Baroness Mallalieu:

Baroness Mallalieu:

Perhaps I may deal as briefly as I can with the three options before the Committee.

So far as concerns the first option--the ban--my objections, which I previously expressed at Second Reading, are both in principle and practical. Those who support a ban do so, as I have understood the debate both today and on the earlier occasion, essentially for two reasons: first, they say that hunting is cruel. Simply saying so, however strongly the speaker holds the belief and however eloquent and passionate the speech--we have heard a number tonight and on earlier occasions--does not make it so.

Lord Burns' inquiry, set up by the Home Secretary to inform this debate, found that the evidence of cruelty is not there. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, told us that the inquiry did not find cruelty; nor do the four veterinary surgeons who go out hunting regularly with my local pack; and nor did that inquiry find that alternative methods of killing caused less suffering.

Secondly, opponents of hunting say that it is morally wrong to use a form of killing as a sport. It does not matter tuppence to the animal which is killed whether its killer enjoyed what it did, or whether it wore absurd clothes; what matters surely is that it is skilful and efficient. But, they say, it is for the good of our society and to send a message to the next generation.

However, the morality behind option one, the ban, is both selective and profoundly hypocritical. It is apparently morally wrong to kill foxes, deer and hares unless it is done without enjoyment, for pest control or meat. Yet, it remains perfectly acceptable to kill rabbits and rats with as many dogs as one can muster and to shoot foxes, deer and hares, not to mention birds and killing fish, and to take as much pleasure as one wishes in so doing.

Once Parliament goes down the path of outlawing activities because of what some imagine is going on in the minds and thoughts of others, we set off down a slippery path towards a society in which I and others who care for freedom would have no wish to live.

Those are my objections in principle to option one. There are also practical objections which others have spelt out. There is no comprehensive workable definition of the offence of hunting contained anywhere in the proposed Bill. It would be a nightmare for the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts. The powers that it gives beggar belief--arrest without warrant; stop and search, and, whatever has been said, as the Bill is presently drafted the onus to prove that one comes within one of the exceptions rests on the accused; forfeiture and destruction of animals and a life ban on keeping a dog. It is ironic that the RSPCA, which is currently unable to find homes for tens of thousands of unwanted, neglected and cruelly treated animals, which it destroys each year, should be promoting legislation to remove much loved, well-cared-for animals from responsible owners and to kill them.

The provisions of option one do nothing for animal welfare. They are an undisguised attack on people. It is all the more ironic that those who would be primarily affected are those in the farming community. Whatever views Members of the Committee hold on the merits and demerits of hunting, a vote for option one is to deliver a kick in the teeth to part of our nation which needs our support now as never before. Furthermore, it will be seen by them as just that.

Several Members of the Committee have addressed the merits of options two or three. In particular, my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have urged Members of the Committee to think how such a vote would play, spin or look, and whether a vote for independent supervision would be acceptable. I may be accused, probably rightly, of being politically naive, but I always mistrust suggestions that one votes according to the way one thinks the vote will be received. The right course for each one of us is to look at the options in the Bill and to vote for the one which we honestly believe offers the right course.

Whatever noble Lords' views on the merits or demerits of options two and three, it would not be right for Members of the Committee to reject both those options. There is a widespread desire to find a resolution to the issue which allows all those who truly care about the countryside to devote their energies to the massive task of securing some future and regeneration for it and to avoid further damaging and divisive fights such as this. Such a resolution must in part involve, as other Members of the Committee have said, reassuring public opinion that hunting is conducted according to proper codes and rules; that complaints and breaches are properly, independently and publicly scrutinised and dealt with; and ensuring that the concerns highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, are properly addressed.

I support option two. I could barely do otherwise, having played a small part in setting up the independent supervisory authority. It is not the status quo. Indeed, it involves a significant change to current animal welfare legislation. The change centres around the recently formed independent supervisory authority, of which others have spoken. That authority not only has the power to review and revise the codes of practice of all those member hunting organisations but also oversees and controls the disciplinary procedures of those organisations and makes recommendations for improvements and changes where necessary.

A major change to the law proposed in option two is that those who do not operate under the control of ISAH will lose their exemption from prosecution under the Protection of Animals Act and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act. Therefore, anyone who is not supervised by ISAH and does not subscribe to its codes and who goes hunting or coursing would not in a subsequent prosecution be able to claim any exemption under the law. It has other benefits. It is self-financing. It will not cost the Exchequer one penny. Unlike the middle way--option three--it is fully operational now and, unlike the middle way, it has a disciplinary procedure that is already in place. It is not overly bureaucratic and examination will show--I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will examine it when he has a chance to look at the documents that were sent out--that its independence is unchallengeable.

I shall support option two and I commend it to the Committee. But I should like to make the following point about the middle way option. I, too, pay tribute to those in another place who have stuck out their necks to raise this issue and widen the debate. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to Ms Kate Hoey and Mrs Llin Golding on my side of the House who at considerable personal risk have stood up to threats, intimidation and abuse for their views. My concerns about the middle way are as follows. As they themselves accept, it has as yet been only in a draft form in the sense that it has had no scrutiny in another place. I am concerned that it creates yet another government quango, with still more bureaucracy, complexity and expense. I am concerned also that in the present draft Bill licensing is treated in a way that does not foresee many of the potential difficulties. It is perfectly possible to devise an excellent licensing system for the existing organised hunts. But they are in a sense the tip of the iceberg because there are tens of thousands of people who use their dogs either for pest control or sport but who are not part of any of the recognised groups that would be registered. At some stage, that problem may have to be grappled with.

Whichever of the two options the Committee chooses--assuming that it votes against option one--I have no doubt that there will be a considerable degree of good will from all sides of the Committee and from all those who wish to see a resolution of this issue. There may be those who think that a licensing system is necessary. I believe that they would be better advised to vote for option two and then seek to put the teeth that they require into that option at later stages in Committee, if we have them. If the Committee supports independent supervision--option two--I shall not vote against option three, the middle way; I shall abstain. However, if the Committee rejects option two--independent supervision--it is essential that it should not rule out all forms of regulation and I, together with others, will do my best to ensure that option three is put into a workable form for return to the other place. But it is surely the first vote in the Committee that is by far the most important.

It is not often that this House is called upon to defend the freedom of our people against prejudice. I hope that that is what we are about to do today.

Back