Hunting Hearings - Minutes of Proceedings
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
at a
PUBLIC HEARING
on
HUNTING WITH DOGS
held in the
Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, SW1
on
Wednesday 11 September 2002
SESSION D
DAY 3
-------
Rt Hon Alun Michael, MP, in the Chair
-------
(From the Shorthand Notes of:
W B GURNEY & SONS LLP
Westminster House
7 Millbank
London, SW1P 3JA)
In attendance:
MR DOUGLAS BATCHELOR, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
MS PHYLLIS CAMPBELL-MCRAE, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals
DR ARTHUR LINDLEY, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
MR JOHN ROLLS, Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
BARONESS GOLDING, Middle Way Group.
MR PETER LUFF, MP, Middle Way Group.
MR LEMBIT OPIK, MP, Middle Way Group.
MR SIMON HART, Countryside Alliance.
MR JOHN JACKSON, Countryside Alliance.
MR RICHARD LISSACK, QC, Countryside Alliance.
MR BERNARD BENNETT-DIVER, Defra
MR CHRISTOPHER BRAUN, Defra.
MR NIGEL LEFTON, Legal Directorate, Defra.
MR DAVID PRITCHARD, Defra
MR NICHOLAS ROBSON, Defra
DR PETER ROBERTSON, Defra.
DR MATT HEYDON, Defra
(
After a short break
)
THE CHAIRMAN: Our final session is on the issue of how to ensure that any activity which may be permitted is effectively regulated. If our witnesses heard one of our earlier sessions, I think they will appreciate the difficulty sometimes in getting consensus across the piece between those who are interested in these issues. We will see how we go on with our three witnesses now.
Sir Ronald Waterhouse is a retired judge and Chair of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting; Mark Love is Director of Legal Services for the RSPCA and Dr Nick Fox, is a zoologist and wildlife consultant. Can I start, please, with Sir Ronald?
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: Thank you, Minister. The Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting is the existing regulatory authority for hunting with dogs. It was formed at the end of 1999, partly as a result of a recommendation of the Phelps Review of Hunting with Hounds. I was asked to be its Chairman because I was a retired judge, and therefore harmless ---
THE CHAIRMAN: Not harmless before retiring!
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: More importantly because I was not involved in any way either with hunting or in the argument against hunting. The form of the authority is a company limited by guarantee. It is really a contractual arrangement between the commissioners, who are independent of hunting with one exception, and the members, who are the eleven main hunting organisations in the country. They range from the Masters of Foxhounds Association to the smallest, which I think is the Whippet, Saluki and Deerhound Coursing Association. They embrace on the way, for example, the Federation of Welsh Packs and the National Working Terrier Federation; so we cover a very broad spectrum. Our main function is the supervision and regulation of the rules, conduct, codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures for everybody engaged in hunting, coursing and terrier work. As part of that, we supervise the member organisations governing those activities so as to ensure that they enforce compliance with those rules and codes of conduct. Each member organisation is required to certify annually that it agrees to comply with our directions, that is ISAH's directions, and to ensure by their own rules and procedures that their members adhere to those rules.
ISAH acts through seven directors, who are called "commissioners", and five of those were nominated by an independent appointments panel. The procedure is quite well known: the appointments panel have been nominated by the presidents of the NFU, the CLA and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and five commissioners nominated by that panel were wholly independent of hunting, include two distinguished veterinarians Professor Webster, who has been giving evidence here, and Professor David Macdonald, Head of the Wildlife Unit at Oxford University and one of the principal assistants to the Burns Committee. The only hunting member, is the ex officio member, Mr Sam Butler, who is Chairman of the Countryside Alliance's Hunting Committee.
What I wish to say is that in the light of my experience as Chairman, I am convinced that hunting with dogs can be supervised and regulated effectively under a licensing system. I want to make it clear that is not trying to perpetuate itself, but it does suggest that its own experience and the way in which it has developed provide very useful evidence to you, Minister, in deciding how regulation could be established in the future. It is also established, I think, that the recognised hunting organisations are prepared to co-operate fully with a licensing authority, as they have demonstrated in the last two years. Such a licensing authority could regulate the conduct of hunting through its licensing powers, in a similar manner to ISAH, through its jurisdiction over the rules and conduct of hunting practice and in its review of decisions by the disciplinary committees of the various hunting organisations and its appellate jurisdiction in relation to those decisions. We suggest that, on the assumption that the authority would be established by statute, hunting without a licence would be unlawful. The procedure for licensing would be under the control of the licensing authority, which would prescribe the terms and conditions of all licences, including provision for the definition of "geographical boundaries", which may be an important aspect of the licensing function.
We suggest also that perhaps the most convenient and economic method of licensing would be to license either the recognised hunting organisations or individual hunts. Perhaps one may say in particular that individual hunts could be conveniently licensed because that would fit in with the fundamental hunting conceptions that it is the master of the hunt who is responsible for discipline and conduct in the field.
Such a system would cover the great majority of persons wishing to engage in hunting with dogs. That is demonstrated by the recent experience of Defra in licensing hunting during the foot-and-mouth disease embargo. In our submission, it also confirms the practicability of a licensing system.
The point obviously raised is that in present circumstances ISAH has no jurisdiction over individuals or groups engaged in hunting with dogs, unless they belong to one of its eleven current member organisations. I do suggest, respectfully, that the legislation should encourage all individuals and groups either to affiliate with existing recognised organisations or to form a new organisation with appropriate rules and discipline. We recognise that licensing of some individuals and groups who are not so affiliated will be necessary, and we suggest that licensing of all applicants could be effected locally as well as centrally through, for example, Defra's regional offices or an appointed regional committee, for example, of independent persons who act for that purpose. Any local licensing system would be subject to the overall control of the statutory authority, which could institute its own appeal procedure from any local decision, and could hear evidence as to local conditions in considering the application of any discretion that was conferred by the statute upon the authority.
It is suggested that disciplinary procedures should continue to be enforced by the recognised hunting organisations in the first instance, because that is the established procedure, subject to review by the statutory authority and appeal to the authority by anybody who is aggrieved by the decision.
Hunting without a licence should be an offence punishable in the courts. Breaches of the terms of the licence granted to an unaffiliated individual or group, giving rise to a complaint, would be dealt with by the statutory authority, which would have power to withdraw the licence or impose other appropriate penalties. In that way, all persons engaged in hunting would in be effect subjected to the same code of practice and discipline. The experience of ISAH does not suggest that the volume of complaints would be excessive. If I am wrong about that, the authority could have the power to delegate its function in this respect, if it became necessary to do so.
In my written submission, I have also referred to the composition of the licensing authority and suggested that it should not exceed about nine in number if it is to be an efficient body, and that the composition of the authority should be independent of the hunting community or the opposition to hunting; so that it would be essentially an independent body. It would no doubt be necessary, however, to have one authoritative representative of hunting organisations.
Finally, Minister, we submit that any discretion to be exercised by a licensing authority in grant of licences, and the definition of geographical boundaries, should take fully into account the potential role of hunting organisations in their stewardship and management of wildlife, as explained by Professor John Webster.
A major achievement of ISAH in its short history has been the development of a protocol for the regulation of hunting with dogs on the basis, first of all, of self-assessment but strengthened by inspection, and then by independent monitoring of hunting practice. That has already proceeded a long way with the co-operation of the hunting organisations, and it is capable of further development if it is adopted by a licensing authority.
DR FOX: What I am going to say summarises a more detailed draft document entitled The Legal Solution to Hunting with Dogs, which is building upon the Middle Way position. When we have digested any new information which arises from these hearings over the last three days, we hope to release this early next week.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is interesting to note, but can I make the point that each of the experts who have been invited to give evidence have been invited here quite explicitly as individuals to take part in a discussion using their expertise, not as representatives of any organisation.
DR FOX: Perhaps I should clarify that I wrote this document. Enforcement depends upon acceptance and compliance . The police have already told us that they are going to have great difficulty enforcing a hunting ban if the public is unwilling. Regulation in rural areas can only work if the legislation is seen to be fair and if it is understood clearly and the public are willing to comply with it.
A ban on hunting with dogs would not be seen to be fair unless alternative ways of killing wildlife, particularly for those species that are hunted with dogs, are subject to the same scrutiny and welfare criteria, using scientific methods. We have discussed some of this already.
Some methods such as humane traps are already subject to testing for welfare standards. These standards should be applied across the board to all methods of killing and capturing wildlife. Methods that meet those standards might be licensed; and those that do not should be banned.
Before issuing any licence, I would suggest two key criteria. The first is wise and sustainable use of the species, and the second is welfare of the individual animal. Those are two key criteria which in biology we need to look at before issuing a licence.
In assessing the issue of individual animal welfare, the criterion "unnecessary cruelty" is too ambiguous and too subjective in law to be very helpful. I would suggest the term "undue suffering" is more useful because it can be applied more objectively to proper tests of welfare standards.
The legal definition of hunting with dogs has so far been elusive. In all previous Bills there has been a stumbling block. I therefore suggest that we divide hunting with dogs into two simple categories: hunting with dogs above-ground and hunting with dogs below ground. At the moment, 4.8 million households have dogs. It is one species, but you cannot identify one dog from another. There is a fox hound, but a fox hound will cross with a poodle; so you cannot differentiate in law between all the different types of dogs. I am simply suggesting that you talk about above ground and below ground.
The first category will encompass any situation in which a dog chases any mammal above ground, whether it is an MFHA hunt, whether it is a shooting syndicate, whether it is somebody out with a lurcher or somebody out with a family dog in the park - because do not forget that legislation can catch anybody.
I suggest that all of this is banned, but is subject then to a general licence issued by the Secretary of State, making it legal to be done for certain statutory purposes, which would include sport or recreation, and would be subject to two key criteria, which I have already mentioned. I suggest that the person who is actually in charge of the dog at the time of the incident is the person who is legally responsible under a general licence. For dogs below ground, the general licence to hunt would not apply. I would suggest that for hunting below ground this would be banned, except for individual operators; and this could be a statutory extension of the existing terrier men licences that are already in place, but improved perhaps.
For hunting below ground, using an individual operator's licence, a statutory purpose would not include sport. Pest control would be a statutory purpose but sport would not. I would also suggest that shooting of foxes would be banned, but subject to a general licence, again entailing the first two criteria.
In order to pass the welfare criteria of the general licence to shoot a fox, I would expect there would be some limit on the type of gun and projectile that could be used, for example probably I would limit shot sizes to BB upwards, and rifle sizes to larger than .22 - but I would bow to more expert advice on that.
I would suggest that the snaring of foxes is banned, but authorised for individual operators only; in other words, in a similar way to terriers - if there was a proven pest control need and the person could show expertise in the use of snares, then that would be possible - but it would not be for the general public.
The legal framework under which the killing of wildlife is currently regulated is a shambles. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is currently under review. This could be a suitable vehicle for puling together these licences and controlling these activities, including hunting with dogs. It could be done in a coherent and science-based comprehensible manner.
I agree with all of the other participants that the wildlife management authority could be formed possibly under Part 1, Section 23 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to regulate wildlife management activities primarily through a licence system, as now, but expanded. I propose that the licences issued by the Secretary of State on the advice of the wildlife management authority and on the basis of the two key criteria, continue as they are now in three forms: the general licence; the individual operator's licence; and a product licence such as that used for licensing humane traps and poisons. I am not suggesting a change in licensing.
I suggest that a handbook of wildlife regulation be issued by the wildlife management authority, listing in full the different licences that are current with their conditions for use, and that this handbook be widely available to users and enforcers, and on the Web, because the normal person cannot comply with laws that he does not know and does not understand. This is a major failing at the moment.
I suggest that sport or recreational use of wildlife, whether it is foxes, pheasants or competition angling for fish, continues as a valid statutory purpose for a general licence, provided that the two key criteria are met.
The first condition on any licence would be permission from the landowner or manager to enter the land for the purpose of carrying out the licensed activities. I suggest that organised hunts or syndicates prepare for themselves a standardised form of hunting permit, which would be signed by the landlord, and that they retain those permits on file; and unless they have sufficient permitted land, hunting with a pack of dogs would not be viable. Unless you can show that you have enough land, how can you run a hunt?
Finally, spectators of the licensed activity who are not controlling the dogs or shooting the guns are still subject to the laws of trespass. Hunt trespass is a major problem in the issue of hunting with dogs. I suggest that organised hunts make proper access provisions for spectators on the hunting permit, agreed with the landowners, and they take clearer steps than they do now to identify the spectators and control their activities.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have introduced a framework that goes well beyond the topic of the session. I would like to bring the session back to the specific topic, which is how to ensure that activity that may be permitted is effectively regulated. I do not want to get us trapped into simply considering a set of proposals that an organisation may well put forward. I am sure everyone has noted the structure you have put forward.
MR LOVE: Members of the panel, thank you for the opportunity of inviting me here today. I have made clear in my paper, which was fairly brief, that as the Legal Director of the RSPCA it is not surprising what my own moral view is on the issue of hunting with dogs. They would not employ someone with a different view! I seek briefly to go into that before dealing with the question, which I have not found very easy - and I do not think any of us necessarily have - of what was posed.
Having looked at some of the background - and there is an immense background to the history of animal welfare law in this country - it is important to remember comments by Lord Devlin in particular, that animal welfare legislation in his view was an example of parliament making laws designed to enforce morality. As I have said, my view is that the use of dogs to chase and kill wild animals is cruel, and causes unnecessary suffering.
The concept of this session is that some activity will be permitted by parliament in some form. Clearly, it is difficult to second-guess what will be the view of parliament when it has that opportunity to legislate.
I also make the point, which is a comment in my introduction, that parliament has chosen to legislate against other activities, solely because they were deemed morally repugnant - bear and bull baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting and badger digging.
It did not appear to be. When one looked at the historical evidence there was a great discussion about the utility or the cruelty of those activities. In my submission if one takes the assumption that there is to be permitted activity and one takes the assumption that at the moment a significant majority of the population do not agree with that activity and apparently a significant majority of the members of the lower House then any form of enforcement should properly take into account that public opinion.
As I say in the paper the RSPCA suggest a practical solution and if asked I would say personally that I think the Bill in Scotland is a useful piece of legislation and see no reason why there should not be the same here. If we assume there is going to be some sort of hunting with dogs then there are issues which I submit are going to be very difficult. Speaking on behalf of that majority opinion there would be much suspicion as to whether hunts can police themselves. We have heard today from two huntsmen referring to what did or did not go on in Wales during the foot and mouth epidemic. I would be curious to know to what extent ISAH were involved in those complaints, did they take any action? Were these not hunts?
You have heard in detailed accounts from Mr Huskisson as to what he witnessed himself, it was anecdotal but it was first evidence, it was not hearsay.
I would question bearing in mind the history and bearing in mind the experience of the RSPCA in investigating animal welfare matters in the countryside as to whether the hunts would be the proper people to police themselves. I have no desire to put any aspersions against a high court judge sitting next to me, I am only a mere barrister, I was in front of him twice and I am not saying there is anything wrong in the structure of ISAH, save I ask this question, why is there no anti-hunter in that body. That does not appear to be what has been put forward. I would submit that whilst they are not hunters you have to ask yourself if they appear to be pro the activity because they want to control it for the benefit of the hunters.
I would therefore go on to say that in a allowing permitted hunting the parameters of that hunting would have to be defined carefully. It must be important, as was said earlier today by Gordon Nardell, it is most important in criminal law something - which as a practitioner rather than as a criminal I have some experience - you have to have certainty in the minds of the public as to what is a criminal offence. If you do not then there are human rights problems in the fact that they are being told later on what they have done is apparently a transgression of the law.
In my submission there is likely to be a significant burden upon the courts through challenges to such things as the permitted hunting. There is this body of public opinion, who clearly want to watch and see those parameters were not being transgressed. There is a fear, I would submit, that the magistrates courts would be come mini Burns Inquiries on each and every occasion.
The second issue which I address in my paper, Minister, is that currently hunting with dogs enjoy exemptions with respect to some of its activities, in particular the Game Act 1831 where effectively if you trespass with a pack of hounds you are not a trespasser. There is the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Protection of Livestock Act 1953 that if the hounds have gone wild as part of a hunt then they are not liable to the same summary execution that would take place to a Rottweiler belonging to somebody in a town. Of course there is the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996.
I would submit that if Parliament is to permit the activity, and what we would say is a licensing activity which the majority of the public believe to be cruel, Parliament would have to consider whether those exemptions should still continue. Is it right that a fox hunt going on to land that is not allowed in pursuit should continue with that hunt. That is an exemption which has grown up historically. If Parliament is going to permit the activity is it right and proper to do so.
Effectively, we have had this touched upon earlier today, what is the position of the interested member of the public wishing to watch if the hunt is going to transgress the parameters of permission. Should the public be allowed to go on to a piece of land and see the hunt taking place? Should the public be allowed to trespass after the hunt to see what happens when the hunt goes on to land it is not permitted to? I would say that regulation is very important there to have clarity. I would submit there are going to be significant problems for the police on each and every occasion when there is trespass to follow who is or is not entitled to be there.
It was mentioned earlier today by one of the huntsmen that it is down to the land owner whether the land owner would permit a certain activity. If Parliament is to permit hunting with dogs I would submit that it is insufficient for the land owner to say, yes, we will have hunting with dogs on my land but no one else is entitled to come and see it. In the view of public opinion it would be that hunting is taking place outside of the public gaze and not really policing it self as it suggests that it intends to.
I mention in my paper the current experience of the RSPCA, that the lawful activity of hunting foxes with dogs is used as an excuse by those motivated to break the provision of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Parliament will have to take a view on that, and we have heard references already as to whether such activities as the blocking of badger sets should be permitted if Parliament chooses to permit fox hunting or hunting other wild animals with dogs.
Finally in my points as to how difficult enforcement may or may not be I would suggest that a system of regulation has got to take into account the ability of those charged with investigating wildlife offences to lawfully gather evidence. To whom would the carcass belong? It a wild animal. It does not really have any property. Do we have fights of people grabbing it for a post mortem to see whether the parameters of that permission have been broken? Would you require each and every carcass to be required to be examined by a the veterinary surgeon to ensure that the parameters of that permission have not been broken. If there is to be this limited permitted form of hunting should there be effectively be an umpire who is able to blow a whistle if they have gone beyond that permission.
That is what I seek to say on the main issue of hunting with dogs. I have not put much into my paper in terms of dealing with ratting, lamping and flushing for falconry. I would accept, and I think it has been accepted in the Scottish Bill, that those activities should be permitted. I do not see, and I have certainly no material in front of me, I have little evidence to suggest that there is widespread abuse. I do have some concerns from the evidence I heard today that those engaged in shooting are unable to distinguish between a fox or a hare or a horse, that might put serious concern on those who licence anyone to have a firearm. I am not sure whether it is really in the interests of The Countryside Alliance to suggest those who have firearms do not know how to use them.
In my view enforcement of this regulated activity is going to put a heavy task upon the magistrates court and it is clearly remains our view that an unequivocal ban on the hunting with dogs provides a simple, understood piece of legislation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that contribution. Can we move quickly into the questioning.
MR OPIK: First of all for clarification, for the record we have been working with Nick Fox but I want to be quite clear for the record we are questioning Nick Fox in an independent capacity. We are flattered he is associated with us.
My question is to Mark Love, the question is this, leaving aside the debate we can have the about the polls and whether the majority support hunting or not - I do not think it would be appropriate for us to get into just now - it is quite clear when you say that you support an unequivocal ban on hunting that is not actually a case for many who have given evidence here who have accepted ratting and rabbiting, which both involve dogs, could continue. Since we are not talk about a qualitative principle of banning the use of dogs in controlling mammals and since we have established in a previous session that inspection works - as we have heard from Mike Huskisson - and also that regulation can work because huntsmen can control their animals would you at least accept the possibility that there could be a regulatory solution which does not involve a ban but nevertheless does improve animal welfare assuming we can find some way of making sense of the equation of utility versus suffering?
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I thank you for obeying my judgment for short questions!
MR LOVE: I have a great problem in the sense that I have obviously sat and listened to some of the debate in terms of the issue of cruelty and utility and clearly I have formed my own opinions as to how those debates have or have not succeeded. It is not my job to say what my opinion is, the Minister at some point will have to listen to all of that.
I remain of the view that the deliberate chasing and killing of wild animals with dogs is not an activity that should be permitted. I accept that if there is inspection of each and every hunt they will, presumably, curtail those activities which are not in their interests to be on Sky TV. It remains, in our submission, an activity which is cruel because cruelty is defined as unnecessary suffering. I see a rather hi-tech bit of equipment here with some words on it, I did not bring it, I saw it when Dr Nick Fox presented his thing, there is no problem with the definition of cruelty, it has been there for 94 years and it has worked very well for thousands of prosecutions undertaken by the RSPCA, why tamper with it. I do not see a reason. I take the view as a lawyer that on the test of unnecessary suffering the chasing of wild animals with dogs is cruel.
To take Mr Lissack's point, which he may or may not put to me, that is the problem ---
MR LISSACK: This is brilliant. That was a very short question, Minister!
MR LOVE: I have not finished yet, I was only trying to refer to this issue, which I have now completely forgotten because of the humour.
MR OPIK: You were saying, "Taking Mr Lissack's point..."
MR LOVE: You can extend the legislation to protect wild animals and in our view that would mean that the current activity of hunting the fox by chasing it would be a criminal offence.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have shorter questions and answers.
DR FOX: Okay you can define suffering but you still have to define hunting with dogs.
MR LOVE: Can I make one short point on that, the law has defined hunting and coursing as an exemption in the current legislation. It created no problem for the hunting community for the last 100 years, they are exempted. I cannot see how it becomes a illegal problem if it is merely prohibited rather than exempted.
BARONESS GOLDING: Mr Love, if we ban all hunting with dogs who is then going to regulate the remaining activities, the permitted activities to improve animal welfare?
THE CHAIRMAN: In answering that I think we understand the standpoint you take and some of our other witnesses have, what we are trying to do is to explore how you ensure that any activity which may be permitted - the government decide that - can be effectively regulated?
BARONESS GOLDING: That is what I asked.
MR LOVE: Currently the regulation of animal welfare is done by a number of different agencies. It depends what it is, it is done by local authorities, it is done by the police, it is done by what was MAFF and is now Defra and it is done organisations like the RSPCA. Regulations in terms of enforcement of legislation is by making sure that those undertaking the licence activity are not breaking the terms of that licence activity.
The Scottish Bill have set out what are active that are accepted with the use of dogs. Presumably if someone goes outside those and that information comes to the attention of those who feel they are charged to investigate offences they will take it to the magistrates court.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: I was hoping to be asked questions about the regulatory authority in being. I did not intend to sit here being told, for example, it had no powers, it was controlling for the benefit of hunters, which was the phrase used. You do not actually appoint a Salvation Army officer to run an off-licence and that is why we do not have ---
THE CHAIRMAN: That might lead to less degradation in the stock!
MR LOVE: Licensing officers are not asked whether they are Salvation Army ---
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: There are very strict rules --
MR LOVE: Licensing justices may not drink.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: -- About the composition of a licensing bench, you may not have been aware of them. I did a great deal of licence work at the bar and there are very strict guidelines that are issued to the licensing benches by the Lord Chancellor.
The only thing I do agree with in Mark Love's evidence is that it would be very unfortunate if legislation was phrased in such a way that we had a mini Burns Inquiry or mini repetition of this consultation every time a prosecution took place in a magistrates court. It should not be left equally to a form of local option of the kind that we had in Wales, Minister, in relation to the opening of licenced premises on a Sunday. There has to be some broad principle that applies to the whole country. I suggest that the best administrator of such a system is a form of licensing authority of the kind that is proposed I think in the schedule presented by the Middle Way.
MR LISSACK: Sir Ronald, may I ask you this single question, it has three parts. How do you see ---
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: I may not remember number one!
THE CHAIRMAN: There will be three questions.
MR LISSACK: How do you see your proposals for introducing a licensing regime catering for public input of a member of public who would like to see hunting banned in Hyde Park, were it taking place there.
Secondly, local circumstance informing the decision as to whether or not the licence should be granted.
Thirdly, to ensure that it is effective, which is the word in the questions that I highlight, against the background of their being in place in law a broader Wild Mammals Protection Act that takes out the exception for hunting in subsection 2 of section 1.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: Yes. I am not sure that it is easy to be concise. I do suggest that in the licensing procedure there should be provision for objection to the grant of a licence to be made. Those objections could be by the RSPCA or by the League Against Cruel Sports, and so forth. It would be the duty of the licensing authority (the local or central licensing authority) to adjudicate on the arguments put forward or the particular local factors, in particular the evidence of local factors put forward against the grant of a licence.
I do agree with the evidence given by the barrister Mr Patchett-Joyce this morning that the phraseology should be such that the assumption would be that if the conditions were met then a licence would be granted. It would be up to the objector to establish the case against it in the light of local circumstances.
Similarly if there was an appeal from the local decision to the central licence authority local evidence would be admissible and heard by the central licensing authority.
DR FOX: I would like to comment. If you are going to licence a hunt and you have a statutory licensing authority you still have to define what a hunt is. For example down in Wales there are many people that hunt foxes with all sorts of motley collections of dogs with or without guns and therefore a licensing arrangement has to cater for all of these different situations. I think we all need to be aware that there are many situations like this which do not seem to be coming up into this discussion at the moment.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: I think they should be discussed, I certainly have them in mind. The Federation of Welsh Packs is dealing with a very different situation from most of the hunts belonging to the Masters of the Fox Hounds Association. The suggestion is that the central licensing authority should lay down the conditions which are appropriate for the particular types of hunting that one is considering and of course the geographical boundaries because there could be great problems if the geographical boundaries were not made clear.
DR FOX: Would that suggest a licence that would be a catch-all licence rather than individual licences.
MR LOVE: I obviously have a problem with local licensing on the basis that it is going to be very bureaucratic. I think it remains an issue initially for Parliament to set out what the parameters are. I am clearly happy that the RSPCA and organisations are entitled to have an input into that. I fear that that may mean again that the Burns argument comes out each and every time there is a licence application because there will be submissions accordingly. Again one is looking for a solution that is hopefully workable rather than non-workable.
I was slightly concerned on the idea that infringements of a licence were something for the licensing authority. I cannot see why this wild animal activity should be treated differently from others. My understanding of the Wildlife & Countryside Act if licences are granted to take a certain number of hunts for study and that licence is breached that is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act.
Looking at it practically I cannot see why that body - and it sounds as if there is going to be three hearings in terms of the tiers - have to go through what is a bureaucratic nightmare for a licence breach when you can go to the magistrates court and prosecute accordingly.
MR LISSACK: May I follow up that end point that Mark Love just made. Can I just understand two components to your evidence, did I hear you right to say that it was your judgment that a broadening of the basis of the present cruelty laws to embrace all wild mammals would, in your view, amount to a legislation to which a ban on hunting with dogs would come in?
MR LOVE: The point you put forward is that that would be the solution. My view is that the unnecessarily suffering test would fit the fact of hunting. What it would mean, presumably, is that each and every case until they got to the divisional court and beyond and establish whether it was would be fought bitterly. Currently the only reason we cannot prosecute somebody chasing a fox with a dog is that it is not a captive animal under the 1911 Act. If you look at the earlier authorities that would be the argument. Of course there would be the risk that the divisional court might find why some obscure reason it was not an offence and one has to look historically at the way the divisional court took a view on some rather bizzare cases. The saddest one was the beached whale in Wales, which was being cut up whilst alive and it was said it was only temporarily in captivity because when the tide came back it could swim out. My point is that the courts will become the fighting area for the issue but if you had legislation which extended it to the legislation for captive animals to wild animals and the legislation said that chasing an animal with a dog was unnecessary suffering there would be no problem in the courts.
MS CAMPBELL-MCRAE: The question I would like to ask is directed to Sir Ronald. I would like to draw your attention to Chapter 9 of the 9 Burns Report, which sets out a number of areas of concern regarding some practical aspects of hunting. The purpose of my question is to find out from you whether you can tell us what rules and/or regulations that ISAH have put in place since its formation to address these concerns? If you could explain to us how they work?
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: First of all trespass, disruption and disturbance: it is impossible in the hunting field to avoid occasional accidents of accidental trespass by hounds because hounds are not under total command. We have had some complaints from some of our members of Parliament, constituents writing to their member of Parliament about trespass. It is a sad fact that they have been made by people who said they were bitterly opposed to hunting. That is just a matter of fact.
What we have done is to suggest that there should be a procedure for dealing with accidental incidents of trespassing and that, whatever may be said by way of oral apology at the scene, there should be a written apology by the master to anybody who has suffered from trespass and also an enquiry should be made as to whether any physical damage had been caused so that compensation can be paid swiftly to deal with that. That is the first matter of concern.
On openness the whole of our effort as an authority has been to increase openness about the way hunting is organised. Indeed we have a website explaining what we are doing as an authority.
The other Burns matters of concern are specific practices, which have been the subject of a questionnaire by ISAH in the course of preparing its protocol. Every hunt in the country has been asked to comment on the six matters of concern specifically and to say (a) the extent to which they practice them, (b) the reason for doing so and (c) whether or not it is necessary to continue the practice. The Minister has been supplied in fact with the answers which were received from this nationwide consultation.
The next step forward will be to consider whether or not any amendment should be made to the current practices. There is a very strong defence put forward of terrier digging out. I do stress that digging out is already only permitted at the express request of the land owner. That is in the rules of the MFHA and any breach of it is treated severely. In fact I think that there was a case in the South of England in which the hunt was suspended for a period of two weeks and the terrier man was suspended for three years. That is the kind of penalty that can be imposed for that kind of incident. There it is.
Our great regret, I may say, in relation to the evidence that Mr Huskisson gave is that none of your constituent organisations had the courtesy to make a complaint to us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask one question as a supplementary to that. You referred to one example, it is always difficult to put on anecdotal, but it useful to give examples, what can you tell us about the extent to which ISAHs decisions have led to changes in behaviour or practice and how ISAH's decision on issues of practice are enforced in practice?
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: We started off by receiving the rules and codes of conduct of each of the member organisations and we reviewed them and we made one or two suggestions in each case about amendments that ought to be made. They were quite good standards in their original form. One of the objectives of the members was also to try and harmonise the rules of conduct as between the different member organisations, so there was a rational approach and that has been achieved. The eleven member organisations have their rules and codes of conduct and they are broadly similar, differing only because of the differing hunting activities.
We have not reached the stage of seeking to ban any of the practices referred to as matters of concern in the Burns Commission Report. Our veterinary advice is that we need to have a full consultation before we would be justified in taking such a step, and we have carried out consultation. As I said, the protocol for the regulation of hunting with dogs is under continuous review and will develop.
MS CAMPBELL-MCRAE: I just wanted to ask another question, if I may, this is a bigger picture question, which is how you see ISAH's role. Do you see it existing to support or to challenge the existing rules of hunting?
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: We see as it existing to ensure that hunting is carried out in the most humane way possible. We are certainly not there to defend, so to speak, the existing practice On the contrary, with the assistance in particular of our two veterinary members, we are anxious to find out what is going on and to improve it wherever it is appropriate and possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I be even more stringent with my request for brevity of questions and answers.
MR OPIK: Mr Love where would you stand about hunting with dogs in areas where Burns regarded it as the most effective means of fox control?
MR LOVE: I said earlier the issue in terms of utility is really a matter for Parliament. My view is that you need to have it throughout the country. I cannot see that it is helpful to have regionalisation.
MR OPIK: Would you ban hunting with dogs in say mid Wales?
MR LOVE: I am afraid so, yes.
MR LUFF: I welcome the establishment of ISAH, it should have been done 10 or 20 years ago, it is better late than never, it is not your fault it is late. There are two central weaknesses it seems to me, (1) ultimately it has no sanction. If it takes a decision that an organisation thinks it is over the top there is nothing they can do about it. That they can walk. The second one is that you do not embrace all of the hunting world. There are many people who hunt with dogs. By putting in a statutory footing those weaknesses could be addressed.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: I agree entirely. I am not sure about the memberships weakness because it is really inconceivable that a breach would occur between a member organisation and ISAH over any specific instance of disciplinary action.
MR JACKSON: I want to get on the record out of fairness to Sir Ronald that in no sense whatsoever have we been working with Sir Ronald on the preparation of his evidence.
MS CAMPBELL-MCRAE: Again I am sorry this is directed at Sir Ronald - you are having a very busy afternoon - as I recall you said in answer to my last question that part of your mechanism for dealing with some of these outstanding issues in terms of practice of hunts was to send a questionnaire to hunts themselves.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: To find out what was happening.
MS CAMPBELL-MCRAE: Yes. As you will be aware and because of the high level of public interest in this issue it is few very important, we believe, and I hope would you would agree, that the public see transparency and feel that they have input into the process of determining what is and is not a sound practice. Can you tell me how ISAH rates it public credibility and whether or not you believe that you would be perceived as credible under a licensing regime as opposed to a ban?
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: Would you mind if I substituted statutory authority for that?
MS CAMPBELL-MCRAE: If you wish.
SIR RONALD WATERHOUSE: How a statutory authority would be viewed from the point of view of credibility as against a ban?, I think we need to conduct a MORI poll in order to find the answer to that question. The fact is that if it was backed by Parliament and had the powers that one would expect it to have to enforced the regime. I would expect it to have high credibility, quite as high credibility as a ban. The trouble with the credibility of a ban is who is going to obey it?
MR LOVE: I have made my comments which is that is unlikely. I question whether it would be perceived as self-regulation rather than independent regulation. That is very important when one looks at the public feeling on the issue. Even if it had a statutory force, at the moment whilst I hear what the Countryside Alliance say it is a creation of those wanting to see hunting run on certain terms, it is not a creation of those who feel hunting should not take place.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be accepted.
MR OPIK: If it could be proved unequivocally that killing a fox with dogs is less cruel than the alternative - I am not going to try and do that now - if that could be done, what would be the panel's view about hunting with dogs? Is the objective to ban hunting with dogs or is the objective to improve the welfare of the hunted animal?
MR LOVE: It is a moral issue for Parliament. Parliament has chosen to take a lot of activity where a man puts a dog on another animal into the realms of a criminal offence.
MR OPIK: Is the objective to ban hunting with dogs or the objective to maximise the welfare of the wild, hunted animal?
MR LOVE: That is the purpose of this hearing. This is about hunting with dogs. That is why we have come here.
MR OPIK: It is an A or B question. Is it your objective to ban hunting with dogs or improve the welfare of the animal? The former might be caused by the latter.
MR LOVE: We have an objective with respect to a large issue of animals. Whether the argument is that an animal which is not hunted with a dog has a better welfare I am not sure. I would have thought that the hunting of a fox with dogs seriously compromises it welfare, it kills it.
DR FOX: Surely it is about the issue of animal welfare. I have concerns about aspects of hunting with dogs such as the use of terriers, some aspects of that. I have addressed those. I have also addressed parallel concerns over the shooting of fox and snaring of foxes.
MR OPIK: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: I allowed this session to run on a little because we started a little late. I just want to take a moment or two to give some thanks. I would like to thank everyone who has taken parted in this week's hearing, I thanked individuals at the end of each session so can I thank our three panellists now as well as offering a general thanks.
In particular it is clear that a lot of the experts who have come before this session have put a lot of work into preparation in order to provide a succinct summary of their evidence and therefore to enable us to go on to what have been generally very illuminating discussions, sometime illuminating by the progress we made, sometimes by the lack of progress we made. In neither of those events is it a failure of the process, I think. One has to take, as I said on number of occasions, all of the sessions and regard the way in which the totality of these hearings illuminates the issue, which is an issue, for the avoidance of doubt, that Parliament has indicated as being an important one by the extent to which it has been debated over a number of years. That is why there is a need to find a process which intelligently, openly and transparently gets us towards enabling Parliament reach a conclusion on this issue.
This is the first time we have set up hearings like these. I am only aware of the hearings I undertook during the International Year of Volunteers which followed rather more modestly the discussion pattern that we have used today. I am very pleased that that style of approach has actually stood the test, I think, of the last three days. There is always degree of risk in trying something new, but I certainly think that has been justified and I hope everyone else feels that too.
I would like to thank the public who have taken the time and trouble to be here and listen to the discussions. I am confident that many others are listening to the discussion and will be listening to the discussions in a variety of ways, the availability of the hearings through video, through the webcast that we made available and through the transcripts. I am sure that many people who for one reason or another - one parliamentary colleague rang me today and apologised and said he wished he could be here - will be able to follow it by looking at the transcript afterwards. It is less time consuming to flick through the transcript than to sit through the whole of the session.
I am hopeful that these sessions will help to inform Parliament and the wider public as well as those of us who have taken part in it certainly has been enormously helpful to me. I also like to add my thanks to the media. There has been quite a bit of interest in the process during the week, there some journalists like Valerie Elliot and Charles Clover who have been here throughout the three days and others who have been here for part of the time. Indeed there has been a slightly quizzical commentary in radio and television over the past few days, perhaps not entirely sure what it we are about. There is something interesting and different about these hearings.
I am also very grateful to the staff of Defra who put an enormous amount of work in I hope everyone would agree in responding to a whole variety of pressures and requests, both from people who have been giving evidence and from the three organisations who have all wanted to make sure everything was fair, aboveboard and did not disadvantage them in any way. All of this and the staff of the House of Commons, this has been an unusual process for them too, and the police officers who have not been called on for any vigorous activity during the three days.
Inevitably as we go from this room people will draw their own conclusions, if I can put it that way. There are organisations who may put a certain spin on the discussions that are taking place in the hearings, indeed already have. That is, perhaps, inevitable, it is little bit like the children behaving in the classroom and then running wild as soon as they get out into the playground. Nevertheless I hope you all agree that the process has been worthwhile and I hope that Parliamentarians and those in the interested public will do what I found necessary in going back to the Burns Report, and that is to encourage people not to quote selectively but to go back to the full text and to the actual findings. I hope in a similar way people will look at what is being said rather than comment about these proceedings and that therefore they will have helped to increase people's respect for the process. Partly that depends on the responsibility which is now mine as we go forward which is take all this evidence and the discussions and try to bring forward the proposal to Parliament which enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue.
That I should satisfy everybody in this room by the proposals I bring forward I suspect may be a step too far for even the most hardened optimist. I will do my best to route the proposals that I bring forward very clearly into the evidence that has been received during the past few months and the discussions that we have had testing out that evidence here.
The fact that people have been willing, the three organisations, and the people giving evidence to take part in an intelligent and sensible discussion sometimes with an individual whose evidence and views they may passionately disagree with I think can only be a strength in a democratic society. Thank you very much all of you for helping me to enable that to happen.
#
Page last modified:
19 May, 2005
Page published: 10 December, 2002