trailed his coat on what was said would happen and what is actually happening. What we can do is reflect, but it is far too soon to do so within two years of the passing of legislation and the opportunity that was given to a range of people to come to terms with a new kind of life. I am not particularly concerned with the manner in which fox hunting is replaced, because that depends on how those who wish to exercise their rights do so within the law. I always start from the viewpoint that this is a law-abiding country, and that the people on the other side of the argument from me are law-abiding. All that I read and see in the papers and on television is that the tumult and turmoil that was forecast has yet to come about.

That could have been due to the fact that wrong intelligence was fed into the debate, by those who wished to retain fox hunting, of the dire consequences that would arise. If they are honest—I believe that they are—they will agree with me that the dire consequences that they forecast have not come about. At the same time, those organisations on my side of the argument have not made too much of the fact that it is clear that the law is not being kept wholly and fully by every person to whom it applies. I take the view after more than 30 years as a Member of Parliament that it is not reasonable to assume that, from day one or midnight on day one, ipso facto the whole thing changes.

I readily admit that community life in many parts of the country has been altered but, having said that, I come from a community—the mining community up north; there are many others—whose members' way of life was changed and decimated beyond recognition without their permission, but it happened. We all know that communities have such experiences visited on them, where their world and life is turned upside down—there is the instance of the motor car industry in recent times—just as we were told that the world and life of the fox-hunting communities were turned upside down.

I always took the view that there was no such thing as a fox-hunting community, because all the evidence I saw was that many people were in favour of fox hunting, almost as many as were against it. One of the bedevilments of the past, and perhaps of the future, is the reliance on public opinion polls of one kind or another. I am deeply grateful to this House and to the many people who over many years fought the good fight and finally achieved the Bill's passage. With the Bill's passage a stage was reached; we are in a transition period where we need not only to reflect, but possibly as time passes to make amendments to it to take into account whether that law is right.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, whose views I deeply respect, I say that the House would welcome any evidence to show that the forecasts of the disasters that were to follow from the Bill's passage have come about. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us about the effect on his department and the police of attempting to follow the law. I honestly think that proponents on both sides of the argument are now reflecting and pausing for breath. It is not that the issue will go away. There will always be people who feel that they were wronged and that they need to do something about it. But so far as I am concerned, I am pleased that after much passionate debate the Bill was eventually passed by this House, and while I sincerely respect the views of those on the other side of the argument, it is now time to move on.

My Lords, I deeply respect the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who has just spoken, but I should point out to him that in fact the ban on fox hunting was rejected in this House. The Hunting Act 2004 has failed as an animal welfare measure; indeed, it is having a negative impact on animal welfare and the proper management of wild mammals. There is no doubt that a lot more foxes have died over the past 12 months than was the case previously. I am sure that we all contribute in our thinking to the welfare of the fox. The Act prohibits the method of culling of wild mammals using dogs, which even the Minister at the time when the Bill was introduced, Alun Michael, accepted under some circumstances could cause the least suffering. The negative effect of the Act on animal welfare results entirely from the fact that in its current form, the Act's primary purpose is to end the human activity of hunting rather than to regulate the culling and management of wild mammals by avoiding unnecessary suffering via a licensed system rather than a free for all. It is therefore not an animal welfare measure. Rather it is one that seeks to proscribe the human activity of hunting, regardless of the consequences for animal welfare.

It follows that for the Act to be a genuine welfare measure, it should have considered not only hunting but all other methods of control to ensure that the most appropriate method is used in the different circumstances that may arise. Whatever the method used for culling, the aim should be to ensure that there is no avoidable suffering. We should ponder the fact that the legislation affects every dog owner in England and Wales because it makes the chasing of any wild animal other than a rat or a rabbit illegal, which is an important point. The Act makes no provision to ensure that alternatives to hunting are conducted according to best practice so as to minimise suffering, especially that which results from wounding. Is that being regulated properly? I doubt it.

The Hunting Act ignores the warnings made in the Burns report that in the event of a ban on hunting, it would be probable that farmers and others would resort more frequently to alternative methods of killing foxes, deer, hares and perhaps mink. Paragraph 6.13 of the report states:

"It follows that the welfare of animals which are hunted should be compared with the welfare of animals which, on a realistic assessment, would be likely to result from the legal methods used by farmers and others to manage populations of these animals in the event of a hunting ban".

In a letter to the Deputy prime minister dated 14 May 2003, the Minister Alun Michael accepted that in an indeterminate number of cases, hunting could be the method of least suffering.

I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of hunting which deeply concerns me because I have a better knowledge of it than perhaps is the case for some other forms. In the forestry and upland areas in particular, no provision was made in the Act to take account of the difference in topography or the needs of fox control in different areas of the country. Nowhere is this felt more acutely than in large areas of forestry and in upland areas, such as is found in Wales and the Fells. The Act fails to take account of the fact that even where the Burns report expressed a tentative preference for a particular method of control, it noted that alternative methods were not always better at taking account of the circumstances, such as topography and the way in which and by whom those methods were used. It states:

"Efficient lamping requires good vehicular access. Its usefulness can therefore be limited in areas with rough terrain and steep slopes"— and dense forestry. Due to the topography of Wales and other upland areas, there was a greater dependency on the use of dogs for fox control. Certainly in the area that I represented in the other place, there were a number of gun packs operating with hounds. The terrain, coupled with high densities of sheep production and large areas of forestry, meant that controlling foxes using dogs was the most practical method. I can testify to that.

The farming unions in Wales are establishing the impact that the Hunting Act is having on Welsh farmers, and this survey is likely to be published in late autumn of this year. In particular, the Act's restriction on the number of dogs that can be used renders the exemption impractical in areas of forestry. The vice-president of NFU Wales has said:

"The exemption in the Hunting Act that allows a maximum of two dogs to be used for flushing foxes to guns makes effective fox control all but impossible in many areas of Wales. A survey of the Forestry Commission Wales showed that much of the woodland they managed is made up of plantations over 1,000 ha in size. It is totally unrealistic to expect two hounds to find, let alone flush, foxes to guns, from such large areas".

I regard these points as extremely important, and will give some practical examples in a few minutes. The Burns report itself noted that in upland areas—where the fox population causes more damage to sheep rearing and game-management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control—few alternatives are available to the use of dogs either to flush out to guns or for digging out. In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be adversely affected.

In our area, the fox is certainly a pest. There is no question about that. Thousands of acres in the uplands are a monoculture of conifer softwood trees. After the Second World War, many of the landlords in my part of the world sold out sheep walks which were planted with conifers. This created a dense habitat where foxes thrived. One hunt that I know of has legally discharged its duty to pest control by controlling 500 foxes per annum in the past 30 years. That has kept the fox population stable; it has not vanished. Foxes still thrive in the area, but not in excessive numbers. The only possible method of flushing was with a pack of hounds, and certainly more than two dogs.

In those upland areas in Wales that I know best—and in the Lake District and the south-west—the density of sheep stocking is second only to that in New Zealand. I can testify that foxes take at least 10 per cent of the lamb flock if uncontrolled. The value of those lambs is anything from £30 to £40 per head. On a thousand-ewe upland flock, this is worth some £3,000 to £4,000 per annum. Indeed, many of these farms only have a net income of about £12,000 per annum, anyway. Certainly in my own experience of sheep farming, I frequently lost between 30 and 40 lambs from a 200-ewe flock per annum. It is right that we should be able to control those foxes but not eliminate them. This is a very viable method of control. It is rather sad, but if foxes went around urban areas killing the family cats, there would be a very different reaction to the fox. It is a pest, and we cannot get away from that.

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has indicated that there are alternatives and indeed he has said that drag hunting is an alternative. So it is, but it does not address the question of pest control, which is really leeching income from the upland farming communities that I know. There is no doubt that these alternatives are fair but that that must surely be the answer, in conjunction with licensed hunting, where things are laid down so that there is no abuse of animal welfare concerns. That would be extremely important.

As for breaches of the Hunting Act 2004, that is a matter for the police. I would not condone the breaking of the law, and the police have the authority to pursue that if they have sufficient evidence. What I believe is coming out of the Act is the serious question whether the law is enforceable. That is a question on which the jury is out at the moment. There are alleged breaches of the Hunting Act—and indeed, if this is the case, this must be pursued; but there is no evidence of prosecutions at the moment. So we must take the emotion out of this issue and license hunts where that is appropriate and they must obey the rules. Foxes have to be controlled as a pest, and if hunts wish to pursue other methods such as drag hunting, it is their perfect right to do so.

We can look at this logically, and as more evidence comes to be as to how the Act is maturing, then we can see what the case is for keeping the status quo or for reviving licensed hunting. But we must look at this in a very sober way and evaluate the evidence.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing the debate this morning. In his Motion, he calls attention to,

"the development of alternatives to fox hunting in the light of the Hunting Act 2004".

It is within this Motion that I wish to respond.

I believe that the Hunting Act 2004 fails totally as an animal welfare measure and is having a negative impact both on animal welfare and on the proper management of wild mammals. The Act prohibits the method of culling wild mammals using dogs, which even then, as other noble Lords have said, the Minister, Alun Michael, accepted could be the method of least suffering in certain circumstances. This forces land managers to use methods which can cause more suffering.

The negative effect of the Act on animal welfare results entirely from the fact that the Act's primary purpose is to end the human activity of hunting rather than to ensure that in the management or culling of wild mammals, unnecessary suffering is avoided. It follows that, to be a genuine welfare measure, the Act should have looked at not only hunting but all methods of control, to ensure that the most appropriate method was used in each circumstance, and that, in the conduct of the method of culling, there was no suffering which could be avoidable.

There is no recognition in the Act of the prolonged suffering that can result from wounding or of that caused by trapping, even in a cage, and other available methods. The Act fails to make it a legal requirement for wounded animals to be followed up by the use of dogs and despatched as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has particularly raised the difficulties that the farmers in Wales face, which is of particular concern, and quoted the figures of 10 per cent loss of lambs in the lambing season, the value of these being between £30 and £40 per head. I would like to remind noble Lords that the figures back in 2003 were that 2 per cent of lambs nationally were being killed by foxes at a value cost of £13 million, which, at today's estimate, with the same number, would be up to £15 million.

In many circumstances the use of two dogs is totally inadequate to ensure that wounded mammals are located, or are located sooner than later. The two-dog restriction also removes the benefit to the quarry species, in terms of dispersal, with the implications for disease, and in terms of the availability of sufficient food. This leads to a search for food and drives foxes into villages and towns, which is an unnatural way of life that often ends in painful and messy deaths, many upon our roads.

The clean kill with a rifle may be a humane way of killing a fox, and it is the preferred method of some gamekeepers. However, this method brings with it other welfare issues. There is a real issue of wounding foxes as they present an unpredictable and moving target and a killing cannot always be guaranteed. If the shooting occurs during the breeding season, it may result in the death by starvation of the cubs still underground. Before the Hunting Act, hunting took place between mid-August and early March, thus avoiding the time when vixens were nursing their young. The shooting season and snaring of foxes is indiscriminate and has no close season. It is therefore likely, since the hunting ban, that the increased shooting of foxes will result in an increase in the number of orphaned cubs, most of which will starve to death. That is surely something that all noble Lords regret.

Shooting can be non-selective, as it is as likely to kill the milking vixens as it is the old and infirm. Shooting is also a danger to the public, as a bullet from a centre-fire rifle may travel four kilometres. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has said, there is a particular problem in forestry and upland areas. Burns said in paragraph 5.24 of his report:

"Efficient lamping requires good vehicular access. Its usefulness can therefore be limited in areas with rough terrain and steep slopes. It also requires terrain that allows safe shooting".

The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the National Farmers Union of Wales and its concerns about fox control, which it considers all but impossible now.

Three years ago, while enjoying a holiday in Wales, I spoke with many farmers and huntsmen about the difficulty of fox control in those upland areas. There the terrain, coupled with the high densities of sheep production and the large areas of forestry, meant that controlling foxes using dogs was the most practical method.

John Thorley, the former chief executive of and now the political adviser to the National Sheep Association, said earlier this year—on 10 March 2006—that,

"sheep farmers in Wales have been put in a ridiculous position: they cannot effectively protect their newborn lambs from foxes; they cannot use a terrier below ground to control foxes if it is to protect livestock, although they can if it is to protect gamebirds; and farmers and hunts can use a maximum of only two dogs to flush a fox to a gun, which is simply ineffective".

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his contribution and also for his courtesy in coming across to explain that he cannot be here for the wind-up speeches. He is attending the memorial service for his noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees. I am sure that all of us would wish to extend our sympathies to those attending. His contribution, as always, was sincere.

I was very disappointed that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, did not address in his 15 minutes the issue of the welfare of the foxes. His speeches are always sincere—I know he is a sincere man—but the Hunting Act has not promoted animal welfare at all as far as wild mammals are concerned. It is a disappointment to me and to other noble Lords that in this opportunity a year later we have to reflect on the increasing risk to wild mammals that this Act proposes.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for what she said about my noble friend Lord Graham. He is at a memorial service. He is the last person to want to be discourteous to the House, as the House knows.

It is now 18 months since the Hunting Act passed into law. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for giving us the opportunity to take stock of what has happened in the intervening period. The issue has clearly lost none of its controversy. Those who believed passionately in the right to hunt wild mammals with dogs in 2004 continue to believe that just as passionately today. Those who opposed hunting then and wanted to see it banned believe just as strongly today that hunting wild mammals for sport and pleasure is wrong. I doubt that all the arguments that we heard then and have heard in small measure today have persuaded a single Member of this House to change his or her mind on the issue.

We can say with some fairness that few of the dire consequences confidently predicted by some—including some in this House—during the passage of the Bill have materialised. The rural economy as a whole is still buoyant. Widespread social unrest has clearly not occurred. Businesses associated with hunting, including those in the horse industry, are generally doing well. Few if any jobs have been lost as a result of the ban. Most importantly, in the context of today's debate, hunts are still meeting regularly. During the passage of the Hunting Act, the Government were very clear that the Act would not prevent the hunts meeting and riding within the law if they so wished. We are happy to note that this appears to be what they have done.

We have heard some questions about the legality of what some of these hunts are doing. My noble friend Lord Hoyle referred to this in his speech. It is for the police to investigate the facts in particular cases and for the prosecution authorities to take action if they believe that the law has been broken. So far this has not happened.

In principle, the Government welcome the emergence of trail hunting and other alternative activities, because these have helped not only to ensure that the predicted consequences—some dire—have not come to pass, but to demonstrate clearly what we have always known: it is perfectly possible for people to enjoy riding with their hounds without having to kill another creature for the sake of sport. I say "in principle" because the onus remains on the hunts to demonstrate that they are genuinely intending to stay within the law and are not trying to use the new activities as some sort of subterfuge for engaging in illegal hunting.

We have also heard that the continuing existence of the hunts should not be taken as proof that they will continue to operate in the longer term. It has been said, though perhaps not today, that they are engaging in legal trail hunting only while they wait for the Act to be overturned. This may or may not be so, but it does not alter the unarguable fact that they are still in business and can operate within the law. Any decision to stop these activities in the future will therefore be down to the individuals involved and not as a direct and inevitable consequence of the Act.

We have also heard claims that the Act is unclear and unenforceable. There are calls for it to be amended or even scrapped. I have to say to your Lordships—which will be no surprise—that the prospect of making changes to the Act in any direction, even if needed, is minimal. My predecessor in this post—many Members will recall him standing here on many occasions when the House was much fuller than now—remarked more than once on this issue that we are where we are. Amendments preferred by a Majority in this House, for example, would almost certainly be unacceptable to a majority in Another place.

In fact, we do not believe that the Act is unclear. The provisions are easily understood. Just because someone asserts that there is a loophole does not mean that there is one. Nor do the Government believe that the Act is unenforceable. The police are devoting an appropriate proportion of their resources to this matter, which is not by any stretch of the imagination the most important issue facing them in rural areas. That few prosecutions have so far been launched does not mean that, if evidence of law-breaking emerges, cases will not be brought.

I want to deal with the points raised by noble Lords in this short debate, first in response to the remarks by my noble friend Lord Harrison and others about exemptions within the Act. I want to remind the House respectfully that it is not for the Government to define precisely what is or is not hunting under the law. That is for the courts to decide in the light of cases brought before them. However, the Government are aware of those concerns and have made their view clear in public, both through the Defra website and in response to correspondence.

Both my noble friends Lord Harrison and Lord Hoyle referred to the falconry exemption. The Act is very clear. Dogs may be used to flush a wild mammal from cover for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the mammal. It follows that any subsequent hunting of that wild animal must be undertaken by the bird of prey and not by the dogs. The Government do not therefore believe that the exemption allows the use of a token bird of prey to permit hunting with dogs to continue.

In the case of the stalking and flushing exemption, the Act requires that all the conditions of the exemption must be strictly observed, including: that no more than two dogs should be used to find or flush the wild mammal; that the two dogs must be under sufficiently close control to achieve the task in hand; and that the wild mammal must be shot dead by a competent person as soon as possible after it has been found or flushed. We do not believe that the exemption permits the prolonged chasing of wild mammals, either with the dogs used to flush the mammal or with more than one pair of dogs in relay.

My noble friend Lord Harrison raised the question of whether the police needed an additional right of access to private land to effect arrests. We are not aware of any requests from the police for this power. The Act already gives the police powers of access to land for the purposes of searching for and seizing evidence when they suspect an illegal act is being or has been committed. In addition, the police can arrest anyone they suspect of committing a crime on public land or by summons after the event.

My noble friend Lord Hoyle asked about the continuation of terrier work. The code of conduct exists; it can be reviewed, and may be in due course, although if terriers are breaking the law, it is down to the police to investigate and prosecute as appropriate. My noble friend also raised the question—as did my noble friend Lord Harrison—of police access. Of course, they have access powers already; it is only in order to arrest that they cannot enter.

My noble friend Lord Hoyle asked about breaches being recorded. Recordability on police computers can be added to by a statutory instrument but this would cover only successful prosecutions, not allegations or suspicions of any illegal hunting. Court statistics are always available to show the number of successful prosecutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, spoke about a number of matters. He made the comment that chasing of any wild mammal by a dog is illegal. That is not strictly true; it is the intention of the human, not the activity of the animal, that matters in terms of the Act. The House knows that the noble Lord is a great expert on upland areas. He suggested that the Act is causing significant problems for hill farmers, but there is little clear impartial evidence of that. However, we note that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made the point in his important report; indeed, my predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—acknowledged that there were specific concerns about the uplands while the Bill was being debated in this House. However, the pro-hunt majority in this House specifically rejected attempts at that time to deal with the issue. I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord that the scope for Amendment at this time is limited for the reasons that I have already stated.

The noble Lord also said that many more foxes had been killed since the Act came into force than previously. There is no clear evidence of that. There are clearly allegations that that is the case, largely made by those who opposed the passing of the Bill. We do not believe that there is evidence of there being fewer foxes in rural areas now. There is no reason why more foxes should have been killed; it is worth pointing out—this was part of the argument made during the passage of the Bill—that hunting only ever contributed to a relatively small overall number of foxes being killed.

I have done my best to answer the points that have been made in this short but interesting debate. I once again thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for giving us the opportunity to review the matter. I restate that, so far as the Government are concerned, the emergence of legal alternatives to the hunting of wild mammals is to be welcomed.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I also thank those colleagues who have apologised to me personally for being unable to attend the debate as they were attending the memorial service for our friend and colleague Lord Merlyn-Rees. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Hoyle, who supplemented the part of my speech which I had to abandon. I reiterate one of the points that he made—there simply has not been the haemorrhaging of jobs, the slaughter of hounds and horses, and the Armageddon that we were told would happen as a consequence of the ban, for which I am very glad.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, and to my friend and colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that I believe I was talking about animal welfare. The Minister echoed my next point. If there were an animal welfare problem with the night shooting of foxes—lamping, the method recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—it was the case before the ban as well as after. It is thought that 120,000 foxes used to be killed every year and that about 20,000 to 25,000 were killed through the agency of the hunt. I should have liked to hear the constructive plans of the parties opposite to tidy up that bit of animal welfare in improving the shooting skills of those charged with that job.

I end on a bright note. The whole emphasis of my speech was that, far from seeing problems, I see real opportunities for job creation, for prosperity and for communities in the countryside to strengthen themselves if they approach this question positively. Last week I opened the Chester Chronicle, as I do every Friday, and saw the headline "Saddle Up", as Cheshire—renowned as fox-hunting country—wants to participate in its perceived £60 million equine industry, which is part of the £3.4 billion horse industry in the United Kingdom. More and more of our citizens in the countryside and beyond want to participate in those sports. If those opportunities are seized, everyone can enjoy a vibrant countryside which is rich with communities of people enjoying themselves, maintaining jobs and building a future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.