LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) (Hansard, 31 January 1967)

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish live hare coursing. The Bill which I seek to introduce is very simple. Its object is to prohibit the coursing of live hares for sport or competition. I wish to stress this, because a great deal of misrepresentation has been spread around since it became public knowledge that I and other hon. Members intended to introduce such a Bill.

I will begin by defining coursing. I can do it no better than by quoting from a publication issued by the National Coursing Club, entitled, "The Truth About Coursing". It says: Coursing is a sport of testing the merits of two greyhounds in their competitive pursuit of a hare. It goes on: The average course between greyhounds lasts 45 seconds. The longest is believed to be three and a half minutes. Live hare coursing is fairly widespread. As far as I can ascertain, there are about 200 meetings a year, but the event which attracts most publicity is the Waterloo Cup, held at Altcar, not far from the borders of my constituency.

I do not wish to overstate the case for the Bill. The purpose of coursing is not to kill the hare, and a great many hares escape. Under the rule of the National Coursing Club, it would be wrong if the field used were fenced in to prevent the escape of a hare. I want to be fair about this. However, in the same publication of the National Coursing Club, the question was put: But you would not deny that hares are in fact killed? The answer was very clearly given: Of course not. It would be foolish as well as untrue to say such a thing. The point we do make is that only a small proportion of hares is killed, varying according to conditions. According to an article in The Times on 21st of this month, by Wilson Stephens: In fact, about one hare in 10 is killed. Obviously a supporter of this so-called sport, the writer continued: When this happens, the kill is instantaneous, the hare being caught across the back, 255 which is broken, and the body flung into the air in the manner depicted in sporting prints. This, I understand, is described as a clean kill.

This is one side of the picture. However, in an article in the People newspaper of 6th November, the kill is described in somewhat different terms. The article also had with it photographs which graphically showed what happens. The article said: Suddenly, with a mighty leap, a hare was through the hedge and beginning to make a run across the open field. The slipper slipped the dogs loose and suddenly the hare was running for its life. As the dogs closed the gap it twisted and turned in desperation, looking for a way of escape. It ran for the cover of a line of cars, only to be met by a human wall. The hare turned and ran back between the two dogs, but now it only had seconds to live. The leading dog lunged forward and snapped its teeth round the hare's hindquarters. The second dog closed in and tried to wrench the hare from its opponent. Then, for the first time, I heard the pitiful scream of the hare—like that of a young child in pain. Then followed a tug-of-war with the hare. For ten seconds it continued to scream. Again and again I was to watch the same sordid spectacle, varied only by the speed with which the dogs caught the hare and the savagery with which they mutilated its soft body. It has been said that that account exaggerates the facts. I will, therefore, quote an extract from a report of a senior inspector of the R.S.P.C.A. at County Durham on 18th January. 1967, in which he stated: The first hare which was killed was first chased for about a minute before being caught. Once the dogs caught it they pulled it in different directions by its back legs. One dog was the winner and ran off with the hare trailing on the ground beside it as it ran. A man caught the dog and took the hare from its mouth. As he did so the hare let out a piercing squeal—the man then broke its neck. Another senior R.S.P.C.A. inspector, this time from Bedfordshire, reported: The ploughed field was extremely soft and the earth was crumbly, and whilst progressing across the field a total of 14 hares was set up—all but three being killed. On the second occasion, two hounds were tearing at a hare, but fortunately a man reasonably near managed to run and retrieve the hare and destroy it. Yet another R.S.P.C.A. inspector, this time from Lincolnshire, stated: We saw only six carcases, all of which seemed fairly intact, apart from one which had its stomach ripped out". 256 It is, therefore, perfectly understandable that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, should have said: The practice of coursing is a cruel one". I have with me the programme of the Waterloo Cup Coursing Meeting for 1964. It states: All rights of photography are strictly reserved". It is clear why they are reserved. If there was nothing to hide all photographers would surely be welcome.

One point I feel I should make clear. The hares used are not bred in captivity and then transported to the area for the day of the event. However, the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals—a Home Office. Scottish Office, Report issued in 1951—stated: The National Coursing Club admit that hares are preserved in the sense that they are not shot at Altcar and in some other coursing areas, and also that they are imported at the beginning of the breeding season in order to improve the stock". The fact that they are not taken and released for the actual events in no way eliminates the fact that these events are both cruel and savage. It is also interesting to note that sometimes the dogs are themselves severely damaged. The people who watch and participate in these events are, I suggest, equally damaged in the sense that they affect their characters and mental attitudes.

The Bill has widespread support throughout the country. It is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports, thousands of churchmen of all denominations and creeds and by humanists. The Guardian also had an editorial giving its support. As a result of a petition inserted in the Liverpool Echo last week—it appeared for just one day—well in excess of 5,000 signatures were sent to the Liverpool office of the League Against Cruel Sports. More than 15,000 signatures have by now been obtained in the Liverpool area alone. This is an example of the feeling that exists in the country.

I am told by opponents of the Measure that many of the 93 hon. Members who have signed a Motion supporting the aims of the Bill have never seen this so-called sport taking place. But hon. Members do 257 not see murders taking place. They do not see men thrashing their wives. One does not need to see something happening to know that it is wrong. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and hope that the Government will find time to ensure that it becomes law.