I beg to move amendment No. 205, in

schedule 1, page 21, line 31, leave out subparagraph (5).

Having had a relatively light-hearted interruption to our sitting, we turn to what the Opposition believe to be an extremely important matter; the deletion of the paragraph referred to in the amendment. The amendment would exempt the use of dogs below ground to flush out animals, which is not allowed under the exemptions in the Bill. The amendment would therefore correct a key inconsistency. Dogs are allowed to flush a fox from cover of all kinds. We had an interesting discussion on that a moment ago. They can flush a fox from woods, long grass or hollow trees. We have been told that it is perfectly acceptable to use a dog for flushing from all kinds of areas, but we will not be able to use a dog to flush from a drain underground.

One interesting question that might be discussed at greater length is what is meant by underground. If there is a bridge over a river and a fox is under the bridge, is that underground? It is certainly under the road, but above what would otherwise be known as the ground. Or are we simply talking about rabbit holes, badger setts and that kind of thing, which are truly underground? In the case of anything below the surface of the ground, there is no reason—using the justification of animal welfare—necessarily to ban the use of dogs underground.

The National Gamekeepers Organisation, an excellent organisation, is worried about some of the inadvertent effects of the Bill. I shall quote in full what it says, as it is important:

''This crucial amendment allows for the use of terriers underground to flush foxes out for the purpose of pest control. It is especially vital for correct and safe management of the fox population. Forty six per cent. of gamekeepers use terriers in controlling foxes. The practice is invaluable where lamping and snaring are problematic. It is absolutely essential to the correct management of Britain's fox population.''

In parentheses, Wales is a particularly good example, as about 33 per cent. of all foxes killed in the Welsh uplands are killed using terriers going to guns. The National Gamekeepers Organisation goes on to say:

''If terrier work is not allowed to be 'exempt hunting', then half of Britain's gamekeepers will have to 'register' in order to use terriers. This would mean 2,000 applications, every one contested no doubt by opponents of field sports; no guarantee that the Registrar or the Tribunal would accept such applications; publication of the names of gamekeepers (a godsend to those intent on stealing firearms); and the unprecedented presence of animal welfare bodies on private land when terriers were being used. All this for the continuation of a necessary pest control activity that the Government is pledged to support.''

The gamekeepers make a good point.

Let us imagine that, as a result of the Bill, the use of hounds for the pursuit of foxes in particular is outlawed and not a single pack of foxhounds is left in the United Kingdom. By what means will we kill foxes? No doubt some members of the Committee would say, ''Let's not kill them at all. Let's leave them.'' Certainly some hon. Members suffer from anthropomorphism, saying ''Let them go into an old folks' home and die a quiet death ultimately''. However, there is no realism in that. No one who knows anything about the countryside or who gave evidence to Burns or at the Portcullis house hearings would argue that case.

Everybody has agreed that the same number of foxes, or more, would be killed after the abolition of fox hunting, primarily by the use of terriers. That was acknowledged in Scotland, where the use of terriers underground was allowed to continue, for the good reason that that would be the primary method of dealing with foxes after hunting was banned. Gamekeepers in Britain today kill between 70,000 and 80,000 of foxes a year, a large percentage as a result of terrier work. That would stop if gamekeepers were not allowed to continue.

The reason is simple. Fox numbers have been the major factor in the decline of red grouse, partridge and all kinds of game birds. There is a serious depredation on game birds by foxes. That is why the Minister amended the utility definitions to include the words ''wild birds'', which is the same as ground-nesting birds. He acknowledges the depredations by foxes; he acknowledges that we must kill foxes if we are to avoid those depredations. By far the most satisfactory means of doing so, if we are not to use hounds, is by using terriers to locate the foxes and/or bolt them from underground.

Labour Members may not understand fully how that happens. We often hear propaganda that describes the terriers meeting a cornered fox underground and a terrible battle ensuing. The terriers are often injured and the fox is injured. The propaganda says: ''It is all awful and there is blood everywhere. Isn't that ghastly? How would you like to be down a hole, cornered by a terrier?'' That merely

shows that those who think in that way—I see that hon. Members agree with me—do not know how terriers work.

The terrier is put down a hole and, nine times out of 10, the fox comes out of another hole into the waiting guns, which then shoot it. On occasions the fox may go into a dead end, and the terrier controls it there. As soon as that happens, the terrier man digs straight down. He knows where they are by means of radio beacons round the terriers' necks.